You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The federal government has recognized 573 Indian tribes as distinct, independent political communities with tribal sovereignty. There are different categories of tribal lands, with differing implications with respect to ownership and administration. Reservations are defined geographic areas with established boundaries recognized by the United States. Tribal lands vary in size, demographics, and location. For example, those lands smallest in size are less than one square mile, and the largest, the Navajo Nation, is more than 24,000 square miles (the size of West Virginia). Tribal land locations can range from extremely remote, rural locations to urban areas. Figure 1 shows tribal lands in the United States according to the 2010 Census. The term “broadband” commonly refers to Internet access that is high speed and provides an “always-on” connection, so users do not have to reestablish a connection each time they access the Internet. Broadband service may be “fixed”—that is, providing service to a single location, such as a customer’s home—or “mobile,” that is, providing service wherever a customer has access to a mobile wireless network, including while on the move, through a mobile device, such as a smartphone. Fixed and mobile broadband providers deploy and maintain infrastructure to connect consumers to the Internet. Providers offer fixed Internet service through a number of technologies, such as copper phone lines, fiber-optic lines, coaxial cables, wireless antennas, satellites, or a mix of technologies (see fig. 2). To install fixed or wireless infrastructure, providers must obtain permits from government entities with jurisdiction over the land or permission from public utilities to deploy infrastructure on existing utility poles. The federal government has emphasized the importance of ensuring Americans have access to broadband, and a number of agencies, including FCC, currently provide funding to subsidize broadband deployment in areas in which the return on investment has not attracted private investment. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifies that consumers in “rural, insular, and high-cost areas” should have access to telecommunication services and rates that are “reasonably comparable” to consumers in urban areas. To achieve this goal, FCC administers the High-Cost program, which provides subsidies to providers of phone service in rural, insular, and other remote areas. In 2011, FCC launched a series of reforms to its High-Cost program, including adding support for broadband services, and created the Connect America Fund, which provides subsidies to fixed and mobile providers of telecommunications and broadband services in rural, insular, and other remote areas where the costs of providing service is high. To be eligible for Universal Service Fund support from FCC, a provider must be designated an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier by the appropriate state or by FCC and must meet certain service obligations. The Connect America Fund has distributed approximately $4.5 billion per year, and has separate funding mechanisms targeted to specific goals. For example, there are funds for fixed-phone and broadband service and funds for mobile service, including a Tribal Mobility Fund (Phase 1) that awarded nearly $50 million in 2014 for the provision of 3G and 4G service to unserved tribal areas. In addition to FCC, a number of other agencies provide funding for broadband deployment in unserved or underserved areas. For example, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Community Connect Program, which provides grants to rural communities to provide high- speed Internet service to unserved areas. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) mandated the development of a nationwide map of broadband availability. To implement the act, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA)—an agency within the Department of Commerce—established a grant program to enable U.S. states and territories to collect state-level broadband mapping data. NTIA used these data to launch the National Broadband Map (www.broadbandmap.gov) in February 2011. As the funding for the NTIA’s program came to an end in 2014, NTIA stopped collecting data to update the map and, according to FCC officials, created a memorandum of understanding with FCC through which FCC agreed to maintain public access to the last version of the map. FCC issued rules in 2013 to begin collecting broadband deployment data, in addition to the broadband subscription data it had collected from providers since 2000. FCC sought, but did not receive, $3 million to update the National Broadband Map in its fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 budgets. In 2018, Congress directed FCC to develop a report by March 23, 2019, evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands (to include an assessment of areas that have adequate broadband coverage, as well as an assessment of unserved areas), and to complete a proceeding to address unserved areas by September 23, 2020. Currently, FCC requires broadband providers to report on their broadband deployment by filing a form twice a year (Form 477). Fixed broadband providers submit a list of the census blocks in which their broadband service is available, and mobile providers submit “shapefiles”—a geospatial depiction of the coverage area, which FCC refers to as “polygons”—of their coverage areas. FCC uses providers’ 477 data to develop a statutorily mandated annual report on advanced telecommunications capability. In addition, in 2016, FCC began publishing its own maps of broadband deployment, using the information from providers’ Form 477 filings. In February 2018, FCC launched an updated map of fixed broadband deployment (https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/). This map allows users to search for broadband deployment by address and provides summary-level statistics regarding broadband deployment in specific tribal lands (see fig. 3). According to FCC officials, this new map format will support more frequent data updates. FCC also provides national maps of mobile LTE coverage; these maps do not allow users to access data at the same level of granularity as the maps of fixed broadband (see fig. 4). FCC collects and uses data that capture broadband availability to measure broadband access on tribal lands, leading to overstatements of broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC’s method of collecting mobile and fixed broadband data from providers (the Form 477) does not accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal lands because it (1) captures nationwide broadband availability data— areas where providers may have broadband infrastructure—but does so in a way that leads to overstatements of availability, and (2) does not capture information on factors that FCC and tribal stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access on tribal lands, such as affordability, service quality, and denials of service. Nonetheless, FCC uses its Form 477 broadband availability data in annual broadband deployment reports to measure the percentage of Americans living on tribal lands with or without access to broadband, and to measure progress toward FCC’s strategic goal of increasing all Americans’ access to affordable broadband. By using broadband availability data to measure broadband access on tribal lands, FCC overstates broadband access on tribal lands. FCC’s Form 477, its primary method of collecting nationwide broadband data, collects information on broadband availability, which identifies where providers have broadband infrastructure and could potentially provide broadband services but not where consumers can actually access those services. Moreover, the Form 477’s mobile broadband data- collection methods are not standardized, and its fixed broadband data- collection methods are not sufficiently granular to provide information about broadband availability on tribal lands. FCC’s Form 477 requires mobile broadband providers to report their coverage areas by submitting geospatial data depicting the areas in which consumers could expect to receive the minimum advertised speed. FCC has previously noted the importance of collecting nationally standardized, uniform broadband data from providers to assess broadband availability and allow for easy comparison across providers. However, the Form 477 does not require that providers use a standardized method with defined technical parameters (such as signal strength, or amount of interference) when determining their coverage area, resulting in data that cannot be meaningfully compared across providers, according to FCC. To map their coverage areas, providers may use predictive models based on different measurement methods and a variety of factors known to affect mobile broadband service such as topography, tree cover, and buildings, among other factors. Providers and tribal stakeholders have expressed concern with the accuracy of FCC’s mobile broadband data, and FCC has acknowledged concerns that the lack of a standardized method resulted in data that were unreliable for the purposes of determining mobile broadband coverage for specific geographic areas, such as tribal lands. About half of the tribal government representatives we interviewed told us that they believe FCC’s data overstate mobile LTE broadband availability on their lands. For example, a few representatives expressed concerns with the accuracy of the mobile data