[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67890-67908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18415]

=======================================================================
———————————————————————–

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 15

[Docket ID OCC-2024-0012]
RIN 1557-AF22

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 262

[Docket No. R-1837]
RIN 7100 AG-79

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 304

RIN 3064-AF96

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 753

RIN 3133-AF57

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

12 CFR Part 1077

[Docket No. CFPB-2024-0034]
RIN 3170-AB20

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

12 CFR Part 1226

RIN 2590-AB38

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISION

17 CFR Part 140

RIN 3038-AF43

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 256

[Release No. 33-11295; 34-100647; IA-6644; IC-35290; File No. S7-2024-
05]
RIN 3235-AN32

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Part 151

[Docket No. TREAS-DO-2024-0008]
RIN 1505-AC86

Financial Data Transparency Act Joint Data Standards

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; 
Board of

[[Page 67891]]

Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC); National Credit Union Administration 
(NCUA); Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); Federal Housing 
Finance Agency (FHFA); Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); Department of the Treasury 
(Treasury).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department 
of the Treasury invite public comment on a proposed rule to establish 
data standards to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data 
across these agencies. Final standards established pursuant to this 
rulemaking will later be adopted for certain collections of information 
in separate rulemakings by the agencies or through other actions taken 
by the agencies. The agencies are proposing this rule as required by 
the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 21, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to:
    OCC: Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Please use the title “Financial Data 
Transparency Act” to facilitate the organization and distribution of 
the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal–Regulations.gov:
    Go to https://regulations.gov/. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2024-0012” 
in the Search Box and click “Search.” Public comments can be 
submitted via the “Comment” box below the displayed document 
information or by clicking on the document title and then clicking the 
“Comment” box on the top-left side of the screen. For help with 
submitting effective comments, please click on “Commenter’s 
Checklist.” For assistance with the Regulations.gov site, please call 
1-866-498-2945 Monday-Friday, between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. eastern time, 
or email [email protected].
     Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office, Attention: Comment 
Processing, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street 
SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, 
Washington, DC 20219.
    Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and 
“Docket ID OCC-2024-0012” in your comment. In general, the OCC will 
enter all comments received into the docket and publish the comments on 
the Regulations.gov website without change, including any business or 
personal information provided such as name and address information, 
email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including 
attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public 
record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information 
in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential 
or inappropriate for public disclosure.
    You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to 
this action by the following methods:
     Viewing Comments Electronically–Regulations.gov:
    Go to https://regulations.gov/. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2024-0012” 
in the Search Box and click “Search.” Click on the “Dockets” tab 
and then the document’s title. After clicking the document’s title, 
click the “Browse All Comments” tab. Comments can be viewed and 
filtered by clicking on the “Sort By” drop-down on the right side of 
the screen or the “Refine Comments Results” options on the left side 
of the screen. Supporting materials can be viewed by clicking on the 
“Browse Documents” tab. Click on the “Sort By” drop-down on the 
right side of the screen or the “Refine Results” options on the left 
side of the screen checking the “Supporting & Related Material” 
checkbox. For assistance with the Regulations.gov site, please call 1-
866-498-2945 (toll free) Monday-Friday, between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. 
eastern time, or email [email protected].
    The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in 
the same manner as during the comment period.
    Board: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1837 and 
RIN 7100-AG-79, by any of the following methods:
     Agency website: https://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments at https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.
     Email: [email protected]. Include docket 
and RIN numbers in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
     Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20551.
    Instructions: All public comments are available from the Board’s 
website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted. Accordingly, comments will not be edited 
to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may 
also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room M-4365A, 2001 C 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20551, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. during 
Federal business weekdays. For security reasons, the Board requires 
that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by 
calling (202) 452-3684. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to 
present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to 
security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments. For 
users of TTY-TRS, please call 711 from any telephone, anywhere in the 
United States.
    FDIC: The FDIC encourages interested parties to submit written 
comments. Please include your name, affiliation, address, email 
address, and telephone number(s) in your comment. You may submit 
comments to the FDIC, identified by RIN 3064-AF96, by any of the 
following methods:
    Agency Website: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications. Follow instructions for submitting comments on 
the FDIC’s website.
    Mail: James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary, Attention: 
Comments/Legal OES (RIN 3064-AF96), Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
    Hand Delivered/Courier: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard 
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street NW, building (located on F 
Street NW) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
    Email: [email protected]. Include the RIN 3064-AF96 on the subject 
line of the message.
    Public Inspection: Comments received, including any personal 
information provided, may be posted without change to https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications. 
Commenters should submit only information that the commenter wishes to 
make available publicly. The FDIC may review, redact, or refrain from 
posting all or any portion of any comment that it may deem to be 
inappropriate for publication, such as irrelevant or obscene material. 
The FDIC

[[Page 67892]]

may post only a single representative example of identical or 
substantially identical comments, and in such cases will generally 
identify the number of identical or substantially identical comments 
represented by the posted example. All comments that have been 
redacted, as well as those that have not been posted, that contain 
comments on the merits of this document will be retained in the public 
comment file and will be considered as required under all applicable 
laws. All comments may be accessible under the Freedom of Information 
Act.
    NCUA: You may submit written comments, identified by 3133-AF57, by 
any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments for Docket Number NCUA-
2023-0019.
     Mail: Address to Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of 
the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
    You may view all public comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
at https://www.regulations.gov as submitted, except for those we cannot 
post for technical reasons. The NCUA will not edit or remove any 
identifying or contact information from the public comments submitted. 
If you are unable to access public comments on the internet, you may 
contact NCUA for alternative access by calling (703) 518-6540 or 
emailing [email protected].
    CFPB: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2024-
0034 or RIN 3170-AB20, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. A brief summary of 
this document will be available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB-2024-0034.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket 
No. CFPB-2024-0034 or RIN 3170-AB20 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake–FDTA-
INTERAGENCY RULE, c/o Legal Division Docket Manager, Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
    Instructions: The CFPB encourages the early submission of comments. 
All submissions should include the agency name and docket number or 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Because paper 
mail is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments 
electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov.
    All submissions, including attachments and other supporting 
materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public 
disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, 
such as account numbers or Social Security Numbers, or names of other 
individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to 
remove any identifying or contact information.
    FHFA: You may submit your comments on the proposed rule, identified 
by RIN 2590-AB38, by any one of the following methods:
     Agency Website: https://www.fhfa.gov/regulation/federal-register?comments=open.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand delivery address is: 
Clinton Jones, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AB38, 
Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 
20219. Deliver the package at the Seventh Street entrance Guard Desk, 
First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
     U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service, Federal Express, or 
Other Mail Service: The mailing address for comments is: Clinton Jones, 
General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AB38, Federal Housing 
Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. Please 
note that all mail sent to FHFA via U.S. Mail is routed through a 
national irradiation facility, a process that may delay delivery by 
approximately two weeks. For any time-sensitive correspondence, please 
plan accordingly.
    Public Comments and Access: FHFA invites comments on all aspects of 
the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before 
issuing a final rule. Comments will be posted to the electronic 
rulemaking docket on the FHFA public website at https://www.fhfa.gov, 
except as described below. Commenters should submit only information 
that the commenter wishes to make available publicly. FHFA may post 
only a single representative example of identical or substantially 
identical comments, and in such cases will generally identify the 
number of identical or substantially identical comments represented by 
the posted example. FHFA may, in its discretion, redact or refrain from 
posting all or any portion of any comment that contains content that is 
obscene, vulgar, profane, or threatens harm. All comments, including 
those that are redacted or not posted, will be retained in their 
original form in FHFA’s internal rulemaking file and considered as 
required by all applicable laws. Commenters that would like FHFA to 
consider any portion of their comment exempt from disclosure on the 
basis that it contains trade secrets, or financial, confidential or 
proprietary data or information, should follow the procedures in 
section IV.D. of FHFA’s Policy on Communications with Outside Parties 
in Connection with FHFA Rulemakings, see https://www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex-Parte-Communications-Public-Policy_3-5-19.pdf. FHFA cannot guarantee that such data or information, or the 
identity of the commenter, will remain confidential if disclosure is 
sought pursuant to an applicable statute or regulation. See 12 CFR 
1202.8 and 1214.2 and the FHFA FOIA Reference Guide at https://www.fhfa.gov/about/foia-reference-guide for additional information.
    CFTC: You may submit comments, identified by “Financial Data 
Transparency Act Joint Data Standards Rulemaking” and RIN number 3038-
AF43 by any of the following methods:
     CFTC Comments Portal: https://comments.cftc.gov. Select 
the “Submit Comments” link for this release and follow the 
instructions on the Public Comment Form.
     Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the 
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 
Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Follow the same instructions as for 
Mail, above.
    Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. 
Submissions through the CFTC Comments Portal are encouraged. All 
comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an 
English translation. Comments will be posted as received to https://comments.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to 
make available publicly. If you wish the CFTC to consider information 
that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA), a petition for confidential treatment of the 
exempt information may be submitted according to the CFTC’s procedures 
established in 17 CFR 145.9.
    The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to 
review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your 
submission from https://comments.cftc.gov that it may

[[Page 67893]]

deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All 
submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on 
the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment 
file and will be considered as required under the Administrative 
Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under 
FOIA.
    SEC: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the SEC’s internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-2024-05/financial-data-transparency-act-joint-data-standards); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include 
File Number S7-2024-05 on the subject line; or

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to S7-2024-05. This file number should be 
included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and 
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method of 
submission. The SEC will post all comments on the SEC’s website 
(https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2024/07/s7-2024-05). All 
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting 
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal 
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit 
only information that you wish to make available publicly. Do not 
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should 
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We 
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted 
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
    Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the 
SEC or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification 
of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made 
available on the SEC’s website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of 
such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at 
www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.
    A summary of the proposal of not more than 100 words is posted on 
the Commission’s website (https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2024/07/s7-2024-05).
    Treasury: You may submit comments, identified by RIN [1505-AC86], 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office, Attention: Comment 
Processing, Office of Financial Research, Department of the Treasury, 
717 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and RIN [1505-AC86] for this rulemaking. Because paper mail in the 
Washington, DC, area may be subject to delay, it is recommended that 
comments be submitted electronically.
    In general, all comments received will be posted without change to 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    OCC: Richard Heeman, Enterprise Data Governance Program Manager, 
Office of the Chief Information Officer and Chief Data Officer, (202) 
945-7224; Allison Hester-Haddad, Special Counsel, Chief Counsel’s 
Office, (202) 649-5490; 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you 
are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 711 
to access telecommunications relay services.
    Board: Katherine Tom, Chief Data Officer, (202) 872-4986; Nuha 
Elmaghrabi, Clearance Officer, (202) 452-3884, Office of the Chief Data 
Officer; William Treacy, Adviser, (202) 452-3859, Division of 
Supervision and Regulation; Dafina Stewart, Deputy Associate General 
Counsel, (202) 452-2677; Gillian Burgess, Senior Counsel, (202) 736-
5564; Sumeet Shroff, Counsel, (202) 973-5085, Legal Division, Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. For users of TTY-TRS, please call 711 
from any telephone, anywhere in the United States.
    FDIC: Geoffrey Nieboer, Chief Data Officer, (703) 516-5850, 
[email protected]; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 
17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
    NCUA: Office of Business Innovation: Amber Gravius, Chief Data 
Officer, (703) 548-2411, [email protected], and Aaron Langley, Business 
Innovation Officer, (703) 548-2710, [email protected]; Office of 
General Counsel: Regina Metz, Senior Attorney, (703) 518-6561, 
[email protected], and Ariel Pereira, Senior Attorney, (703) 548-2778, 
[email protected].
    CFPB: George Karithanom, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700 
or https://reginquiries.consumerfinance.gov/. If you require this 
document in an alternative electronic format, please contact 
[email protected].
    FHFA: Matthew Greene, Office of the Chief Data Officer, (202) 649-
3174, [email protected]; or Jamie Schwing, Office of General 
Counsel, (202) 649-3085, [email protected]. These are not toll-
free numbers. For TTY/TRS users with hearing and speech disabilities, 
dial 711 and ask to be connected to any of the contact numbers above.
    CFTC: Ted Kaouk, Chief Data Officer, (202) 418-5747, 
[email protected]; Tom Guerin, Senior Special Counsel, (202) 743-4194, 
[email protected], Division of Data; Jeffrey Burns, Senior Assistant 
General Counsel, (202) 418-5101, [email protected], Office of the General 
Counsel; in each case at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
    SEC: Dennis Hermreck, Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation 
Finance, or Parth Venkat, Office of the Chief Data Officer, at (202) 
551-3430, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20549-8549.
    Treasury: Cornelius Crowley, Chief Data Officer, Office of 
Financial Research, (202) 294-3382, [email protected]; 
Michael Passante, Chief Counsel, Office of Financial Research, (202) 
921-4003, [email protected], Department of the 
Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Background

