# 2026-19310: FDIC Wants State Banks to Party Like National Banks 2026-19310, State Bank Parity, is a Federal Register proposed rule from Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published 2026-09-22, effective Comments must be received no later than November 23, 2026.; PRIA reads it as touching household money (as of 2026-09-29). - Canonical: https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-19310 - As of: 2026-09-29 - Plain-text twin of the page above; the HTML and this file carry the same facts. ## Facts - Document number: 2026-19310 - Title: State Bank Parity - Type: Proposed Rule - Agencies: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - Citation: 91 FR 60018 - Published: 2026-09-22 - Effective: Comments must be received no later than November 23, 2026. - Comments close: 2026-11-23 - Significant: no - Touches household money: yes - Regulation identifier numbers: 3064-AG34 - Last updated: 2026-09-29 ## In one line FDIC Wants State Banks to Party Like National Banks ## Summary The FDIC wants to make sure out-of-State State banks get the same treatment as national banks when following host State laws while offering services outside their home State. This means if a national bank doesn’t have to follow certain State laws in a host State, then an out-of-State State bank won’t either. Banks and customers should watch for changes, and comments on this proposal are open until November 23, 2026. ## Abstract The FDIC is proposing amendments to its regulations to recognize parity between out-of-State State banks and national banks concerning the application of host State laws when State banks provide services outside of their chartering State. Under the proposed rule, when host State laws do not apply to a national bank, those laws would similarly not apply to an out-of-State State bank providing services in the host State with or without a branch. Specifically, the amendments would provide that, for purposes of section 24(j) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the laws of a host State apply to any branch in the host State of, or any services provided in the host State by, an out-of-State State bank to the same extent such State laws apply to a branch in the host State of, or any services provided in the host State by, an out-of-State national bank. ## Effects PRIA read - Parity for Out‑of‑State State Banks: benefit, medium. The FDIC proposes that when a host State law does not apply to an out-of-State national bank, that same host State law likewise would not apply to an out-of-State State bank providing services in that State with or without a branch. The rule says the law of the State where the bank is chartered wou… - Estimated One‑Time and Annual Savings: benefit, high. The FDIC estimates that, by avoiding required system changes and other compliance actions tied to the Illinois law example, the proposed rule would yield about $308,368,000 in one-time avoided costs and about $6,676,804 in ongoing annual avoided costs. The FDIC annualized those avoided costs over f… - Avoids Large Per‑Bank Upgrade Costs: benefit, high. The FDIC reports per-bank system upgrade cost estimates used in its analysis: acquirer banks that fully operate systems would incur $16 million each and partially operating acquirers $8 million each; issuer banks that fully operate systems $25 million each and partially operating issuers $12.5 mill… - Eliminates Small Annual Transfer Between Banks and Merchants: mixed, low. Using the Illinois example, the FDIC estimates the baseline would create about $2,281,118 per year in transfers between affected State banks and merchants (about $2.214 million from credit-card taxes, $45,382 from debit-card taxes, $21,300 from credit-card tips, and $436 from debit-card tips). The… - Reduces Risk of Transaction Rejection and Penalties: benefit, medium. The FDIC says the rule would reduce legal uncertainty that might otherwise lead State banks to reject payment card transactions in a host State or take other measures that disrupt merchants and consumers. The Illinois law example (IFPA) carries potential civil penalties of $1,000 per electronic pay… - No Change to Loan Interest‑Rate Rules: mixed, low. The FDIC explicitly states the proposed rule would not affect the interest rates State banks may charge on loans; those rates remain governed by section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831d). ## Related documents - [2026-17823](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-17823): Unsafe or Unsound Practices, Matters Requiring Attention, 2026-09-01 - [2026-08298](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-08298): Regulatory Capital Rule: Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework, 2026-04-29 - [2026-05960](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-05960): Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital and Standardized Approach for Risk-Weighted Assets, 2026-03-27 - [2025-21625](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2025-21625): Regulatory Capital Rule: Revisions to the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework, 2025-12-01 - [2025-21626](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2025-21626): Regulatory Capital Rule: Modifications to the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio Standards for U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank H…, 2025-12-01 - [2026-20735](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-20735): Extensions of Credit to Insiders, 2026-10-09 ## Sources - [2026-19310 on federalregister.gov](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/22/2026-19310/state-bank-parity) - [2026-19310 as published (PDF)](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-22/pdf/2026-19310.pdf) ## Related - [Previous: 2026-19308, Merger Transactions](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-19308) - [Next: 2026-19331, General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Implementation of…](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-19331) - [All Federal Register documents](https://policyrisk.com/federal-register) Source: PRIA, https://policyrisk.com/federal-register/2026-19310 (as of 2026-09-29).