in areas with varied terrain, such as mountains and valleys. In comments to FCC, broadband providers have also raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the mobile coverage data generated by the Form 477 for the purposes of identifying areas eligible for funding through FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase II program, which provides federal funding to increase mobile broadband services in unserved areas. In 2017, in response to such concerns, FCC reversed its prior decision to use the Form 477 data to identify specific areas eligible for federal funding through the Mobility Fund Phase II program. Instead, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection, for which it required providers to measure their coverage based on a common set of standards, in order to better identify unserved areas that would be presumptively eligible for funding. FCC plans to allow parties, including tribal governments, to challenge the data where they believe the data overstate mobile broadband coverage through August, 2018. Additionally, in an August 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC requested comment on potential changes to modernize its Form 477 data collection, including whether it should require all providers to use a standardized method when submitting mobile coverage data on the form. FCC officials told us that they do not have a timeline for the development of a final rule, and as of August 2018, FCC had not yet issued a final rule on modernizing the Form 477. The Form 477 collects fixed broadband data that are not sufficiently granular to accurately depict broadband availability on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC directs fixed broadband providers to submit a list of census blocks where service is available on the Form 477. FCC defines “available” as whether the provider does—or could, within a typical service interval or without an extraordinary commitment of resources— provide service to at least one end-user premises in a census block. Thus, in its annual reports and maps of fixed broadband service, FCC considers an entire block to be served if a provider reports that it does, or could offer, service to at least one household in the census block. FCC does not define a typical service interval or an extraordinary commitment of resources in its Form 477 instructions. However, FCC officials stated that providers should not report service in areas in which major construction would be required to provide service. A few providers told us that the lack of clear guidance from FCC regarding how to determine where broadband is available has led different providers to interpret the Form 477 directions in different ways, which can affect the accuracy and consistency of reporting from provider to provider. For example, in a filing with FCC, one provider stated that it had misapplied the definition of “available” and, as a result, overstated the availability of its services by almost 3,000 census blocks. As shown in figure 5, FCC’s definition of availability leads to overstatements of fixed broadband availability on tribal lands by: (1) counting an entire census block as served if only one location has broadband, and (2) allowing providers to report availability in blocks where they do not have any infrastructure connecting homes to their networks if the providers determine they could offer service to at least one household. Almost all the providers and private companies, and most of the representatives of tribal governments and organizations we spoke with told us that due to these issues, FCC’s definition of availability results in data that overstate broadband availability. According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed broadband availability where they could provide service within a “typical service interval” and without “an extraordinary commitment of resources” in order to: (1) ensure that it captures instances in which a provider has a network nearby but has not installed the last connection to the homes, and (2) identify where service is connected to homes, but homes have not subscribed. FCC officials also told us that FCC measures availability at the census block level because sub-census block data may be costly to collect. In 2013, FCC considered collecting more granular nationwide data on broadband deployment but decided against collecting these data because it determined that the burden would outweigh the benefit. However, FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that FCC’s approach leads to overstatements of availability. For example, in its 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477 data collection, FCC acknowledged that by requiring a provider to report where it could provide service, it is impossible to tell whether the provider would be unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers in a census block it lists as served. According to FCC, this limits the value of the data to inform FCC policies. In addition, several providers and tribal stakeholders we interviewed said that some “digital subscriber line” (DSL) and fixed wireless providers may overstate their service areas on the Form 477 because they may not take into account technological or terrain limitations that would affect their ability to actually provide service. FCC has also recognized that by measuring availability at the census block level, not every person will have access to broadband in a block that the data show as served, and FCC has noted that in rural areas, such as tribal lands, census blocks can be large and providers may only deploy service to a portion of the census block. A few representatives for tribal governments and organizations noted that the use of census blocks may uniquely overstate broadband availability on tribal lands when census blocks contain both tribal and non-tribal areas, because availability in the non-tribal portion of the block can result in the tribal area of the census block also being counted as served. FCC is considering requiring providers to report whether they are willing and able to serve additional customers in a census block and collecting sub-census block data in its 2017 proposed rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477. About one-third of the parties that commented on FCC’s proposals were not in favor of FCC collecting these more granular data on the Form 477, stating that the data would be less accurate and more burdensome for providers to collect and report, among other reasons, and questioned whether more detailed information on nationwide broadband availability is necessary. We heard similar concerns from a few of the providers and trade associations we interviewed. However, about one- third of the parties that commented on FCC’s proposals were in favor of collecting more granular data, stating that such data would be more useful for policymakers and more accurate. Additionally, a few tribally owned and non-tribal providers we interviewed told us that providers already maintain data for business purposes that would allow them to report more granular information on broadband availability. One stakeholder we spoke with pointed out that, as the federal government and states work to ensure the last remaining unserved areas—rural, low- population density areas including tribal lands—have service, sub- census-block-level data are needed to ensure that governments are making wise and accurate investments. FCC does not collect information on several factors that FCC and tribal stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access. FCC and tribal stakeholders have noted that broadband access can be affected by factors such as the affordability and quality of the broadband services being offered, and the extent to which providers deny service to those who request it. By collecting and using data on factors that can affect broadband access, FCC would have more complete information on the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands have access to broadband Internet services. Affordability: FCC has noted that affordability of broadband services can affect broadband access but does not collect information on the cost of broadband service on tribal lands on the Form 477. For example, in the National Broadband Plan, FCC cited affordable access to robust broadband service as a long-term goal, and in its Strategic Plan 2018–2022, FCC acknowledged that affordability is an important factor affecting broadband access and a key driver of the digital divide. Moreover, most of the representatives of tribal governments and organizations we spoke to told us that the affordability of broadband services is an important factor for understanding whether or not people on tribal lands could realistically access broadband services. Tribal government officials from one tribe we spoke with told us that residents on their lands cannot access broadband because it is too costly. For example, a provider that advertises services on the tribe’s land charges $130 per month for broadband services, approximately one-and-a-half times the average rate providers charge for comparable services in urban areas, according to FCC (see fig. 6). In the 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC acknowledged that affordability can influence a consumer’s decision on whether to purchase broadband, but FCC did not consider cost in its assessment of broadband access on tribal lands, stating that pricing does not go to the congressional requirement to assess deployment and availability in conducting its