    On December 23, 2022, the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022 
(FDTA) was signed into law.1 The FDTA seeks to promote 
interoperability of financial regulatory data. As explained below, the 
FDTA directs the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board 
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration 
(NCUA), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Housing 
Finance Agency (FHFA), Commodity Futures

[[Page 67894]]

Trading Commission (CFTC),2 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 
and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) (each referred to 
individually as the “Agency” and collectively as the “Agencies”) to 
jointly establish data standards. The FDTA also directs most of the 
Agencies to issue individual rules adopting applicable joint standards 
for certain collections of information under their respective purview. 
In this proposed rule, the Agencies are requesting comment on data 
standards to be jointly established; individual Agency proposals will 
follow after the establishment of the joint standards.
—————————————————————————

    1 Public Law 117-263, title LVIII, 136 Stat. 2395, 3421 (2022) 
(adding, among other things, a new section 124 of the Financial 
Stability Act of 2010, which is codified at 12 U.S.C. 5334).
    2 The term “covered agencies” is defined under the FDTA to 
include “any . . . primary financial regulatory agency designated 
by the [Secretary of the Treasury].” On May 3, 2024, the Secretary 
of the Treasury designated the CFTC as a covered agency under the 
FDTA. See FDTA section 5811(a).
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies seek comment on all aspects of the proposal.

A. Joint Agency Rulemaking

    Section 5811 of the FDTA amends subtitle A of the Financial 
Stability Act of 2010 (Financial Stability Act) 3 by adding a new 
section 124.4 Section 124 of the Financial Stability Act directs the 
Agencies jointly to issue regulations establishing data standards for 
(1) certain collections of information reported to each Agency by 
financial entities 5 under the jurisdiction of the Agency, and (2) 
the data collected from the Agencies on behalf of the Financial 
Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The statute requires the Agencies 
to issue the final joint rule within two years of December 23, 2022. 
Section 124 of the Financial Stability Act defines the term “data 
standard” to mean a standard that specifies rules by which data is 
described and recorded.6 In this preamble, “joint standard” refers 
to a data standard that has been established by the Agencies pursuant 
to the joint rule.
—————————————————————————

    3 The Financial Stability Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5321 et 
seq., is title I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act.
    4 Codified at 12 U.S.C. 5334.
    5 The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations 
currently provide a definition of “financial entity” in CEA 
section 2(h)(7)(C), CFTC regulation Sec.  1.3 and CFTC regulation 
Sec.  45.1 for certain specified purposes. In each instance, the 
current definition of “financial entity” is the definition set 
forth in CEA section 2(h)(7)(C). The CFTC does not believe that it 
was intended for this CEA definition of “financial entity” to be 
used for the purpose of the joint data standards required by the 
FDTA. The CFTC expects to either adopt a definition of “financial 
entity” for the purpose of the FDTA and/or to address the meaning 
of the term as it considers CFTC collections of information.
    6 Section 124(a)(3) of the Financial Stability Act.
—————————————————————————

    As noted in section I.B below, the FDTA directs the OCC, Board, 
FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, FHFA, and SEC (collectively, the “implementing 
Agencies”) to issue individual rules adopting applicable data 
standards for specified collections of information 7 (collectively, 
the “Agency-specific rulemakings”) and to incorporate and ensure 
compatibility with, to the extent feasible, the joint standards.8
—————————————————————————

    7 The FDTA does not specifically require Treasury and the CFTC 
to issue individual rules adopting data standards. Treasury and the 
CFTC may adopt data standards for their collections of information 
at their discretion.
    8 FDTA section 5842 (OCC); FDTA section 5863 (Board); FDTA 
section 5833 (FDIC); FDTA section 5873 (NCUA); FDTA section 5852 
(CFPB); FDTA section 5883 (FHFA); and FDTA sections 5821, 5823, and 
5824 (SEC).
—————————————————————————

    The application of the joint standards to specific collections of 
information would take effect through adoption by an Agency of an 
Agency-specific rulemaking or other action.9
—————————————————————————

    9 Some Agencies already mandate the use of data standards that 
are consistent with the joint standards, and the continued 
application of such standards in those contexts may not require any 
new rulemaking or other action. Additionally, to the extent an 
Agency applies the joint standards to an existing collection of 
information not specified in the FDTA, an Agency-specific rulemaking 
or other action may not be required to incorporate the joint 
standards.
—————————————————————————

    Section 124(c)(1)(A) of the Financial Stability Act requires the 
joint standards to include common identifiers, including a common 
nonproprietary legal entity identifier that is available under an open 
license for all entities required to report to the Agencies. Further, 
section 124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act requires that the 
data standards must, to the extent practicable:
     Render data fully searchable and machine-readable; 10
—————————————————————————

    10 The term “machine-readable” is defined as data in a 
format that can be easily processed by a computer without human 
intervention while ensuring no semantic meaning is lost. 44 U.S.C. 
3502(18).
—————————————————————————

     Enable high quality data through schemas, with 
accompanying metadata 11 documented in machine-readable taxonomy or 
ontology models,12 which clearly define the semantic meaning of the 
data, as defined by the underlying regulatory information collection 
requirements;
—————————————————————————

    11 The term “metadata” is defined as structural or 
descriptive information about data such as content, format, source, 
rights, accuracy, provenance, frequency, periodicity, granularity, 
publisher or responsible party, contact information, method of 
collection, and other descriptions. 44 U.S.C. 3502(19).
    12 Within the field of data science, the terms “schema,” 
“taxonomy,” and “ontology model” are used in various and 
sometimes conflicting ways. For example, sometimes the term schema 
refers only to the description of the syntax of a data asset, while 
other times, the term can refer to a description of the syntax, 
semantic meaning, and organizational structure. Similarly, sometimes 
the term taxonomy refers only to the description of the semantic 
meaning of a data asset, while other times, the term can refer to a 
description that includes syntax, semantic meaning, and hierarchical 
structure. The term ontology model may refer to the description of 
the semantic meaning of a data asset. However, taken together, these 
terms consistently refer to the combination of syntax, structure, 
and semantic meaning of a data asset. For simplicity, this proposal 
uses the term “schema and taxonomy” to refer to a description or 
set of descriptions of the syntax, structure, and semantic meaning 
of the data and “taxonomy” to refer to a description of the 
semantic meaning and hierarchical structure of data. This usage is 
consistent with the definition of taxonomy in National Information 
Standards Organization Standard Z39.19, “Guidelines for the 
Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled 
Vocabularies,” available at https://www.niso.org/publications/ansiniso-z3919-2005-r2010.
—————————————————————————

     Ensure that a data element or data asset 13 that exists 
to satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement 
be consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable 
metadata;
—————————————————————————

    13 The term “data asset” is defined as a collection of data 
elements or data sets that may be grouped together. 44 U.S.C. 
3502(17).
—————————————————————————

     Be nonproprietary or made available under an open license; 
14
—————————————————————————

    14 The term “open license” is defined as a legal guarantee 
that a data asset is made available at no cost to the public and 
with no restrictions on copying, publishing, distributing, 
transmitting, citing, or adapting such asset. 44 U.S.C. 3502(21).
—————————————————————————

     Incorporate standards developed and maintained by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies; and
     Use, be consistent with, and implement applicable 
accounting and reporting principles.
    Finally, section 124 of the Financial Stability Act directs the 
Agencies, in establishing the joint standards, to consult with other 
Federal departments and agencies and multi-agency initiatives 
responsible for Federal data standards 15 and to seek to promote 
interoperability of financial regulatory data across members of the 
FSOC.16
—————————————————————————

    15 Section 124(c)(2)(A) of the Financial Stability Act.
    16 Section 124(c)(2)(B) of the Financial Stability Act.
—————————————————————————

B. Agency-Specific Rulemakings

    Separate from section 124 of the Financial Stability Act, the FDTA 
specifically requires each implementing Agency to adopt by rule 
applicable data standards for certain collections of information that 
are regularly filed with or submitted to that Agency.17 Subject

[[Page 67895]]

to the flexibilities and discretion discussed below, the data standards 
that an implementing Agency adopts in its Agency-specific rulemaking 
must incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, 
applicable joint standards. Pursuant to the FDTA, the data standards 
adopted by each implementing Agency through their respective Agency-
specific rulemaking must take effect not later than two years after the 
final joint rule is promulgated.18
—————————————————————————

    17 See supra note 8. FDTA section 5821(c) refers to 
collections of information required to be submitted or published by 
a nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO) 
under section 15E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and some 
of that information, including credit rating histories, is required 
by rule to be published on NRSROs’ websites rather than reported 
directly to the SEC. Section 5823 refers to information submitted to 
the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. In each case, the 
Agencies interpret the directive of section 124(b)(1) of the 
Financial Stability Act to apply to such specific collections of 
information.
    18 See supra note 8.
—————————————————————————

    Generally, an implementing Agency will determine the applicability 
of the joint standards to the collections of information specified in 
the FDTA under its purview. Additionally, in issuing an Agency-specific 
rulemaking, each implementing Agency (1) may scale data reporting 
requirements to reduce any unjustified burden on smaller entities 
affected by the regulations and (2) must seek to minimize disruptive 
changes to those entities or persons.19 Further, section 5891(c) of 
the FDTA provides that nothing in the FDTA may be construed to prohibit 
an Agency from tailoring the data standards when those standards are 
adopted.20 To the extent an Agency has separate authority to adopt 
data standards, the Agency may adopt other standards beyond the joint 
standards. Finally, the FDTA does not impose new information collection 
requirements (that is, it does not require an implementing Agency to 
collect or make publicly available additional information that the 
Agency was not already collecting or making publicly available prior to 
the enactment of the FDTA).21 For example, to the extent the joint 
standards include a common identifier for a financial instrument, an 
implementing Agency that collects aggregated data related to that type 
of financial instrument would not be required to collect disaggregated 
data for that type of financial instrument.
—————————————————————————

