OCC Preemption Rule Disapproval

Full Title:
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency relating to "Preemption Determination: State Interest-on-Escrow Laws".

Summary#

This joint resolution would block a rule the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) filed called “Preemption Determination: State Interest-on-Escrow Laws” (91 Fed. Reg. 29350, May 19, 2026). The resolution says Congress disapproves that OCC rule and that the rule “shall have no force or effect.” The resolution is filed under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.

  • Main change: It would nullify the specified OCC rule so the rule cannot take effect or be enforced.
  • Scope: The resolution targets one named OCC rule about preemption and state interest-on-escrow laws.
  • Mechanism: The resolution uses Congress’s disapproval authority under chapter 8 of title 5.
  • Timing: The resolution would act when enacted by both chambers and signed, but the bill text does not set other timing details.
  • What is unclear: The resolution does not explain the content of the OCC rule or describe what legal status will replace it. The bill text alone does not say what legal effects the rule would have if not disapproved.

What it means for you#

  • Banks regulated by the OCC (national banks and federal savings associations): This would likely affect them because it removes an OCC rule about whether certain state laws (interest-on-escrow laws) are preempted. The bill does not say how banks must act afterward.
  • State governments and state regulators: This could affect their ability to enforce state interest-on-escrow laws against nationally chartered banks, depending on what the OCC rule would have done. The resolution itself does not describe those effects.
  • Borrowers or homeowners with escrow accounts: This could matter where state law governs whether interest must be paid on escrow accounts. The resolution does not explain any direct new rights or payments.
  • Federal regulators and courts: If enacted, the OCC rule would be void and could not be cited as binding policy; the legal landscape would revert to whatever governed before that OCC rule. The resolution does not say what that prior state of law was.
  • General public: The resolution changes whether a specific federal banking rule applies, but the bill text does not create a new program, tax, or direct benefit for most people.

Expenses#

No direct public cost estimate or fiscal note is included in the provided material.

  • No publicly available information.
  • The resolution itself is a one-time congressional action; the bill text does not identify new spending, savings, fines, or fees.
  • There could be indirect costs or savings from leaving the OCC rule void (for banks, states, or courts), but the resolution does not provide estimates or detail.

Proponents' View#

(The following are possible reasons someone might support the resolution, inferred from the bill’s text. These are not direct quotes from supporters.)

  • The bill appears intended to stop a specific OCC rule from taking effect.
  • Supporters may argue that nullifying the rule preserves state laws governing interest on escrow accounts.
  • This could be seen as keeping existing legal arrangements in place until Congress or courts make further decisions.
  • Using congressional disapproval is a direct way to prevent a federal agency rule that Congress finds objectionable.

Opponents' View#

(The following are possible concerns about the resolution, based on what the bill does and what it leaves unspecified.)

  • One concern is that the resolution does not explain the legal or practical consequences of voiding the OCC rule, leaving uncertainty about what rules apply.
  • Another concern is that blocking the OCC rule could maintain inconsistent rules across states and federal oversight, depending on the pre-rule status.
  • The bill gives no detail on replacement guidance or how banks should comply, which may create implementation or enforcement problems.
  • It is unclear whether voiding the rule would increase litigation or regulatory costs for banks, states, or consumers.

Notes on sources and uncertainty#

  • The summary is based only on the joint resolution text supplied. The resolution names the OCC rule and states it “shall have no force or effect.”
  • The supplied material does not include the OCC rule’s text, an explanatory statement, fiscal analysis, or public statements from proponents or opponents. Where effects are not spelled out in the resolution, this summary flags those points as unclear or uses cautious language such as “could” or “may.”