inquiry as required by Congress under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act and also citing a lack of reliable comprehensive data on this issue. In addition, FCC officials we interviewed acknowledged that while broadband service may be technically available, it may be prohibitively expensive for some, which may make availability alone an incomplete indicator of broadband access. Quality of Service: In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Congress recognized the importance of service quality by defining advanced telecommunications capability as any technology that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications. In keeping with this legislation, FCC has consistently set thresholds for speeds that qualify as broadband services and has stated that “latency” and consistency of service figure prominently into whether a broadband service is able to provide advanced capabilities and thus whether users can access high-quality telecommunications. Likewise, almost all of the representatives for tribal governments or organizations we interviewed told us that quality of service is a key component of access to broadband and that routine outages, slow speeds, and high latency keep people on tribal lands from consistently accessing the Internet. Most tribal stakeholders and a few providers we interviewed told us that factors such as terrain, weather, and type of technology can all affect the quality of service an end user receives and, ultimately, the subscribers’ ability to access the Internet (see fig. 7). For example, some representatives of tribal governments and organizations told us issues like oversubscription— when a provider signs up more customers than its equipment can handle—and outdated or limited infrastructure result in low-quality services that cannot support advanced and, in some cases, basic functions. Though FCC uses the Form 477 to collect some data on advertised speeds from providers, FCC does not collect data on actual speeds, service outages, and latency on the form. In its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC stated that it did not consider FCC data on actual speed, latency, or consistency of service when evaluating broadband access due to the lack of appropriate data. FCC noted that the lack of Form 477 data on actual speeds in particular constrained evaluation of mobile broadband access. Service Denials: FCC has recognized that information on denials of service is pertinent to understanding actual broadband access but does not collect data on service denials in the Form 477. Specifically, in the National Broadband Plan, FCC recommended that FCC collect data to determine whether broadband service is being denied to potential residential customers based on the income of the residents in a particular geographic area. Some representatives of the tribal governments or organizations told us that that they were aware of a provider denying service to residents of tribal lands, despite the provider reporting broadband availability on at least a portion of those lands, according to our analysis of the Form 477 data. These representatives told us that they believed service was denied because of disputes with the tribal government, low demand for service, or the high costs of extending services to the home on tribal lands. Some representatives of tribal governments or organizations we spoke with also told us that providers may have denied service because their equipment was at capacity and could not accommodate new users (see fig. 8). For example, on three of the tribal lands we visited, we observed fiber optic cable located close to government and residential structures that did not have broadband access via fiber. According to tribal government officials, despite the physical proximity of the fiber optic cable, the tribal government and residents could not access it because the provider was not offering service or was unwilling or unable to build to the structures. A few providers we interviewed stated that they may not provide services to individuals who request them because of high-costs, administrative barriers, or technical limitations. However, FCC does not collect data on service denials on the Form 477. In its Strategic Plan 2018–2022 and the National Broadband Plan, FCC identified increasing all Americans’ access to affordable broadband as a long-term, strategic goal. Congress has similarly directed FCC to develop policies and programs aimed at increasing access to affordable broadband in all regions of the United States, including tribal lands, and required FCC to report annually on its progress. According to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), agencies should use accurate and reliable data to measure progress toward achieving their goals. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that agencies should use quality information— information that is complete, appropriate, and reliable—to inform decision-making processes and evaluate the agency’s performance in achieving goals. According to these standards, agencies should also communicate quality information externally to achieve the agency’s goals. However, FCC has used its Form 477 data, which do not accurately or completely measure broadband access on tribal lands, as its primary source to evaluate progress toward FCC’s strategic goal of increasing broadband access and to develop maps and reports intended to depict broadband access on tribal lands. For example, in its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC found that 64.6 percent of Americans residing on tribal lands have access to fixed broadband services. By using these data, FCC has overstated the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can actually access broadband Internet services and FCC’s progress toward increasing broadband access. As a result, the digital divide may appear less significant as a national challenge, and FCC and tribal stakeholders working to target broadband funding to unserved or underserved tribal lands will be limited in their ability to make informed decisions. This increases the risk that residents living on tribal lands will continue to lack broadband access. Some tribal officials stated that inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan their own broadband networks and obtain federal broadband funding, and most of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed identified a pressing need for accurate data on the gaps in broadband access on tribal lands in order to ensure that tribes can qualify for federal funding and to effectively target the areas that need it most. For example, representatives for one tribal government that is providing broadband services said the government will not be able to use a federal grant to build broadband infrastructure in areas of their reservation that lack access, because the Form 477 data overstate actual access on the tribe’s land. As more than three quarters of the tribal governments we spoke to are working to provide broadband services on their lands in some capacity, overstating broadband access on tribal lands could affect the ability of a number of tribes to access federal funding to increase broadband access on their lands. As previously discussed, FCC is considering proposals to modify its Form 477 data collection as part of a 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but FCC officials told us that the Commission does not have a timeline for issuance of a final rule. While some of FCC’s proposals could help address some of the limitations identified above by, for example, collecting more granular nationwide broadband availability data, FCC has not addressed specifically the collection of more accurate and complete data on broadband access for tribal lands in this proceeding. FCC has identified the need to improve broadband data for tribal lands in particular, and as previously noted, in 2018 Congress directed FCC to develop a report evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands and initiate a proceeding to address the unserved areas identified in the report. FCC officials told us that FCC has not determined how it will address this requirement, but it is currently considering its options, including potentially addressing the requirement as part of its ongoing proposed rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477 data collection. An evaluation of broadband coverage on tribal lands that relies on the current Form 477 data would be subject to the limitations described above, including the overstatement of broadband access on tribal lands. Additionally, FCC has demonstrated that it is possible in some circumstances to collect more granular data when such data collection is targeted to a specific need or area. For example, in 2017 FCC began requiring certain providers that receive funding through the Connect America Fund to report the latitude and longitude of locations where broadband is available, and FCC has noted that these more granular data are extremely useful to the Commission, especially for rural areas where census blocks can be quite large. A few large providers and trade associations similarly stated in public comments on FCC’s proposed rulemaking to modernize the Form 477 process that FCC should target its collection of more granular broadband data to areas where the data are most likely to be overstated—specifically, large, rural census blocks with low population densities, such as those on tribal lands. Additionally, as discussed above, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection for Mobility Fund II to ensure that the mobile broadband data it collected would be reliable for the intended use. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be able to better identify tribal areas without access to broadband and to target federal broadband funding to the tribal areas most in need. FCC uses data submitted by broadband providers via the Form 477 process to develop maps and datasets depicting broadband services nationwide, and in specific locations, such as tribal lands, but does not have a formal process to obtain input from tribes on the accuracy of the broadband data. FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan noted the need for the federal government to improve the quality of data regarding broadband on tribal lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to ensure that any information collected is accurate and useful. It also noted that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review mapping data about tribal lands and offer supplemental data or corrections. Similarly, federal internal control standards note the need for federal agencies to communicate with external entities, such as tribal governments, and to enable these entities to provide quality information to the agency that will help it achieve its objectives. FCC officials told us that they address questions and concerns regarding provider coverage claims submitted to the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, which will work with tribal governments to help them identify inaccurate broadband data for tribal lands, and share tribal questions and concerns with the appropriate FCC bureaus. However, FCC does not have a formal process for tribes (or other governmental entities) to provide input to ensure that the broadband data FCC collects through the 477 process, or the resulting maps that FCC creates to depict broadband on tribal lands, are accurate. Similarly, FCC does not use other methods to verify provider-submitted Form 477 data on tribal lands against other sources of information, such as on-site tests or data collected by other agencies. When discussing the lack of a formal process for tribal representatives or other governmental entities to provide feedback on the accuracy of the 477 broadband data, FCC officials noted that if consumers and local officials have information on individual locations that lack broadband service, such information does not indicate that the entire census block lacks broadband service. Additionally, FCC officials noted that providers attest to the accuracy of the data and that FCC staff validate the data by conducting internal checks to identify possible errors, such as unlikely changes in a providers’ coverage area, and may follow-up with a provider to discuss such changes. However, these checks do not include soliciting input from tribes. About half of the tribal stakeholders we spoke to raised concerns that FCC’s broadband deployment data rely solely on unverified information submitted by providers. Additionally, most tribal stakeholders we interviewed told us that consistent with the recommendations in the National Broadband Plan, FCC should work directly with tribes to obtain information from them to improve the accuracy of its broadband deployment data for tribal lands. These stakeholders identified several ways in which FCC could work with tribes on this issue, including: conducting on-site visits with tribal stakeholders to observe the extent to which broadband infrastructure and services are present; conducting outreach and technical assistance for tribal stakeholders to raise awareness and use of FCC’s broadband data; and providing opportunities for the tribes to collect their own data or submit feedback regarding the accuracy of FCC’s data. FCC’s National Broadband Plan notes the importance of supporting tribal efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues, and federal internal control standards state that federal agencies should obtain quality information from external entities. Officials we interviewed in FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy told us that they provide some outreach and technical assistance to tribal officials at regional and national workshops, and FCC officials stated that they conducted specific outreach to tribal entities regarding the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge process, while, about half of the tribal representatives we spoke to stated that they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding maps, or raised concerns about a lack of outreach from FCC to inform tribes about the data. Some tribal stakeholders stated that if FCC were to solicit tribal input as part of its verification of the broadband data and maps, technical training and assistance could help tribes use and provide feedback on the data, or improve the collection and submission of their own data. A few of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes can face difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband availability data. For example, in 2013, prior to the auction that distributed Tribal Mobility Fund Phase 1 support, FCC allowed interested parties to challenge FCC’s preliminary determinations regarding which census blocks lacked 3G or better service and would be eligible for support in the auctions. However, all of the tribal entities that challenged the accuracy of FCC’s data were unsuccessful in increasing the number of eligible areas. According to FCC officials, the tribal entities did not provide sufficient or sufficiently verifiable information to support their challenges. A few tribal stakeholders provided varying reasons for this, one of which was the need for more technical expertise to help the tribe meet FCC’s requirements. Because FCC lacks a formal process to obtain tribal input on its broadband data, FCC is missing an important source of information regarding areas in which the data may overstate broadband service on tribal lands. Tribal stakeholders are able to provide a first-hand perspective on the extent to which service is available within their lands and the extent to which factors like affordability, service quality, and service denials affect residents’ ability to access broadband. FCC plans to award nearly $2 billion in support from the Connect America Fund to areas that it has identified as lacking broadband, including tribal lands. Any inaccuracies in its broadband data could affect FCC’s funding decisions and the ability of tribal lands to access broadband in the future. Additionally, in its 2017 report on tribal infrastructure, the National Congress of American Indians stressed the importance of including tribal governments in a leadership role with respect to collecting data on local infrastructure needs. Specifically, it stressed the need for the federal government to invest in tribal data systems and researchers to generate useful, locally specific data that can inform the development and implementation of infrastructure development projects and assess the effectiveness of those projects over time. By establishing a process to obtain input from tribal governments on the accuracy of provider- submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance, as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, FCC could help tribes develop and share locally specific information on broadband access, which would in turn improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for tribal lands. The success of such an effort may rely on the tribes’ knowledge of, and technical ability to participate in, the process. When discussing the need to improve data regarding broadband on tribal lands, FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended that FCC develop a process for tribes to receive information from providers about broadband services on tribal lands. In 2011, FCC required that Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (providers receiving Universal Service Funds from FCC) serving tribal lands meaningfully engage with tribes regarding communications services (including broadband). Specifically, the providers must file an annual report documenting that this engagement included a discussion of, among other things, a needs assessment and deployment planning for communications services, including broadband. FCC’s 2012 guidance on fulfilling the engagement obligations, which FCC officials confirmed is still in effect, noted that the stated goal of the engagement requirement was to benefit tribal government leaders, providers, and consumers by fostering a dialogue between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved services on tribal lands. The guidance further noted that the tribal engagement process “cannot be viewed as simply another ‘check the box’ requirement by either party,” and states that a provider should “demonstrate repeated good faith efforts to meaningfully engage with the tribal government.” Finally, FCC noted in its 2012 guidance that the guidance would evolve over time based on the feedback of both tribal governments and broadband providers and that FCC would develop further guidance and best practices. This approach is consistent with federal internal control standards, which call for agencies to communicate with, and obtain quality information from, external parties. About half of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed raised concerns about difficulties accessing information from providers regarding broadband deployment on their tribe’s lands, a key part of the