    19 Id.
    20 In connection with an Agency-specific rulemaking, an Agency 
could determine to use an identifier that is not in the joint 
standards, including an Agency-specific identifier, rather than, or 
in addition to or in combination with, an identifier established by 
the final joint rule if, for example, the Agency exercised its 
authority to tailor the joint standards in its Agency-specific 
rulemaking (FDTA section 5891(c)) or the Agency determined either 
that using the identifier established by the final joint rule was 
not feasible (FDTA section 5841 (OCC); FDTA section 5861(a), (b), 
(c), (d) (Board); FDTA section 5831 (FDIC); FDTA section 5871 
(NCUA); FDTA section 5851(a)(2) (CFPB); FDTA section 5881 (FHFA); 
FDTA sections 5821(a)(2), (b)(2), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), 
5823(a), 5824(a) (SEC)) or that using an identifier that is not in 
the joint standards, including an Agency-specific identifier, would 
minimize disruptive changes to the persons affected by those 
standards (see supra note 8).
    21 FDTA section 5843 (OCC); FDTA section 5864 (Board); FDTA 
section 5834 (FDIC); FDTA section 5874 (NCUA); FDTA section 5853 
(CFPB); FDTA section 5884 (FHFA); FDTA section 5826 (SEC); and FDTA 
section 5813 (Treasury).
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies expect to work together on the adoption of the 
established joint standards in the Agency-specific rulemakings or other 
Agency actions, as appropriate. The Agencies also expect to monitor 
developments related to data standards, including the joint standards, 
and update the joint rule, as appropriate. The field of data standards, 
data transmission, schemas and taxonomies is rich with well-established 
practices and is also rapidly evolving, including with proposals to 
extend existing standards beyond their existing use and with 
development of new standards.

C. Consultations

    Section 124(c)(2)(A) of the Financial Stability Act directs the 
Agencies to consult with other Federal departments and agencies and 
multi-agency initiatives responsible for Federal data standards. To 
comply with this requirement, the implementing Agencies and Treasury 
consulted with a variety of Federal governmental entities with relevant 
experience in advance of issuing this proposal.22 The implementing 
Agencies and Treasury also met with public stakeholders with relevant 
experience in advance of issuing this proposal.23 These consultations 
provided the implementing Agencies and Treasury with a greater 
understanding of the issues involved in establishing and adopting the 
joint standards. In addition, the Agencies anticipate receiving public 
comments on this proposed rule from a wide range of stakeholders.
—————————————————————————

    22 Since March 2023, staff at the implementing Agencies and 
Treasury consulted with counterparts at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Federal Chief Data Officers Council, 
Federal Evaluation Officer Council, the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), the Department of Health 
and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security. These 
consultations took place before the CFTC was designated in May 2024 
as a covered agency under the FDTA.
    23 Since March 2023, staff at the implementing Agencies and 
Treasury consulted with the Global Legal Entity Identifier 
Foundation (GLEIF), Enterprise Data Management Council, XBRL US, 
Data Foundation, and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
Accredited Standards Committee X9.
—————————————————————————

II. Proposed Joint Rule

A. Collections of Information

    The joint standards established by the joint rule would apply to 
certain collections of information reported to each Agency.24
—————————————————————————

    24 Section 124(b) of the Financial Stability Act.
—————————————————————————

    Although the FDTA does not define the term “collections of 
information,” that term is a term of art, defined in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),25 an act to which the Agencies are 
subject.
—————————————————————————

    25 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The term “collection of 
information,” is defined at 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies propose to define the term “collections of 
information” as used in connection with the FDTA by reference to the 
definition of that term in the PRA. That definition is widely 
understood by the Agencies and by public stakeholders. All approved and 
pending PRA collections of information have been categorized and are 
accessible to the Agencies and the public on Reginfo.gov.26 The use 
of the term “collections of information” in the FDTA is consistent 
with the PRA definition, and the PRA definition is consistent with the 
purposes of the FDTA.
—————————————————————————

    26 See Reginfo.gov, U.S. General Services Administration and 
the Office of Management and Budget, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public.
—————————————————————————

    The statute limits the applicability of the joint standards 
established by the joint rule to certain collections of information. 
Section 124(b)(1) of the Financial Stability Act directs the Agencies 
to jointly establish data standards for certain “collections of 
information reported to each [Agency] by financial entities under the 
jurisdiction of the [Agency].” Under this directive, collections of 
information that do not include reporting requirements (e.g., 
recordkeeping and third-party disclosure collections) and that are not 
reported to an Agency by a specified type of financial entity are 
outside the scope of the FDTA. Likewise, specified collections of 
information that are not regularly reported to the relevant Agency,27 
or that are subject to the “monetary policy” exception 28 are also 
outside the scope of the FDTA. Each implementing Agency may choose to 
further interpret the scope of the FDTA’s applicability to its own 
collections of information in the

[[Page 67896]]

Agency-specific rulemakings. However, the FDTA does not limit an Agency 
from applying the joint standards to other collections of information 
at its discretion.
—————————————————————————

    27 See FDTA sections 5824(a), 5841(a), 5851(a), 5861(a)-(d), 
5871(a), 5881(a).
    28 Under the monetary policy exception, nothing in the FDTA, 
or the amendments made by the FDTA, applies to activities conducted, 
or data standards used, in connection with monetary policy proposed 
or implemented by the Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. 
FDTA section 5891(b).
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies invite comment on the incorporation of the PRA 
definition of “collection of information” for purposes of the 
proposed rule.

B. Legal Entity Identifier

    Section 124(c)(1)(A) of the Financial Stability Act requires the 
joint standards to include “a common nonproprietary legal entity 
identifier that is available under an open license for all entities 
required to report to” the Agencies. The term “open license” is 
defined (by reference to the PRA) to mean a legal guarantee that a data 
asset is made available at no cost to the public and with no 
restrictions on copying, publishing, distributing, transmitting, 
citing, or adapting such asset.29 The Agencies propose to establish 
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17442-1:2020, 
Financial Services–Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) as the legal entity 
identifier joint standard.30
—————————————————————————

    29 44 U.S.C. 3502(21).
    30 See ISO 17442-1:2020, Financial services–Legal Entity 
Identifier (LEI), International Organization for Standardization, 
available at https://www.iso.org/standard/78829.html.
—————————————————————————

    The LEI is a global, 20-character, alphanumeric, identifier 
standard that uniquely and unambiguously identifies a legal entity, 
which is documented by the ISO 31 and which meets the requirements of 
section 124(c)(1). The LEI is nonproprietary, and the LEI data is made 
publicly available under an open license, free of charge to any 
interested user.
—————————————————————————

    31 See About ISO, International Organization for 
Standardization, available at https://www.iso.org/about-us.html.
—————————————————————————

    The LEI is managed by the GLEIF,32 which was established by the 
Financial Stability Board (FSB) 33 in June 2014 to support the 
implementation and use of the LEI. The GLEIF must adhere to governance 
principles designed by the FSB and the Regulatory Oversight Committee 
(ROC), a group of financial markets regulators, other public 
authorities and observers from more than 50 countries.34 The ROC 
designated the LEI as the standard, assigned responsibility for 
maintenance of the standard to the GLEIF, and oversees its work so that 
it remains in the public interest.35
—————————————————————————

    32 See Introducing the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI), Global 
Legal Entity Identifier Foundation, available at https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/introducing-the-legal-entity-identifier-lei.
    33 See generally About the FSB, Financial Stability Board, 
available at https://www.fsb.org/about/.
    34 The ROC was established in November 2012 to coordinate and 
oversee a worldwide framework of legal entity identification, the 
Global LEI System. See About the ROC, Regulatory Oversight 
Committee, available at https://www.leiroc.org/. The U.S. 
representatives on the ROC include the SEC, Board, CFTC, and FDIC.
    35 See Global LEI System, Regulatory Oversight Committee, 
available at https://www.leiroc.org/lei.htm. The LEI definition 
currently relies on a standard published by ISO. See supra note 30.
—————————————————————————

    The LEI is used worldwide in the private and public sectors and, in 
certain jurisdictions, including the United States, is used for 
regulatory reporting.36 In some cases, the LEI can be used to 
identify the filer of a particular report, as well as entities related 
to the filer, such as its subsidiaries or parents.37 Regulators have 
the discretion to determine whether firms are obligated to renew LEI 
and corresponding legal entity reference data.38
—————————————————————————

    36 The Financial Stability Board’s most recent “Thematic 
Review on Implementation of the Legal Entity Identifier,” estimates 
that less than 3 percent of all eligible legal entities in the 
United States have acquired an LEI. The Financial Stability Board 
notes that LEI coverage in the United States is far higher for 
entities involved in the swaps and security-based swaps markets, 
with close to 100 percent of swaps reports in the United States 
using LEIs to identify both trade counterparties. See Thematic 
Review on Implementation of the Legal Entity Identifier (28 May 
2019), Financial Stability Board, available at https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P280519-2.pdf.
    37 As discussed in the Financial Stability Board’s June 8, 
2012, Report, “A Global Legal Entity Identifier for Financial 
Markets” (endorsed by G20 leaders on June 19, 2020), the Global LEI 
System is designed to allow for the collection of information on 
relationships among entities–specifically, information on direct 
and ultimate parents of legal entities, as defined by the ROC. The 
information on direct and ultimate parents of legal entities is 
sometimes referred to as LEI Level 2 Data. The ROC has articulated 
specific instances an LEI might not include Level 2 Data: namely, 
when there is no direct parent or ultimate parent; when the legal 
entity is prohibited from providing such information by law, binding 
legal commitments (such as articles governing the legal entity) or 
contract; or when the disclosure of such information would be 
detrimental to the legal entity or the relevant parent. See 
generally https://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/roc_20220125.pdf, 
at 9-10 and https://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/roc_20180502-1.pdf, at 10. “Ultimate parent” means the highest-level legal 
entity preparing consolidated financial statements. See LEI ROC 
Report, at 15 (Mar. 10, 2016), available at https://www.leiroc.org/publications/gls/lou_20161003-1.pdf.
    38 A framework for renewal is established by the Master 
Agreement of the Global LEI System between the local operating 
units, the entities that assign LEIs to applicants, and GLEIF, the 
entity that manages the LEI system. See Master Agreement, Rev. 1.4.1 
(26 June 2024), Global Legal Identifier Foundation, available at 
https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/the-lifecycle-of-a-lei-issuer/gleif-accreditation-of-lei-issuers/required-documents.
—————————————————————————

    While the LEI codes and reference data may be used free of charge, 
entities must pay a fee to local operating units to register and renew 
the LEI assigned to them.39 The LEI system is based on a cost-
recovery model, meaning the costs associated with obtaining and 
renewing an LEI cover the administrative expenses associated with the 
LEI system. However, this proposed joint rule would not impose any 
requirements that any particular entity obtain an LEI and incur the 
associated costs; such requirements would be determined by the Agency-
specific rulemakings.
—————————————————————————

    39 See How to Obtain an LEI, The Regulatory Oversight 
Committee, available at https://www.leiroc.org/lei/how.htm. A list 
of local operating units accredited by GLEIF is available at https://www.gleif.org/en/about-lei/get-an-lei-find-lei-issuing-organizations. Currently, U.S. entities may obtain an LEI for a one-
time fee of $60 and an annual renewal fee of $40. See Fees, 
Payments, & Taxes (2024), Bloomberg Finance L.P., available at 
https://lei.bloomberg.com/docs/faq#what-fees-are-involved.
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies considered but are not proposing the following legal 
entity identifier options because they did not meet the FDTA’s 
requirements, including, among others, the nonproprietary and open 
license requirements and the requirement to use standards developed and 
maintained by voluntary consensus standards bodies:
     The Business Identifier Code, because it is applicable to 
only a subset of financial entities under the jurisdiction of the 
Agencies and the standard is used within the proprietary system 
administered by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial 
Telecommunication (SWIFT).
     Data Universal Numbering System, because the standard is 
proprietary, is not freely available under an open license, and is not 
developed or maintained by a voluntary consensus standards body.
     Commercial and Government Entity Code, because the 
standard is proprietary, is not available under an open license, and is 
not developed or maintained by a voluntary consensus standards body.
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization Commercial and 
Government Entity Code, because the standard is proprietary, is not 
available under an open license, and is not developed or maintained by 
a voluntary consensus standards body.
     Research, Statistics, Supervision & Regulation, Discount & 
Credit Database Identifier, because the standard is proprietary to the 
Federal Reserve System, not available under an open license, and not 
developed or maintained by a voluntary consensus standards body.
     Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) because it is 
applicable to only a subset of financial entities under the

[[Page 67897]]

jurisdiction of the Agencies 40 and because the TIN can sometimes be 
the Social Security Number (where the entity is a sole proprietorship), 
which is sensitive information that the entity would not want to share.
—————————————————————————

    40 Foreign entities do not have TINs.
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies invite comment on the establishment of the LEI as the 
legal entity identifier data standard in this proposed joint rule and 
on other options for the legal entity identifier data standard. The 
Agencies also request comment on the use of the LEI to identify legal 
entities related to the filer of a particular report, such as a 
subsidiary or parent of the filer.41
—————————————————————————

    41 See supra note 37.
—————————————————————————

C. Other Common Identifiers

    In addition to the LEI, the Agencies propose to establish the 
following common identifiers in the joint standards. Each of these 
identifiers satisfies the requirements listed in section 124(c)(1) of 
the Financial Stability Act.
    For reporting of swaps and security-based swaps, the Agencies 
propose to establish ISO 4914–Financial services–Unique product 
identifier (UPI).42 For other types of financial instruments, the 
Agencies propose to establish ISO 10962–Securities and related 
financial instruments–Classification of financial instruments (CFI) 
code.43 The UPI and CFI are complementary identifiers and provide a 
taxonomic classification system for financial instruments. These 
identifiers are useful for aggregating data and increasing global 
transparency, which is beneficial in certain financial markets such as 
swaps, forwards, and non-listed options.
—————————————————————————

    42 See ISO 4914:2021, Financial services, Unique product 
identifier (UPI), International Organization for Standardization, 
available at https://www.iso.org/standard/80506.html.
    43 See ISO 10962:2021, Securities and related financial 
instruments, Classification of financial instruments (CFI) code, 
International Organization for Standardization, available at https://www.iso.org/standard/81140.html.
—————————————————————————

    For an identifier of financial instruments,44 the Agencies 
propose to establish the Financial Instrument Global Identifier (FIGI) 
45 established by the Object Management Group, which is an open-
membership standards consortium. The FIGI is an international 
identifier for all classes of financial instruments, including, but not 
limited to, securities and digital assets. It is a global non-
proprietary identifier available under an open license. The FIGI 
provides free and open access and coverage across all global asset 
classes, real-time availability, and flexibility for use in multiple 
functions. The FIGI also can be used for asset classes that do not 
normally have a global identifier, including loans. The FIGI has been 
implemented as a U.S. standard (X9.145) by the ANSI Accredited 
Standards Committee X9 organization. For the identification of 
securities, the Agencies also considered CUSIP and the ISIN (which 
includes the CUSIP). While these identifiers are widely used, they are 
proprietary and not available under an open license in the United 
States.
—————————————————————————

    44 To the extent a financial instrument could be identified by 
more than one of the joint standards, the application of the joint 
standards to specific collections of information would take effect 
through adoption by an Agency of an Agency-specific rulemaking or 
other action. For example, if a financial instrument can be 
identified using CFI and FIGI, an Agency could determine not to 
require both.
    45 See Standard Symbology for Global Financial Securities, 
Object Management Group, available at https://www.omg.org/figi/. 
Bloomberg L.P. irrevocably contributed its FIGI intellectual 
property to Object Management Group in 2015 and continues to 
function as a registration authority for FIGI issuances.
—————————————————————————

    For date fields, the Agencies propose to establish the date as 
defined by ISO 8601 46 using the Basic format option (which minimizes 
the number of separators). Date and time express fundamental dimensions 
of financial data and are ubiquitous in the collections of information 
subject to the FDTA. Therefore, consistent representation of dates may 
help facilitate data integration and interoperability across diverse 
collections. While date and time information may be displayed on forms, 
web pages, user interfaces, and other media in other formats (e.g., 
Month, Day, Year), the underlying machine-readable data should, to the 
extent feasible, follow the ISO 8601 format.
—————————————————————————

    46 See ISO 8601, Date and time format, International 
Organization for Standardization, available at https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html.
—————————————————————————

    For identification of a State, possession, or military “state” of 
the United States of America or a geographic directional, the Agencies 
propose to establish the U.S. Postal Service Abbreviations, as 
published in Appendix B of Publication 28 “Postal Addressing 
Standards, Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service.” 
47 Identification of a State, possession, geographic directional, or 
a military “state” is widely used in collections that are subject to 
the FDTA. Compared to alternative numeric State codes, this proposed 
standard is more widely used and is more conducive to use by both 
humans and machines.
—————————————————————————

    47 See Appendix B, Two-Letter State and Possession 
Abbreviations, U.S. Postal Service, available at https://pe.usps.com/text/pub28/pub28apb.htm.
—————————————————————————

    For identification of countries, the Agencies propose to establish 
the country codes and their subdivisions, as appropriate, as defined by 
the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC) standard. GENC, 
which was developed by the Country Codes Working Group of the 
Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group, specifies the U.S. 
Government profile of ISO 3166, “Codes for the Representation of Names 
of Countries and their Subdivisions.” 48 This profile addresses 
requirements unique to the U.S. Government for: restrictions in 
recognition of the national sovereignty of a country; identification 
and recognition of geopolitical entities not included in ISO 3166; and 
use of names of countries and country subdivisions that have been 
approved by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN). This standard is 
widely used among Federal agencies and other entities in the United 
States and helps provide consistency and interoperability of references 
to geopolitical entities.
—————————————————————————

    48 See Independent States in the World, U.S. Department of 
State, available at https://www.state.gov/independent-states-in-the-world/.
—————————————————————————

    For identification of currencies, the Agencies propose to establish 
the alphabetic currency code as defined by ISO 4217 Currency Codes.49 
These internationally recognized codes are widely used and incorporated 
into many other data standards. This standard helps support 
interoperability, enable clarity, and reduce errors.
—————————————————————————

    49 See ISO 4217, Currency codes, International Organization 
for Standardization, available at https://www.iso.org/iso-4217-currency-codes.html.
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies invite comment on the establishment of these other 
common identifiers in the proposed rule.
    The Agencies also are requesting comment on whether to establish an 
additional common identifier for Census Tract reporting as part of the 
joint standards. Specifically, the Agencies are considering the 11-
digit format defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, which includes a 5-
digit Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) county code 
prefix followed by a 6-digit tract code with no decimals and allows for 
leading or trailing zeros as applicable. Census Tract is a widely 
utilized geocoding standard with applications in data matching, 
estimation, and other analytical pursuits. The Agencies invite comment 
on whether to establish this common identifier as part of the joint 
standards and the reasons for establishing or not establishing it.

[[Page 67898]]

D. Data Transmission and Schema and Taxonomy Format Standards

    Standardizing the way in which information is transmitted to the 
Agencies can promote the interoperability of that information. The 
formats that the Agencies use to digitally receive collections of 
information are referred to as data transmission formats.
    For certain collections of information, submitted data may refer to 
one or more schemas, taxonomies, or ontology models that describe the 
syntax, structure, or semantic meaning of the data.50 These can be 
used to validate and explain the data. A high-quality machine-readable 
description of the syntax and structure of a data asset allows for 
automated verification of the associated data asset. A high-quality 
machine-readable description of semantic meaning of a data asset 
ensures that the specific meaning remains clear as the data asset is 
transmitted to multiple parties.51 Not all Agency collections of 
information have a schema and taxonomy associated with them, as a 
schema and taxonomy may not be appropriate. Further, a schema and 
taxonomy would not be required for all collections of information 
subject to the FDTA. The formats used to develop and publish schemas 
and taxonomies are referred to as schema and taxonomy formats.
—————————————————————————

    50 With respect to the meaning and usage of the terms 
“schema,” “taxonomy” and “ontology model,” see supra note 12.
    51 Section 124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act 
requires that the joint standards to the extent practicable “enable 
high quality data through schemas, with accompanying metadata 
documented in machine-readable taxonomy or ontology models, which 
clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, as defined by the 
underlying regulatory information collection requirements[.]”
—————————————————————————