provider engagement process, according to FCC’s guidance. For example, a representative from one tribe stated that a provider declined his requests to meet more than once a year to discuss the provider’s deployment of broadband services on the tribe’s land. A representative from another tribal government stated that some providers are very focused and transparent about their broadband plans and work with the tribe, while other providers treat tribal engagement as a “box to check” and send the tribe broadband deployment information that is not useful because it is redacted. Similarly, some tribal stakeholders stated that providers heavily redacted deployment information (which providers may consider proprietary) or required the tribe sign non-disclosure agreements to access deployment data. According to one tribal stakeholder, these non-disclosure agreements could possibly require tribes to waive tribal sovereign immunity in order to view the data. Some of the industry stakeholders we interviewed stated that they attempt to engage with tribes but the level of responsiveness from tribes varies. For example, some stakeholders stated that they send letters and do not hear back from tribes. One stakeholder stated that they make repeated attempts to contact tribes when they do not hear back after their initial contact, while another stated that a provider meets regularly with some tribes. Although FCC stated in its 2012 guidance that it would update the tribal engagement guidance and develop best practices based on feedback from tribal governments and broadband providers, it has taken limited steps to obtain such feedback from providers and tribal governments to determine whether its guidance is enabling meaningful tribal engagement. Additionally, FCC has not updated the guidance or issued best practices. Thus, FCC has limited information regarding whether its tribal engagement requirement is fulfilling its intended purpose. FCC officials we interviewed said that the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) provided information and, in some cases, held training sessions about the tribal engagement obligation during workshops with tribal representatives, and encouraged representatives to contact ONAP with any concerns. ONAP officials also noted that they handle complaints from tribes regarding a lack of provider engagement and reach out to providers to address tribal concerns. ONAP officials stated that they have had internal discussions about whether the guidance is clear or needs revision, but this has not gone beyond internal discussions. A few of the tribal stakeholders provided examples of the benefits of providers engaging with tribes to ensure tribal representatives have access to information regarding broadband availability on their lands. For example, one representative stated that this information could help the tribes plan deployments by focusing on areas that they know the provider does not plan to serve. Another representative stated that tribal engagement could help improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband maps. By obtaining feedback from both tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of FCC’s tribal engagement guidance to determine whether changes are needed, FCC would be better positioned to ensure that tribal governments and providers are sharing information in a manner that will lead to improved services on tribal lands. FCC has collected data and developed maps and reports depicting broadband on tribal lands and has noted the lower levels of broadband access on tribal lands, in comparison to other areas. However, limitations in FCC’s existing process for collecting and reporting broadband data have led FCC to overstate broadband access on tribal lands. By taking steps to address these limitations and to collect data that more accurately and completely depict broadband access on tribal lands, FCC would have greater assurance that it is making progress on reducing the digital divide on tribal lands and targeting broadband funding to tribal lands most in need. Without taking these steps, FCC increases the risk that residents living on tribal lands will continue to lack broadband access. Compounding the limitations in FCC’s data collection process is FCC’s lack of a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider- submitted broadband data for tribal lands. By developing a process to solicit tribal input and ensuring that tribes know about the process and are equipped with the technical skills and abilities necessary to provide this information, FCC would be better able to ensure the accuracy of its broadband data for tribal lands. Moreover, FCC would be able to obtain firsthand, locally specific information on broadband access that could inform FCC’s policies and funding decisions and help FCC achieve its goal of increasing broadband access for all Americans, including those living on tribal lands. Finally, by obtaining feedback from providers and tribal stakeholders on the effectiveness of FCC’s tribal engagement guidance, FCC would be better positioned to assess whether its guidance is helping providers meet requirements and ultimately whether providers’ engagement is fulling its intended purpose of fostering a dialogue between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved services on tribal lands. We are making the following three recommendations to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should develop and implement methods—such as a targeted data collection—for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands. (Recommendation 1) The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should develop a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process. (Recommendation 2) The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of FCC’s 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether FCC needs to clarify the agency’s tribal engagement statement. (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to FCC for review and comment. In written comments provided by FCC (reproduced in appendix III), FCC agreed with our findings and recommendations. In its written comments, FCC described efforts, some of which are already under way, that it felt would address each recommendation and stated its intent to build upon those efforts. For example, FCC explained that it is exploring methods to collect more granular broadband deployment data and noted the need to balance the burden on Form 477 filers. FCC also noted that it is starting work to address a statutorily-required evaluation of broadband coverage on certain tribal lands. We agree that increasing the granularity of deployment data is helpful in addressing data accuracy issues, but we also note that it is important to collect data related to factors that affect broadband access on tribal lands. FCC also described informal efforts to collect tribal feedback on providers’ broadband data and stated it would explore options for a formal process to collect feedback. Regarding our recommendation related to providers’ engagement efforts, FCC outlined its existing methods by which tribal stakeholders can provide feedback on providers’ engagement efforts and agreed that seeking additional feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers would be desirable. We agree that improving feedback in these ways could help FCC determine whether it needs to clarify its tribal engagement statement. FCC also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: List of Interviewees Representatives from tribal governments or tribally owned broadband providers Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (OK) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (WA) Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (MN) Fort Belknap Indian Community (MT) Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ) Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ) Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (WA) Karuk Tribe (CA) Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (MN) Makah Tribe (WA) Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (AZ, NM, UT) Nez Perce Tribe (ID) Osage Nation (OK) Pueblo of Acoma (NM) Pueblo of Pojoaque (NM) Pueblo of San Ildefonso (NM) Taos Pueblo (NM) Red Spectrum Communications (Coeur d’Alene Tribe (ID)) Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Networks, LLC (NY) San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc. (AZ) Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association - Tribal Digital Village Network (CA) Spokane Tribe of Indians and Spokane Tribe Telecom Exchange (WA) Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. (ND, SD) Warm Springs Telecommunications Co. (OR) Yurok Tribe and Yurok Connect (CA) Representatives from tribal associations/consortiums that include tribes Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Middle Rio Grande Pueblo Consortium National Congress of American Indians Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA) REDINet Representatives from companies/academic groups that work with tribes AMERIND Risk Arizona State University, American Indian Policy Institute and School of Public Affairs Turtle Island Communications Representatives from providers/trade associations (non-tribally owned) AT&T Representatives from companies that collect broadband data Alexicon Connected Nation Government Agencies (non-tribal) Census Bureau U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration Minnesota Office of Broadband Development One broadband provider we interviewed did