    For the joint standard for data transmission and schema and 
taxonomy formats, the Agencies propose to establish that the data 
transmission or schema and taxonomy formats used have, to the extent 
practicable, four properties, derived from the requirements listed in 
section 124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act. Specifically, the 
proposed properties would be that the data transmission and schema and 
taxonomy formats will, to the extent practicable:
     Render data fully searchable and machine-readable;
     Enable high quality data through schemas, with 
accompanying metadata documented in machine-readable taxonomy or 
ontology models, which clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, 
as defined by the underlying regulatory information collection 
requirements, as appropriate;
     Ensure that a data element or data asset that exists to 
satisfy an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be 
consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable 
metadata; and
     Be nonproprietary or available under an open license.
    One of these properties is that, to the extent practicable, a data 
element or data asset that exists to satisfy an underlying regulatory 
information collection requirement must be consistently identified as 
such in associated machine-readable metadata. This property is set 
forth in section 124(c)(1)(B)(iii) of the Financial Stability Act. This 
means that, to the extent practicable and where collection of 
information is pursuant to regulatory requirements, a schema and 
taxonomy should include machine-readable metadata to track the 
applicable regulatory requirements. Applicable regulatory requirements 
should be easily identifiable for data assets that are collections of 
information subject to the PRA. To the extent practicable, Agencies may 
also identify applicable regulatory requirements on a data-element 
level.
    Under the proposal, any data transmission or schema and taxonomy 
format that, to the extent practicable, has these properties would be 
consistent with this proposed joint standard. There are currently 
various data transmission formats that generally have these 
properties–for example, there are methods of using Comma Separated 
Values (CSV) or other delimiter-separated files, eXtensible Markup 
Language (XML), and Java Script Object Notation (JSON) in manners that 
satisfy these properties. In addition, HyperText Markup Language (HTML) 
and Portable Document Format (PDF) are data transmission formats that 
may satisfy these properties in limited circumstances. For example, 
HTML may satisfy the standard if the data within the HTML document 
conforms to a schema (e.g., Inline XBRL), and PDF may satisfy the 
standard if the data within the PDF conforms to specification “A” 
(PDF/A) that uses advanced features for tagging fields with a reference 
schema and taxonomy and provides necessary metadata that allows for 
automated data extraction. HTML and PDF documents whose data does not 
conform to any such schema and taxonomy would not be considered 
machine-readable as that term is defined in the FDTA because the data 
contained in such HTML and PDF documents cannot be easily processed by 
a computer without human intervention while ensuring no semantic 
meaning is lost. Regarding schema and taxonomy formats, XML Schema 
Definition (XSD), eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) 
Taxonomy, and JSON Schema are currently available schema and taxonomy 
formats that have these properties.
    The Agencies propose to establish a joint standard that refers to a 
list of properties rather than any specific data transmission or schema 
and taxonomy formats for several reasons. First, since the list of 
properties is derived from the requirements listed in section 
124(c)(1)(B) of the Financial Stability Act, any data transmission or 
schema and taxonomy format data standards with these properties would 
satisfy the FDTA’s related requirements. Second, data transmission or 
schema and taxonomy formats that have these properties are likely to be 
interoperable with each other. Interoperability is an important 
consideration, as the FDTA directs the Agencies to “seek to promote 
interoperability of financial regulatory data across members of the 
FSOC” when establishing the joint standards.52 Finally, under this 
approach, the Agencies could adopt new open-source file formats as they 
are developed, and maintain consistency with the joint standards, 
provided that the new formats have the listed properties; the joint 
rule would not need to be amended to specify new formats.
—————————————————————————

    52 Section 124(c)(2)(B) of the Financial Stability Act.
—————————————————————————

    The Agencies invite comment on the proposed establishment of a 
properties-based joint standard for data transmission or schema and 
taxonomy formats, as well as the proposed properties. The Agencies also 
invite comment on whether, as an alternative, it would be preferable to 
establish specific data transmission and schema and taxonomy formats as 
joint standards. The Agencies also invite comment on use of the terms 
“data transmission format” and “schema and taxonomy format.”

E. Request for Comment: Accounting and Reporting Taxonomies

    Some financial market participants have developed standardized data 
definitions that are intended to facilitate efficient and consistent 
information exchanges. The Agencies and standard-setting bodies have 
developed taxonomies based on these standardized data definitions, many 
of which are currently used for Agency collections of information and 
serve as machine-readable, externally maintained

[[Page 67899]]

taxonomies. For example, the FFIEC Consolidated Reports of Condition 
and Income (FFIEC Call Report) Taxonomy,53 the Financial Accounting 
Standards Board’s U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. 
GAAP) Financial Reporting Taxonomy,54 and the International 
Accounting Standards Board’s International Financial Reporting 
Standards Taxonomy are taxonomies that define the semantic meaning of 
the data and that are currently used in regulatory reporting. In 
addition, other taxonomies (including those published by the FFIEC for 
reports other than the FFIEC Call Report) are used and may continue to 
be used in connection with collections of information of the Agencies. 
Not all Agency collections of information have a taxonomy associated 
with them, as a taxonomy may not be appropriate. Further a taxonomy 
would not be required for all collections of information subject to the 
FDTA.
—————————————————————————

    53 The FFIEC Call Report Taxonomy is applicable in its 
entirety only to insured depository institutions and certain non-
depository trust companies that report specific information to the 
Board, the OCC, or the FDIC. For example, the NCUA maintains a 
distinct call report form and associated instructions for federally 
insured credit unions and would not utilize the FFIEC Call Report 
Taxonomy for data collection or sharing. The complete taxonomy is 
not germane to entities that are not required to file FFIEC Call 
Reports and it would therefore not be appropriate for any other 
Agency to use this taxonomy for other regulatory reporting without 
significant tailoring. Furthermore, while the FFIEC Call Report 
Taxonomy shares some common elements with the U.S. GAAP Taxonomy, 
the Board, the OCC, and the FDIC have designed the FFIEC Call Report 
Taxonomy to serve their respective missions and satisfy applicable 
statutory requirements. The FFIEC Call Report Taxonomy is different 
from the U.S. GAAP Taxonomy in a number of ways to address the 
reporting requirements further described in the General Instructions 
to the FFIEC Call Report.
    54 Note that many of the Agencies’ collections of information 
are authorized by statutes that permit or require the issuing Agency 
to use accounting and financial reporting standards other than U.S. 
GAAP, which may mean that the U.S. GAAP Taxonomy is not germane to 
such collections of information.
—————————————————————————

    The FDTA does not explicitly require the establishment of specific 
taxonomies as joint standards and, therefore, it is not clear whether 
the establishment of specific taxonomies is necessary to enable high 
quality data, given that the use of any taxonomy would further this 
objective. Therefore, while the Agencies considered establishing joint 
standards related to taxonomies, they are not proposing to do so. 
However, the Agencies invite comment on: (option 1) whether to 
establish a joint standard for taxonomies based on certain properties, 
and if so, the properties that should be set forth in the joint 
standard; or (option 2) whether to establish specific taxonomies, and 
if so, the taxonomies that should be set forth in the joint standard 
(such as those listed above or other specific taxonomies). The Agencies 
also invite comment on use of the term “taxonomy” and whether the 
Agencies should define the term by rule, and if so, how the term should 
be defined.
    If, following notice and comment, the Agencies establish specific 
taxonomies as joint standards, the Agencies would clarify in the final 
rule that the use of one or more data element definitions from a 
taxonomy that is established as a joint standard would not preclude an 
Agency from using data element definitions from another taxonomy or 
using additional taxonomies, including Agency-specific taxonomies, for 
the same collection of information. Similarly, an Agency would not be 
precluded from modifying or tailoring the joint standard taxonomy in 
consideration of the benefits and costs to its reporting entities, in 
consideration of the Agency’s mission, or to comply with applicable 
law.55 The Agencies invite comment on this approach (that is, the 
potential for an Agency to use multiple taxonomies in an individual 
collection of information, including taxonomies that are not a jointly-
established standard taxonomy) to the establishment of joint standards 
and the flexibility needed to meet regulatory reporting requirements 
unique to a specific Agency or groups of Agencies.
—————————————————————————

    55 As noted above, section 5891(c) of the FDTA clarifies that 
nothing in the FDTA may be construed to prohibit an agency from 
tailoring the data standards it adopts in its Agency-specific 
rulemaking.
—————————————————————————

F. General Request for Comment

    The Agencies request and encourage any interested person to submit 
comments regarding the proposed rule and note that such comments are of 
particular assistance to our rulemaking if accompanied by supporting 
data and analysis.
    To inform potential future rulemakings, the Agencies also request 
public input related to data standards, data transmission formats, and 
schemas and taxonomies the Agencies should consider for potential 
future updates of the joint rule. Are there other data or semantic 
standards, data transmission formats, or schemas and taxonomies beyond 
those discussed in this preamble that the Agencies should consider in 
connection with potential future updates to the joint rule?
    For example, if the Agencies were to update the joint rule in the 
future, should the Agencies consider adopting joint standards that help 
identify specific transactions for collections of information that 
gather transaction-level information? 56 Additionally, should the 
Agencies consider data standards that enable automatic verification of 
the identities of those submitting information?
—————————————————————————

    56 For example, the Unique Transaction Identifier (UTI) as 
defined by ISO 23897 is a global standard developed to uniquely 
identify OTC derivative transactions. See ISO 23897:2020, Financial 
services, Unique transaction identifier (UTI), International 
Organization for Standardization, available at https://www.iso.org/standard/77308.html.
—————————————————————————

III. Proposed Effective Date

    The Agencies propose that the joint rule would take effect on the 
first day of the next calendar quarter that begins at least 60 days 
after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. As noted 
above, most Agencies are required to separately adopt data standards 
for certain collections of information. The joint standards would take 
effect through adoption by implementing Agencies through the Agency-
specific rulemakings, not the joint rule. The proposed effective date 
for the joint rule would not change any reporting requirements without 
further action by the Agencies.

IV. Administrative Law Matters

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Treasury
    Executive Order 12866, as amended, directs agencies to assess costs 
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is 
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety 
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This proposed rule is not a 
significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review.

B. The Paperwork Reduction Act

OCC
    The PRA 57 states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is 
the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC reviewed this 
proposed rule and determined that it does not create any information 
collection or revise any existing collection of information. 
Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with respect to 
this proposed rule. The data standards that the Agencies propose to 
adopt in

[[Page 67900]]

Agency-specific rulemakings that create any new information collection 
requirements or revise any existing collection of information will be 
addressed in one or more separate Federal Register notices.
—————————————————————————

    57 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
—————————————————————————

Board
    In accordance with the PRA,58 the Board may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information 
collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. While certain 
provisions of the proposed rule reference “collections of 
information” within the meaning of the PRA, the Board reviewed the 
proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the OMB and 
determined that it contains no collections of information under the 
PRA.59 Accordingly, there is no paperwork burden associated with the 
rule.
—————————————————————————

    58 44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, appendix A, section 1.
    59 See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
—————————————————————————

FDIC
    The PRA 60 provides that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is 
the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The FDIC reviewed 
this proposed rule and determined that it does not create any new 
information collection or revise any existing collection of 
information. Accordingly, the FDIC does not expect to make PRA 
submissions to OMB with respect to this proposed rule.
—————————————————————————

    60 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
—————————————————————————

NCUA
    The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the OMB approve all 
collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before 
they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any 
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 
number. While certain provisions of the proposed rule reference 
“collections of information” within the meaning of the PRA, the NCUA 
reviewed the proposed rule and determined that it would not create any 
new information collection or revise any existing information 
collection as defined by the PRA.
CFPB
    In accordance with the PRA,61 the CFPB may not conduct or sponsor 
(nor is a respondent required to respond to) an information collection 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. While certain 
provisions of the proposed rule reference “collections of 
information” within the meaning and definition under the PRA, the CFPB 
reviewed the proposed joint rule and has determined that it contains no 
collections of information as defined by the PRA. Accordingly, there is 
no paperwork burden imposed by the joint rule. Thus, neither submission 
to nor approval by OMB is necessary.
—————————————————————————

    61 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
—————————————————————————

FHFA
    The proposed rule does not contain any information collection 
requirement that requires the approval of OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any information to OMB 
for review.
CFTC
    The PRA 62 imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies, 
including the CFTC, in connection with conducting or sponsoring any 
collection of information as defined by the PRA. The CFTC believes that 
the proposal will not change existing reporting obligations on the part 
of financial entities. As a result, the CFTC has determined that the 
proposed joint rule does not create any information collection or 
revise any existing collection of information. Accordingly, the CFTC 
has not prepared a PRA submission to OMB with respect to this proposal.
—————————————————————————

    62 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
—————————————————————————