not want to be included in this appendix. This report discusses the extent to which: (1) the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) approach to collecting broadband availability data accurately captures the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to access broadband Internet services and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands. To address both objectives, we analyzed FCC’s December 2016 fixed and mobile broadband availability data—the most recent data at the time of our review—to identify the speeds, technologies, and availability providers reported for federally recognized tribal lands. Providers currently report this information to FCC by filing a “Form 477,” twice a year. We also used 2010 U.S. Census data to identify census blocks completely or partially on tribal lands. To assess the reliability of FCC’s data and 2010 U.S. Census data, we reviewed a previous GAO reliability assessment, and for FCC’s data we conducted electronic testing and analysis of the data, reviewed FCC guidance and documentation, and interviewed FCC officials. Based on the results of our analysis, we determined the data to be reliable for our purposes, which were: (1) to inform our selection of tribal governments and providers for interviews and visits, as described below, and (2) to develop maps depicting fixed and mobile broadband availability for the nine tribal lands we selected for visits, in order to obtain tribal representatives’ feedback on the data. Specifically, we mapped; fixed broadband data according to speed and technology, and mobile data for long-term evolution (LTE) services by provider for each tribal land. We used those maps during our visits to discuss the accuracy of the data with representatives for each tribal government or tribally owned provider. Though we analyzed all up and download speeds that providers reported in the Form 477, for the purposes of this report we defined “broadband” as fixed Internet service reaching at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload speeds, in accordance with FCC’s advanced telecommunications capability benchmark in its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. We also report on the availability of mobile broadband, which, for the purposes of this report, does not have a speed threshold and refers to long-term evolution (LTE) services. To address both objectives and obtain tribal government representatives’ feedback on the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for their lands, we interviewed representatives from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands. We considered a range of factors when we selected tribal governments and tribally owned providers for interviews, including our analysis of Form 477 data, recommendations from tribal, industry, or government stakeholders regarding tribal and non- tribal representatives familiar with broadband data issues, and demographic and geographic characteristics, among others. For example, we considered demographic characteristics such as unemployment rate from the 2011– 2015 American Community Survey data, and geographic characteristics such as rurality from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes data. The tribes included in our review vary with respect to location, level of broadband availability according to FCC, land mass, and population size and density. The results of our interviews are not generalizable to all tribal governments or tribally owned broadband providers. In addition to tribal governments and tribally owned providers, we interviewed six tribal organizations and four stakeholders who work with tribes on broadband issues. For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal responses from the 35 entities representing tribal stakeholders we interviewed: 3 to 7 is defined as “a few;” 8 to 15 is described as “some;” 16 to 20 is described as “about half;” 21 to 27 is described as “most;” and 28 to 34 is described as “almost all.” A full list of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed can be found in appendix I. Further, to obtain industry perspectives, we reviewed public comments submitted by providers and industry associations in FCC’s ongoing 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data Program. We also interviewed 10 non-tribally owned fixed and mobile broadband providers and three industry associations to understand providers’ views on the Form 477 and how providers interact with tribal governments. When selecting providers for interviews, we included providers that reported serving the lands of tribal governments we interviewed and selected providers that varied in the percentage of tribal lands they reported serving. The providers we interviewed represent large, nationwide carriers as well as small, local carriers, and offer broadband via a variety of technologies, including fiber optics, digital subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless, and mobile LTE. The results of our interviews with providers are not generalizable to all broadband providers. In addition, to address both objectives, we interviewed representatives from other government entities, as well as private companies that collect and report broadband data. A full list of the industry stakeholders we interviewed can be found in appendix I. To identify the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband availability data reflects the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to actually access broadband Internet services, we reviewed documentation of the Form 477 process, including submission guidance, and FCC’s proposals and public comments in its 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data Program and Mobility Fund Phase II proceedings. We also interviewed FCC officials, industry stakeholders, and tribally owned broadband providers to understand FCC’s current process for collecting broadband data. To understand the purpose of the Form 477 data collection process and FCC’s strategic goals, we reviewed relevant statutes, and FCC documents, including FCC’s Strategic Plan 2018––2022, the National Broadband Plan, and FCC’s broadband deployment and progress reports. Given the importance placed on broadband access in these documents, we interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above and reviewed FCC documents to identify factors affecting the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to access broadband Internet services. We also reviewed previous GAO work that identified barriers to broadband access on tribal lands. We compared the Form 477 process to FCC’s strategic goals and to factors affecting broadband access to determine the extent to which the Form 477 was designed to collect information on those factors and to meet FCC’s goals. We further evaluated this information against the Government Performance and Results Act, as enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also reviewed documentation for other FCC data collection programs, including the Measuring Broadband America program and the Urban Rate Survey, to determine the extent to which FCC collected data on factors affecting broadband access outside of the Form 477 process. To determine the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands, we interviewed FCC officials and analyzed FCC documents regarding the collection procedures for the Form 477 data and FCC’s policies for working with tribal governments, as well as Connect America Fund documents regarding requirements for providers to share information with tribal governments. We also reviewed documents on past FCC Universal Service Fund processes to challenge broadband data and identified prior instances in which tribal governments or tribally owned providers challenged FCC’s broadband data and the outcomes of those challenges. Additionally, we interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above, to understand the extent to which: (1) FCC involves tribal governments and other stakeholders in the validation of Form 477 broadband data, (2) tribal governments can access broadband data from FCC or providers, and (3) FCC’s Form 477 data accurately reflected broadband access on their lands. For the nine tribal lands we visited, we asked tribal governments or tribally owned providers to identify where the data do or do not accurately reflect broadband access on maps of FCC’s data. Further, to identify how providers complied with FCC’s tribal engagement requirement and obtain their perspectives, we interviewed providers and industry associations. We compared FCC’s data validation procedures and tribal stakeholders’ feedback on the process to FCC’s policies for working with tribal governments, FCC recommendations from the National Broadband Plan and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also interviewed and received written comments from officials from other federal agencies that have broadband programs, including USDA Rural Utilities Service, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and others, in addition to a state agency and three private companies that collect and report broadband data to understand how other entities collect and validate broadband data. We conducted this performance audit from June 2017 to September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director); Crystal Huggins (Analyst in Charge); Katherine Blair; Lilia Chaidez; Camilo Flores; Adam Gomez; Serena Lo; Jeffery Malcolm; John Mingus; Joshua Ormond; Jay Spaan; James Sweetman, Jr.; Elaine Vaurio; and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.

 