 SEC
    The proposed joint rule does not contain any collection of 
information requirements as defined by the PRA.63 The data standards 
established by the joint rule would not change existing reporting 
obligations. Furthermore, as noted above, the FDTA does not impose new 
information collection requirements (i.e., it does not require an 
Agency to collect or make publicly available additional information 
that the Agency was not already collecting or making publicly available 
prior to enactment of the FDTA).
—————————————————————————

    63 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
—————————————————————————

Treasury
    PRA 64 provides that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the 
respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The Treasury reviewed 
this proposed rule and determined that it does not create any 
information collection or revise any existing collection of 
information. Accordingly, no PRA submissions to OMB will be made with 
respect to this proposed rule.
—————————————————————————

    64 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
—————————————————————————

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

OCC
    In general, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 65 requires an 
agency, in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the rule on 
small entities (defined by the U.S. 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). However, under 
section 605(b) of the RFA, this analysis is not required if an agency 
certifies that the rule 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.
—————————————————————————

    65 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
—————————————————————————

    The OCC currently supervises 1,048 institutions (commercial banks, 
trust companies, Federal savings associations, and branches or agencies 
of foreign banks),66 of which approximately 636 are small 
entities.67 To estimate expenditures, the OCC reviews the costs 
associated with the activities necessary to comply with the proposed 
rule. These include an estimate of the total time required to implement 
the proposed rule and the estimated hourly wage of bank employees who 
may be responsible for the tasks associated with achieving compliance 
with the proposed rule. For cost estimates, the OCC uses a compensation 
rate of $129 per hour.68

[[Page 67901]]

Based on this approach, the OCC estimates the annual cost for small 
entities to review the rule could be as much as approximately $1,032 
per bank ($129 per hour x 8 hours).
—————————————————————————

    66 Based on data accessed using FINDRS on April 16, 2024.
    67 The OCC bases its estimate of the number of small entities 
on the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) size thresholds for 
commercial banks and savings institutions, and trust companies, 
which are $850 million and $47 million, respectively. Consistent 
with the General Principles of Affiliation 13 CFR 121.103(a), the 
OCC counts the assets of affiliated financial institutions when 
determining if we should classify an OCC-supervised institution as a 
small entity. The OCC uses December 31, 2023, to determine size 
because a “financial institution’s assets are determined by 
averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial 
statements for the preceding year.” See footnote 8 of the SBA’s 
Table of Size Standards.
    68 To estimate wages, the OCC reviewed May 2022 data for wages 
(by industry and occupation) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics for credit intermediation and related activities (NAICS 
5220A1). To estimate compensation costs associated with the rule, 
the OCC uses $129.40 per hour, which is based on the average of the 
90th percentile for six occupations adjusted for inflation (4.3 
percent as of Q1 2024), plus an additional 34.3 percent for benefits 
(based on the percent of total compensation allocated to benefits as 
of Q4 2023 for NAICS 522: credit intermediation and related 
activities).
—————————————————————————

    The OCC considers 5 percent or more of OCC-supervised small 
entities to be a substantial number. Thus, at present, 32 OCC-
supervised small entities would constitute a substantial number, and 
the proposed rule would affect a substantial number of OCC-supervised 
small entities. However, the OCC classifies the economic impact on an 
individual small entity as significant if the total estimated impact in 
one year is greater than 5 percent of the small entity’s total annual 
salaries and benefits or greater than 2.5 percent of the small entity’s 
total non-interest expense. Based on the thresholds for a significant 
economic impact, the OCC estimates that, if implemented, the proposed 
rule would have a significant economic impact on zero small entities. 
Accordingly, the OCC certifies that the proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Board
    The Board is providing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
with respect to this proposed rule. The RFA 69 requires an agency to 
consider whether the rule it proposes will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.70 In connection 
with a proposed rule, the RFA requires an agency to prepare and invite 
public comment on an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing 
the impact of the rule on small entities, unless the agency certifies 
that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. An initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis must contain (1) a description of the 
reasons why action by the agency is being considered; (2) a succinct 
statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; 
(3) a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (4) a description 
of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes 
of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type 
of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or 
record; (5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all 
relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap with, or conflict 
with the proposed rule; and (6) a description of any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 
objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities.71
—————————————————————————

    69 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    70 Under regulations issued by the SBA, a small entity 
includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings 
and loan holding company with total assets of $850 million or less. 
See 13 CFR 121.201. Consistent with the SBA’s General Principles of 
Affiliation, the Board includes the assets of all domestic and 
foreign affiliates toward the applicable size threshold when 
determining whether to classify a particular entity as a small 
entity. See 13 CFR 121.103. As of December 31, 2022, there were 
approximately 2,081 small bank holding companies, approximately 88 
small savings and loan holding companies, and approximately 427 
small state member banks.
    71 5 U.S.C. 603(b)-(c).
—————————————————————————

    The Board has considered the potential impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities in accordance with the RFA. Based on its analysis and 
for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that this proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Nevertheless, the Board is publishing and 
inviting comment on this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
    The FDTA both requires and serves as the legal basis for the Board 
to issue this proposed rule. The FDTA instructs the Agencies to 
establish data standards to promote interoperability of financial 
regulatory data across these Agencies. The proposed rule only applies 
to the Agencies themselves–it does not apply to any other entities, 
including small entities. Therefore, the proposed rule includes no new 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
    The Board is aware of no other Federal rules that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. The Board also is aware of 
no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish 
the stated objectives of applicable statute. Because the proposed rule 
would not apply to any small entities supervised by the Board, there 
are no alternatives that could minimize the impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities.
    Therefore, the Board believes that the proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
supervised by the Board.
    The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of its analysis.
FDIC
    The RFA generally requires an agency, in connection with a proposed 
rule, to prepare and make available for public comment an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities.72 However, an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required if the agency certifies that the 
proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA has defined 
“small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets 
of less than or equal to $850 million.73 Generally, the FDIC 
considers a significant economic impact to be a quantified effect in 
excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and benefits or 2.5 
percent of total noninterest expenses. The FDIC believes that effects 
in excess of one or more of these thresholds typically represent 
significant economic impacts for FDIC-supervised institutions. As of 
December 31, 2023, the FDIC supervises 2,936 insured depository 
institutions, of which 2,221 institutions would be considered a “small 
entity” for purposes of the RFA.74
—————————————————————————

    72 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    73 The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $850 
million or less in assets, where an organization’s “assets are 
determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly 
financial statements for the preceding year.” See 13 CFR 121.201 
(as amended by 87 FR 69118, effective December 19, 2022). In its 
determination, the “SBA counts the receipts, employees, or other 
measure of size of the concern whose size is at issue and all of its 
domestic and foreign affiliates.” See 13 CFR 121.103. Following 
these regulations, the FDIC uses an insured depository institution’s 
affiliated and acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four 
quarters, to determine whether the insured depository institution is 
“small” for the purposes of RFA.
    74 Reports of Condition and Income for the quarter ending 
December 31, 2023.
—————————————————————————

    The proposed rule, if enacted, would establish data standards for 
collections of information reported to the Agencies, as mandated by the 
FDTA. The establishment of these data standards may promote the 
interoperability of the data and may reduce the costs to transmit or 
share data between and among the Agencies. These reduced costs may 
improve the FDIC’s ability to plan, coordinate and evaluate future 
regulatory and supervisory actions.
    The proposed rule, if enacted, would impose some costs on the FDIC 
to update its current systems to match the proposed standards. The 
proposed rule, if enacted, would neither create additional requirements 
for, nor impose burden on, private individuals, businesses, 
organizations, communities, or non-Federal governmental entities. The 
FDIC does not believe the proposed rule would have substantive effects 
on financial market activity or the U.S.

[[Page 67902]]

economy. As such, the FDIC certifies that the proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting 
information provided in this RFA section. In particular, would this 
proposed rule have any significant effects on small entities for which 
the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency that the FDIC has 
not identified?
NCUA
    The RFA 75 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.76 For purposes of this analysis, the 
NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 
million in assets.77
—————————————————————————

    75 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    76 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    77 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015).
—————————————————————————

    The proposed rule would not impose new, or modify existing, 
requirements that would result in the imposition of an economic cost. 
As discussed, the proposed rule establishes joint standards that will 
then separately be adopted in Agency-specific rulemakings. The Agency-
specific rulemaking might therefore impose some costs on “financial 
entities under the jurisdiction of” the agencies, and these will be 
addressed in the preambles of the individual rules. As noted, the 
Agency-specific rules will generally be subject to the notice and 
comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, allowing the 
public opportunity to provide comment, including on the potential 
economic impacts. The NCUA Board notes that the FDTA confers the agency 
with authority to mitigate these potential costs. Specifically, section 
5873 of the FDTA provides that the NCUA (1) may scale data reporting 
requirements to reduce any unjustified burden on smaller regulated 
entities and (2) must seek to minimize disruptive changes to the 
persons affected by the regulations. Further, section 5891(c) of the 
FDTA clarifies that nothing in the FDTA may be construed to prohibit an 
agency from tailoring the data standards it adopts in its Agency-
specific rulemaking. The NCUA will take these authorities into 
consideration in the development of its Agency-specific rule.
    Accordingly, the NCUA certifies that the proposed rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
credit unions.
CFPB
    The RFA as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential 
impact of its regulations on small entities, including small 
businesses, small governmental units, and small not for profit 
organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that 
meets the size standard developed by the SBA pursuant to the Small 
Business Act.
    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) of any proposed rule subject to 
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies 
that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The CFPB also is subject to 
certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of 
a panel to consult with small entity representatives prior to proposing 
a rule for which an IRFA is required.
    An IRFA is not required for this proposed rule because the proposed 
rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The proposed interagency rule jointly establishes data standards 
(joint standards) for (1) certain collections of information reported 
to each Agency by financial entities under the jurisdiction of each 
agency and (2) the data collected from the Agencies on behalf of the 
FSOC. The joint standards would take effect through adoption by 
implementing Agencies through the Agency-specific rulemakings, not the 
joint rule. The joint rule does not identify covered persons nor does 
the proposed interagency rule impose that any such covered persons 
implement any standards as a direct consequence of the proposed rule. 
Therefore, while the joint rule establishes data standards for the 
agencies to adopt in subsequent individual rulemakings, it does not 
impose any requirements upon covered persons, including small entities. 
The joint rule does not impose any direct effects on covered entities. 
To the extent that covered entities will be impacted by the CFPB’s 
individual rule, any such effects will be discussed in the 
corresponding CFPB specific individual rulemaking process.
    Absent the subsequent individual rule, the CFPB does not anticipate 
changes in industry standards attributable to the proposed interagency 
rule. The CFPB recognizes that any discussion of the potential impact 
on costs sustained by entities of all sizes as a result of establishing 
data standards would be attributed to and assessed as part of the 
subsequent individual rule itself and not in the context of this 
proposed interagency rule. The CFPB recognizes that there are existing 
CFPB rules–as well as rules implemented by other Agencies–that may 
require covered entities to comply with reporting standards that may 
overlap with standards that may be included in the CFPB’s subsequent 
individual rule. Therefore, the CFPB believes the impacts of the 
forthcoming individual rule may be mitigated. However, these impacts 
will be assessed as part of the subsequent individual rule itself and 
not in the context of this proposed interagency rule.
    Because the joint rule does not adopt any data standards that 
covered persons, including small entities, are required to implement, 
the Director of the CFPB certifies that the joint rule, if adopted, 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Thus, neither an IRFA nor a small business review panel is 
required for this proposal.
FHFA
    The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a regulation that has 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, small businesses, or small organizations must include an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the regulation’s 
impact on small entities. FHFA need not undertake such an analysis if 
the agency has certified that the regulation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
5 U.S.C. 605(b). FHFA has considered the impact of the proposed rule 
under the RFA and FHFA certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted as 
a final rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because the proposed rule is 
applicable only to the regulated entities, which are not small entities 
for purposes of the RFA.
CFTC
    The RFA requires agencies to consider whether the rules they 
propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities

[[Page 67903]]

and, if so, provide a regulatory flexibility analysis with respect to 
such impact.78 The data standards established by the joint rule would 
not change existing reporting obligations and collections of 
information. Once the proposed joint standards are established, certain 
collections of information may need revision to incorporate and ensure 
compatibility with, to the extent feasible, the joint standards. 
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the CFTC, hereby certifies 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that these proposed rules will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
—————————————————————————

    78 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
—————————————————————————

SEC
    The RFA 79 requires the SEC to prepare and make available for 
public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the impact 
of the proposed rule amendments on small entities, unless the SEC 
certifies that the rules, if adopted would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.80
—————————————————————————

    79 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    80 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 605(b).
—————————————————————————

    The SEC hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the 
proposed joint rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed joint 
rule implements section 124 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 
which, in general, directs the Agencies to issue rules establishing 
data standards to promote interoperability of financial regulatory data 
across the Agencies. The data standards established by the joint rule 
would not change existing reporting obligations. Instead, after the 
joint standards are established, the FDTA directs the SEC to adopt 
individual rules for specified collections of information that 
incorporate and ensure compatibility with, to the extent feasible, the 
joint standards. Accordingly, the SEC does not believe that the 
proposed joint rule, if adopted, would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SEC encourages 
written comments on the certification. Commenters are asked to describe 
the nature of any impact on small entities and provide empirical data 
to support the extent of the impact.
Treasury
    The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency, in 
connection with a proposed rule, to prepare an IRFA describing the 
impact of the rule on small entities. Alternatively, under section 
605(b) of the RFA, the IRFA is not required if the agency certifies 
that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The Department of the Treasury hereby certifies that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that 
this rule is limited to establishing data standards to promote 
interoperability of financial regulatory data across the Agencies. The 
rule will not impose costs on small businesses other than the time it 
may take to read and understand the regulations.
    Notwithstanding this certification, the Department of the Treasury 
invites comments from the public about any impacts this rule would have 
on small entities.

D. Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act 81 requires the Federal 
banking agencies 82 to use plain language in all proposed and final 
rules published after January 1, 2000. The Federal banking agencies 
have sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and 
straightforward manner and invite comment on the use of plain language 
and whether any part of the proposed rule could be more clearly stated. 
For example:
—————————————————————————

    81 Public Law 106-102, sec. 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (1999).
    82 The Federal banking agencies are the OCC, Board, and FDIC.
—————————————————————————

     Have the Federal banking agencies presented the material 
in an organized manner that meets your needs? If not, how could this 
material be better organized?
     Are the requirements in the notice of proposed rulemaking 
clearly stated? If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly 
stated?
     Does the proposed rule contain language that is not clear? 
If so, which language requires clarification?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposed rule easier to 
understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the proposed 
rule easier to understand?
     What else could the Federal banking agencies do to make 
the proposed rule easier to understand?

E. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

    Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and 
Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA),83 in determining the effective 
date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations 
that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on 
insured depository institutions (IDIs), each Federal banking agency 
must consider, consistent with the principle of safety and soundness 
and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such 
regulations would place on depository institutions, including small 
depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as 
well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) 
of RCDRIA requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that 
impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on 
IDIs generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter 
that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published 
in final form, with certain exceptions, including for good cause.84
—————————————————————————

    83 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
    84 12 U.S.C. 4802.
—————————————————————————

    The proposed rule only applies to the Agencies themselves–it does 
not apply to any other entities. Therefore, the proposed rule (1) would 
not impose any additional reporting, disclosures, or other new 
requirements on IDIs and (2) places no new administrative burdens on 
depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and 
customers of depository institutions.
    The Federal banking agencies welcome comment on this analysis and 
conclusion.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

OCC
    The OCC analyzed the proposed rule under the factors set forth in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under 
this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposed rule includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and 
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation). Because the 
proposed rule enumerates certain data standards for future reference 
but does not contain any mandates, the OCC estimate that the UMRA cost 
of this proposal would be zero. The OCC, therefore, concludes that the 
proposed rule would not result in an expenditure of $183 million or 
more annually by State, local, and Tribal governments, or by the 
private sector. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared

[[Page 67904]]

the written statement described in section 202 of the UMRA.
Treasury
    Section 202 of the UMRA requires that agencies assess anticipated 
costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a 
final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (updated 
annually for inflation). This document does not include any Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

G. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023

    The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 85 
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include the internet 
address of a summary of not more than 100 words in length of the 
proposed rule, in plain language, that shall be posted on the internet 
website under section 206(d) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 note).
—————————————————————————

    85 Public Law 118-9.
—————————————————————————

    In summary, the Agencies are issuing this proposed rule for public 
comment that would establish data standards, that would separately be 
adopted for certain collections of information. Jointly establishing 
such data standards would promote interoperability of financial 
regulatory data across these agencies and would fulfill requirements of 
the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022.
    The proposal and such a summary can be found at:

 OCC: https://occ.gov/topics/laws-and-regulations/occ-regulations/proposed-issuances/index-proposed-issuances.html
 Board: https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/reglisting.htm
 FDIC: https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/
 NCUA: https://www.regulations.gov
 CFPB: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/CFPB-2024-0034
 FHFA: www.Regulations.gov
 CFTC: https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ReleasesWithComments.aspx
 SEC: https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2024/07/s7-2024-05
 Treasury: https://www.regulations.gov

H. Executive Order 13132–Federalism

NCUA
    Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to 
consider the impact of their actions on State and local interests. The 
NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), 
voluntarily complies with the Executive order to adhere to fundamental 
federalism principles. This proposed rule would not impose any new, or 
revise existing, regulatory requirements. Rather, the proposed rule 
would implement section 5811 of the FDTA by identifying the joint data 
standards established by the Agencies, which would separately be 
adopted for certain collections of information in separate Agency-
specific rulemakings. Any federalism impacts stemming from the 
regulatory implementation of the FDTA will be because of the individual 
agency rules and not this proposed rule.
    As discussed above, section 5811 specifies that the data standards 
apply to “financial entities under the jurisdiction of” the 
individual agencies. With respect to the NCUA, these entities are 
mainly federally insured credit unions, including federally insured 
state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs). The NCUA-specific rulemaking to 
implement the FDTA may therefore have an occasional direct effect on 
the States, the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. The NCUA notes, however, that because 
FISCUs are included because of the scope of the statute, any federalism 
implications will be the result of the statutorily mandated scope of 
the applicability of the data standards, and not due to the agency’s 
exercise of its discretion. Further, by law FISCUs are already subject 
to numerous provisions of the NCUA’s rules, based on the agency’s role 
as the insurer of member share accounts and the significant interest 
the NCUA has in the safety and soundness of their operations. The Board 
of the NCUA will endeavor to eliminate, or at least minimize, potential 
conflicts in this area in its Agency-specific rulemaking.
    The NCUA has therefore determined that this proposed rule would not 
constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of 
the Executive order.
Treasury
    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from 
publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either 
imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local 
governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, 
unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive order. This document does not have 
federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law 
within the meaning of the Executive order.

I. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

NCUA
    The NCUA Board has determined that this proposed rule would not 
affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. The proposed 
rule would not establish new, or revise existing, regulatory 
requirements. Rather, as required by section 5811 of the FDTA, the 
proposed rule would establish joint data standards that will be 
implemented in individual Agency-specific rulemakings. Although the 
overall goals of the FDTA are to facilitate the access, comparison, and 
analysis of agency collections of information, the potential positive 
effect on family well-being, including financial well-being is, at 
most, indirect.

J. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

SEC
    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), the SEC must advise OMB as to whether the 
proposed amendments constitute a “major” rule. Under SBREFA, a rule 
is considered “major” where, if adopted, it results or is likely to 
result in:
     An annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100 million or 
more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or 
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or 
innovation.
    The SEC requests comment on whether the joint rule, if adopted, 
would be a “major rule” for purposes of SBREFA. In this regard, the 
SEC notes that the data standards established by the joint rule would 
not change existing reporting obligations. Furthermore, as noted above, 
the FDTA does not impose new information collection requirements (i.e., 
it does not require an Agency to collect or make publicly available 
additional information that the Agency was not already collecting or

[[Page 67905]]

making publicly available prior to enactment of the FDTA).

Proposed Text of Common Rule (All Agencies)

    The proposed text of the agencies’ common rule text appears below:

PART__FINANCIAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

Sec.
__.1 Definitions.
__.2 Establishment of standards.

Sec.  __.1 Definitions

    Agencies means, collectively, the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and Department of the Treasury; and Agency means any one of 
the Agencies, individually.
    Collection of information means a collection of information as 
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).
    Data standard means a standard that specifies rules by which data 
is described and recorded.
    Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group means the joint 
technical working group established in 2005 by the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency.
    International Organization for Standardization or ISO means the 
independent, non-governmental international organization that develops 
voluntary, consensus-based, market-relevant, international standards.
    Object Management Group means the Object Management Group Standards 
Development Organization, an international, membership-driven and not-
for-profit consortium which develops technology standards for a diverse 
range of industries.

Sec.  __.2 Establishment of Standards

    (a) Data standards. The Agencies establish the following data 
standards for purposes of section 124(b)(2) of the Financial Stability 
Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. 5334(b)(2), as added by section 5811 of the 
Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022, for collections of information 
reported to each Agency by financial entities under the jurisdiction of 
such Agency and the data collected from Agencies on behalf of the 
Financial Stability Oversight Council.
    (1) Legal entity identifier. The legal entity identifier is 
established to be ISO 17442–Financial Services–the Legal Entity 
Identifier (LEI).
    (2) Other common identifiers. The following common identifiers are 
established as data standards, as applicable:
    (i) For identification of swaps and security-based swaps: ISO 
4914–Financial services–Unique product identifier (UPI);
    (ii) For identification of financial instruments that are not swaps 
or security-based swaps: ISO 10962–Securities and related financial 
instruments–Classification of financial instruments (CFI);
    (iii) For identification of financial instruments: Financial 
Instrument Global Identifier (FIGI) created by the Object Management 
Group;
    (iv) For identification of dates: date as defined by ISO 8601 using 
the Basic format option;
    (v) For identification of states, possessions, or military 
“states” of the United States of America or geographic directionals: 
U.S. Postal Service Abbreviations as published in Appendix B of 
Publication 28–Postal Addressing Standards, Mailing Standards of the 
United States Postal Service;
    (vi) For identification of countries and their subdivisions: the 
country code with the code for subdivisions, as appropriate, as defined 
by the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC) developed by the 
Country Codes Working Group of the Geospatial Intelligence Standards 
Working Group; and
    (vii) For identification of currencies: the alphabetic currency 
code as defined by ISO 4217–Currency Codes.
    (3) Data transmission and schema and taxonomy format data 
standards–(i) Data standard. For the reporting of information pursuant 
to a collection of information to the Agencies and the use of schemas 
and taxonomies by the Agencies, the Agencies establish the data 
standard that the data transmission or schema and taxonomy format used 
have the properties set forth in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) Properties. To be considered a data transmission or schema and 
taxonomy format that meets the data standard set forth in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section, the data transmission or schema and taxonomy 
format must, to the extent practicable:
    (A) Render data fully searchable and machine-readable;
    (B) Enable high quality data through schemas, with accompanying 
metadata documented in machine-readable taxonomy or ontology models, 
which clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, as defined by 
the underlying regulatory information collection requirements, as 
appropriate;
    (C) Ensure that a data element or data asset that exists to satisfy 
an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be 
consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable 
metadata; and
    (D) Be nonproprietary or available under an open license.
    (b) Consideration by the Agencies. The data standards established 
in paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to consideration by 
the Agencies of the applicability, feasibility, practicability, 
scaling, minimization of disruption to affected persons, and tailoring, 
as specified in the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022.

End of Common Rule Text

List of Subjects

12 CFR Part 15

    Financial data transparency, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

12 CFR Part 262

    Administrative practice and procedure.

12 CFR Part 304

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 753

    Administrative practice and procedure, Information, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

12 CFR Part 1077

    Administrative practice and procedure, Financial data standards, 
Information.

12 CFR Part 1226

    Administrative practice and procedure, Financial data transparency.

17 CFR Part 140

    Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions 
(Government agencies).

17 CFR Part 256

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electronic filing, Financial 
data transparency, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Securities.

31 CFR Part 151

    Financial data transparency, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Adoption of Common Rule

    The proposed adoption of the common rule by the agencies, as 
modified by the agency-specific text, is set forth below:

[[Page 67906]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Chapter I

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, and under the 
authority of 12 U.S.C. 5334, the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency proposes to amend chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 15–FINANCIAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

0
1. Add part 15 to read as set forth in the common rule text at the end 
of the common preamble.
0
2. The authority citation for part 15 is added to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 5334.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

12 CFR Chapter II, Subchapter A

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposes to amend part 262 of 
subchapter A of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 262–RULES OF PROCEDURE

0
3. The authority citation for part 262 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 12 U.S.C. 248, 321, 325, 326, 483, 602, 
611a, 625, 1467a, 1828(c), 1842, 1844, 1850a, 1867, 3105, 3106, 
3108, 5334, 5361, 5368, 5467, and 5469.

Sec. Sec.  262.1 through 262.25  [Designated as Subpart A]

0
4. Designate Sec. Sec.  262.1 through 262.25 as subpart A.
0
5. Add a heading for newly designated subpart A to read as follows:

Subpart A–General Rules of Procedure

0
6. Add subpart B to read as set forth in the common rule text at the 
end of the common preamble.
0
7. Revise the heading for subpart B to read as follows:

Subpart B–Financial Data Transparency

Sec. Sec.  262.1 and 262.2 of Subpart B  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  
262.26 and 262.27]

0
8. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  262.1 and 262.2 of subpart B as Sec. Sec.  
262.26 and 262.27.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Chapter III

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Board of 
Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to 
amend part 304 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 304–FORMS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND REPORTS

0
9. The authority citation for part 304 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 552; 12 U.S.C. 1463, 1464, 1811, 1813, 
1817, 1819, 1831, 1831cc, 1861-1867, and 5334.

0
10. Add subpart D to read as set forth in the common rule text at the 
end of the common preamble.
0
11. Revise the heading for subpart D to read as follows:

Subpart D–Financial Data Transparency

Sec. Sec.  304.1 and 304.2 of Subpart D  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  
304.30 and 304.31]

0
12. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  304.1 and 304.2 of subpart D as Sec. Sec.  
304.30 and 304.31.

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Chapter VII

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons stated in the joint preamble, the National Credit 
Union Administration proposes to amend chapter VII of title 12 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 753–FINANCIAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

0
13. Add part 753 to read as set forth in the common rule text at the 
end of the common preamble.
0
14. The authority citation for part 753 is added to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752e, 1752f, 5334.

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

12 CFR Chapter X

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau proposes to amend chapter X of title 12 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1077–FINANCIAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

0
15. Add part 1077 to read as set forth in the common rule text at the 
end of the common preamble.
0
16. The authority citation for part 1077 is added to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 5334.

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

12 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, and under the 
authority of 12 U.S.C. 4526, the Federal Housing Finance Agency 
proposes to amend subchapter B of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1226–FINANCIAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

0
17. Add part 1226 to read as set forth in the common rule text at the 
end of the common preamble.
0
18. The authority citation for part 1226 is added to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513, 4526, 4527, 5334, 1752 et seq.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Chapter I

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission proposes to adopt the common rule text at 
the end of the common preamble and amend 17 CFR part 140 as follows:

PART 140–ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION

0
19. The authority citation for part 140 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 2(a) (12), 12a, 13(c), 13(d), 13(e), and 
16(b); 12 U.S.C. 5334.

0
20. Add subpart D, consisting of Sec.  140.800, to read as follows:

Subpart D–Financial Data Transparency

Sec.  140.800  Financial data transparency.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Agencies means, collectively, the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal

[[Page 67907]]

Housing Finance Agency, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department of the Treasury; and 
Agency means any one of the Agencies, individually.
    Collection of information means a collection of information as 
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).
    Data standard means a standard that specifies rules by which data 
is described and recorded.
    Geospatial Intelligence Standards Working Group means the joint 
technical working group established in 2005 by the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency.
    International Organization for Standardization or ISO means the 
independent, non-governmental international organization that develops 
voluntary, consensus-based, market-relevant, international standards.
    Object Management Group means the Object Management Group Standards 
Development Organization, an international, membership-driven and not-
for-profit consortium which develops technology standards for a diverse 
range of industries.
    (b) Establishment of standards–(1) Data standards. The Agencies 
establish the following data standards for purposes of section 
124(b)(2) of the Financial Stability Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. 5334(b)(2), 
as added by section 5811 of the Financial Data Transparency Act of 
2022, for collections of information reported to each Agency by 
financial entities under the jurisdiction of such Agency and the data 
collected from Agencies on behalf of the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council.
    (i) Legal entity identifier. The legal entity identifier is 
established to be ISO 17442–Financial Services–the Legal Entity 
Identifier (LEI).
    (ii) Other common identifiers. The following common identifiers are 
established as data standards, as applicable:
    (A) For identification of swaps and security-based swaps: ISO 
4914–Financial services–Unique product identifier (UPI);
    (B) For identification of financial instruments that are not swaps 
or security-based swaps: ISO 10962–Securities and related financial 
instruments–Classification of financial instruments (CFI);
    (C) For identification of financial instruments: Financial 
Instrument Global Identifier (FIGI) created by the Object Management 
Group;
    (D) For identification of dates: date as defined by ISO 8601 using 
the Basic format option;
    (E) For identification of states, possessions, or military 
“states” of the United States of America or geographic directionals: 
U.S. Postal Service Abbreviations as published in Appendix B of 
Publication 28–Postal Addressing Standards, Mailing Standards of the 
United States Postal Service;
    (F) For identification of countries and their subdivisions: the 
country code with the code for subdivisions, as appropriate, as defined 
by the Geopolitical Entities, Names, and Codes (GENC) developed by the 
Country Codes Working Group of the Geospatial Intelligence Standards 
Working Group; and
    (G) For identification of currencies: the alphabetic currency code 
as defined by ISO 4217–Currency Codes.
    (iii) Data transmission and schema and taxonomy format data 
standards–(A) Data standard. For the reporting of information pursuant 
to a collection of information to the Agencies and the use of schemas 
and taxonomies by the Agencies, the Agencies establish the data 
standard that the data transmission or schema and taxonomy format used 
have the properties set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of this 
section.
    (B) Properties. To be considered a data transmission or schema and 
taxonomy format that meets the data standard set forth in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, the data transmission or schema and 
taxonomy format must, to the extent practicable:
    (1) Render data fully searchable and machine-readable;
    (2) Enable high quality data through schemas, with accompanying 
metadata documented in machine-readable taxonomy or ontology models, 
which clearly define the semantic meaning of the data, as defined by 
the underlying regulatory information collection requirements, as 
appropriate;
    (3) Ensure that a data element or data asset that exists to satisfy 
an underlying regulatory information collection requirement be 
consistently identified as such in associated machine-readable 
metadata; and
    (4) Be nonproprietary or available under an open license.
    (2) Consideration by the Agencies. The data standards established 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be subject to consideration 
by the Agencies of the applicability, feasibility, practicability, 
scaling, minimization of disruption to affected persons, and tailoring, 
as specified in the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Chapter II

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, the Securities 
and Exchange Commission proposes to amend chapter II of title 17 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 256–FINANCIAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

0
21. Add part 256 to read as set forth in the common rule text at the 
end of the common preamble.
0
22. The authority citation for part 256 is added to read as follows:

    Authority:  12 U.S.C. 5334; 15 U.S.C. 77g, 77z-4, 78d, 78m, 78n, 
78o-3, 78o-4, 78o-7, 78rr, 80a-8, 80a-29, and 80b-4.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31 CFR Chapter I

Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the 
Treasury proposes to amend chapter I of title 31 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 151–FINANCIAL DATA TRANSPARENCY

0
23. Add part 151 to read set forth in the common rule text at the end 
of the common preamble.
0
24. The authority citation for part 151 is added to read as follows:

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5334, 5335; 31 U.S.C. 301, 321.

Michael J. Hsu,
Acting Comptroller of the Currency.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on July 30, 2024.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board, this 8th day 
of August 2024.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.

Rohit Chopra,
Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Sandra L. Thompson,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[[Page 67908]]

    Dated: August 2, 2024.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.

Nellie Liang,
Under Secretary for Domestic Finance.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2024, by the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix A–Concurring Statement of CFTC Commissioner Caroline D. Pham

    I respectfully concur on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
the Financial Data Transparency Act (FDTA) Joint Data Standards 
(“Joint Data Standards Proposal”) to require each respective 
agency to implement certain data standards for its regulated 
entities because there is insufficient discussion of the impact and 
costs associated with the adoption of these new data standards that 
will apply across the banking and financial services sector 
(including small entities as set forth under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act). While I support the FDTA’s mandate, I believe the 
Joint Data Standards Proposal would be improved by addressing head-
on the elephant in the room–the very real costs that will be 
imposed on potentially tens of thousands of firms of all sizes that 
will eventually have to update their systems and records to adhere 
to the new data standards. I encourage all commenters to address the 
costs and benefits of the Joint Data Standards Proposal, including 
the necessary future agency rulemakings that will subsequently 
follow. I thank Ted Kaouk, Tom Guerin, Jeffrey Burns, and the staff 
of the CFTC, and all the other agencies for their efforts on this 
proposal.

[FR Doc. 2024-18415 Filed 8-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P; 4810-33-P; 6714-01-P; 7535-01-P; 4810-AM-P; 
8070-01-P; 6351-01-P; 8011-01-P; 4810-AK-P