 Report 2:
While no commonly accepted definition of a community bank exists, they are generally smaller banks that provide banking services to the local community and have management and board members who reside in the local community. In some of our past reports, we often defined community banks as those with under $10 billion in total assets. However, many banks have assets well below $10 billion as data from the financial condition reports that institutions submit to regulators (Call Reports) indicated that of the more than 6,100 banks in the United States, about 90 percent had assets below about $1.2 billion as of March 2016. Based on our prior interviews and reviews of documents, regulators and others have observed that small banks tend to differ from larger banks in their relationships with customers. Large banks are more likely to engage in transactional banking, which focuses on the provision of highly standardized products that require little human input to manage and are underwritten using statistical information. Small banks are more likely to engage in what is known as relationship banking in which banks consider not only data models but also information acquired by working with the banking customer over time. Using this banking model, small banks may be able to extend credit to customers such as small business owners who might not receive a loan from a larger bank. Small business lending appears to be an important activity for community banks. As of June 2017, community banks had almost $300 billion outstanding in loans with an original principal balance of under $1 million (which banking regulators define as small business lending), or about 20 percent of these institutions’ total lending. In that same month, non- community banks had about $390 billion outstanding in business loans under $1 million representing 5 percent of their total lending. Credit unions are nonprofit member-owned institutions that take deposits and make loans. Unlike banks, credit unions are subject to limits on their membership because members must have a “common bond”—for example, working for the same employer or living in the same community. Financial reports submitted to NCUA (the regulator that oversees federally-insured credit unions) indicated that of the more than 6,000 credit unions in the United States, 90 percent had assets below about $393 million as of March 2016. In addition to providing consumer products to their members, credit unions are also allowed to make loans for business activities subject to certain restrictions. These member business loans are defined as a loan, line of credit, or letter of credit that a credit union extends to a borrower for a commercial, industrial, agricultural, or professional purpose, subject to certain exclusions. In accordance with rules effective January 2017, the total amount of business lending credit unions can do is not to generally exceed 1.75 times the actual net worth of the credit union. Federal banking and credit union regulators have responsibility for ensuring the safety and soundness of the institutions they oversee, protecting federal deposit insurance funds, promoting stability in financial markets, and enforcing compliance with applicable consumer protection laws. All depository institutions that have federal deposit insurance have a federal prudential regulator. The regulator responsible for overseeing a community bank or credit union varies depending on how the institution is chartered, whether it is federally insured, and whether it is a Federal Reserve member (see table 1). Other federal agencies also impose regulatory requirements on banks and credit unions. These include rules issued by CFPB, which has supervision and enforcement authority for various federal consumer protection laws for depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets and their affiliates. The Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, and NCUA continue to supervise for consumer protection compliance at institutions that have $10 billion or less in assets. Although community banks and credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets typically would not be subject to CFPB examinations, they generally are required to comply with CFPB rules related to consumer protection. In addition, FinCEN also issues requirements that financial institutions, including banks and credit unions, must follow. FinCEN is a component of Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence that supports government agencies by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating financial intelligence information to combat money laundering. It is responsible for administering the Bank Secrecy Act, which, with its implementing regulations, generally requires banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, to collect and retain various records of customer transactions, verify customers’ identities in certain situations, maintain AML programs, and report suspicious and large cash transactions. FinCEN relies on financial regulators and others to examine U.S. financial institutions to determine compliance with these requirements. In addition, financial institutions also have to comply with requirements by Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control to review transactions to ensure that business is not being done with sanctioned countries or individuals. In response to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd- Frank Act, which became law on July 21, 2010. The act includes numerous reforms to strengthen oversight of financial services firms, including consolidating consumer protection responsibilities within CFPB. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, federal financial regulatory agencies were directed to or granted authority to issue hundreds of regulations to implement the act’s reforms. Many of the provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act target the largest and most complex financial institutions, and regulators have noted that much of the act is not meant to apply to community banks. Although the Dodd-Frank Act exempts small institutions, such as community banks and credit unions, from several of its provisions, and authorizes federal regulators to provide small institutions with relief from certain regulations, it also contains provisions that impose additional restrictions and compliance costs on these institutions. As we reported in 2012, federal regulators, state regulatory associations, and industry associations collectively identified provisions within 7 of the act’s 16 titles that they expected to affect community banks and credit unions. The provisions they identified as likely to affect these institutions included some of the act’s mortgage reforms, such as those requiring institutions to ensure that a consumer obtaining a residential mortgage loan has the reasonable ability to repay the loan at the time the loan is consummated; comply with a new CFPB rule that combines two different mortgage loan disclosures that had been required by the Truth-in-Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974; and ensure that property appraisers are sufficiently independent. In addition to the regulations that have arisen from provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, we reported that other regulations have created potential burdens for community banks. For example, the depository institution regulators also issued changes to the capital requirements applicable to these institutions. Many of these changes were consistent with the Basel III framework, which is a comprehensive set of reforms to strengthen global capital and liquidity standards issued by an international body consisting of representatives of many nations’ central banks and regulators. These new requirements significantly changed the risk-based capital standards for banks and bank holding companies. As we reported in November 2014, officials interviewed from community banks did not anticipate any difficulties in meeting the U.S. Basel III capital requirements but expected to incur additional compliance costs. In addition to regulatory changes that could increase burden or costs on community banks, some of the Dodd-Frank Act provisions have likely resulted in reduced costs for these institutions. For example, revisions to the way that deposit insurance premiums are calculated reduced the amount paid by banks with less than $10 billion in assets by $342 million or 33 percent from the first to second quarter of 2011 after the change became effective. Another change reduced the audit-related costs that some banks were incurring in complying with provisions of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act. A literature search indicated that prior studies by other entities, including regulators, trade associations or others, which examined how to measure regulatory burden generally focused on direct costs resulting from compliance with regulations, and our analysis of them identified various limitations that restrict their usefulness in assessing regulatory burden. For example, researchers commissioned by the Credit Union National Association, which advocates for credit unions, found costs attributable to regulations totaled a median of 0.54 percent of assets in 2014 for a non- random sample of the 53 small, medium, and large credit unions responding to a nationwide survey. However, one of the study’s limitations was its use of a small, non-random sample of credit unions. In addition, the research was not designed to conclusively link changes in regulatory costs for the sampled credit unions to any one regulation or set of regulations. CFPB also conducted a study of regulatory costs associated with specific regulations applicable to checking accounts, traditional savings accounts, debit cards, and overdraft programs. Through case studies involving 200 interviews with staff at seven commercial banks with assets over $1 billion, the agency’s staff determined that the banks’ costs related to ongoing regulatory compliance were concentrated in operations, information technology, human resources, and compliance and retail functions, with operations and information technology contributing the highest costs. While providing detailed information about the case study institutions, reliance on a small sample of mostly large commercial banks limits the conclusions that can be drawn about banks’ regulatory costs generally. In addition, the study notes several challenges to quantifying compliance costs that made their cost estimates subject to some measurement error, and the study’s design limits the extent to which a causal relationship between financial regulations and costs could be fully established. Researchers from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University used a nongeneralizable survey of banks to find that respondents believed they were spending more money and staff time on compliance than before due to Dodd-Frank regulations. From a universe of banks with less than $10 billion of assets, the center’s researchers used a non-random sample to collect 200 responses to a survey sent to 500 banks with assets less than $10 billion about the burden of complying with regulations arising from the Dodd-Frank Act. The survey sought information on the respondents’ characteristics, products, and services and the effects various regulatory and compliance activities had on operations and decisions, including those related to bank profitability, staffing, and products. About 83 percent of the respondents reported increased compliance costs of greater than or equal to 5 percent due to regulatory requirements stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act. The study’s limitations include use of a non-random sample selection, small response rate, and use of questions that asked about the Dodd-Frank Act in general. In addition, the self-reported survey items used to capture regulatory burden—compliance costs and profitability—have an increased risk of measurement error and the causal relationship between Dodd- Frank Act requirements and changes in these indicators is not well- established. Community bank and credit union representatives that we interviewed identified three sets of regulations as most burdensome to their institutions: (1) data reporting requirements related to loan applicants and loan terms under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA); (2) transaction reporting and customer due diligence requirements as part of the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti-money laundering laws and regulations (collectively, BSA/AML); and (3) disclosures of mortgage loan fees and terms to consumers under the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) regulations. In focus groups and interviews, many of the institution representatives said these regulations were time- consuming and costly to comply with, in part because the requirements were complex, required preparation of individual reports that had to be reviewed for accuracy, or mandated actions within specific timeframes. However, federal regulators and consumer advocacy groups said that benefits from these regulations were significant. Representatives of community banks and credit unions in all our focus groups and in most of our interviews told us that HMDA’s data collection and reporting requirements were burdensome. Under HMDA and its implementing Regulation C, banks and credit unions with more than $45 million in assets that do not meet regulatory exemptions must collect, record, and report to the appropriate federal regulator, data about applicable mortgage lending activity. For every covered mortgage application, origination, or purchase of a covered loan, lenders must collect information such as the loan’s principal amount, the property location, the income relied on in making the credit decision, and the applicants’ race, ethnicity, and sex. Institutions record this on a form called the loan/application register, compile these data each calendar year, and submit them to CFPB. Institutions have also been required to make these data available to the public upon request, after modifying them to protect the privacy of applicants and borrowers. Representatives of many community banks and credit unions with whom we spoke said that complying with HMDA regulations was time consuming. For example, representatives from one community bank we interviewed said it completed about 1,100 transactions that required HMDA reporting in 2016, and that its staff spent about 16 hours per week complying with Regulation C. In one focus group, participants discussed how HMDA compliance was time consuming because the regulations were complex, which made determining whether a loan was covered and should be reported difficult. As a part of that discussion, one bank representative told us that it was not always clear whether a residence that was used as collateral for a commercial loan was a reportable mortgage under HMDA. In addition, representatives in all of our focus groups in which HMDA was discussed and in some interviews said that they had to provide additional staff training for HMDA compliance. Among the 28 community banks and credit unions whose representatives commented on HMDA in our focus groups, 61 percent noted having to conduct additional HMDA-related training. In most of our focus groups and three of our interviews, representatives of community banks and credit unions also expressed concerns about how federal bank examiners review HMDA data for errors. When regulatory examiners conducting compliance examinations determine that an institution’s HMDA data has errors above prescribed thresholds, the institution has to correct and resubmit its data, further adding to the time required for compliance. While regulators have revised their procedures for assessing errors as discussed later, prior to 2018, if 10 percent or more of the loan/application registers that examiners reviewed had errors, an institution was required to review all of their data, correct any errors, and resubmit them. If 5 percent or more of the reviewed loan/application registers had errors in a single data field, an institution had to review all other registers and correct the data in that field. Participants in one focus group discussed how HMDA’s requirements left them little room for error and that they were concerned that examiners weigh all HMDA fields equally when assessing errors. For example, representatives of one institution noted that for purposes of fair lending enforcement, errors in fields such as race and ethnicity can be more important than errors in the action taken date (the field for the date when a loan was originated or when an application not resulting in an origination was received). Representatives of one institution also noted that they no longer have access to data submission software that allowed them to verify the accuracy of some HMDA data, and this has led to more errors in their submissions. Representatives of another institution told us that they had to have staff conduct multiple checks of HMDA data to ensure the data met accuracy standards, which added to the time needed for compliance. Representatives of many community banks and credit unions with whom we spoke also expressed concerns that compliance requirements for HMDA were increasing. The Dodd-Frank Act included provisions to expand the information institutions must collect and submit under HMDA, and CFPB issued rules implementing these new requirements that mostly became effective January 2018. In addition to certain new data requirements specified in the act, such as age and the total points and fees payable at origination, CFPB’s amendments to the HMDA reporting requirements also added additional data points, including some intended to collect more information about borrowers such as credit scores, as well as more information about the features of loans, such as fees and terms. In the final rule implementing the new requirements, CFPB also expanded the types of loans on which some institutions must report HMDA data to include open-ended lines of credit and reverse mortgages. Participants in two of our focus groups with credit unions said reporting this expanded information will require more staff time and training and cause them to purchase new or upgraded computer software. In most of our focus groups, participants said that changes should be made to reduce the burdens associated with reporting HMDA data. For example, in some focus groups, participants suggested raising the threshold for institutions that have to file HMDA reports above the then current $44 million in assets, which would reduce the number of small banks and credit unions that are required to comply. Representatives of two institutions noted that because small institutions make very few loans compared to large ones, their contribution to the overall HMDA data was of limited value in contrast to the significant costs to the institutions to collect and report the data. Another participant said their institution sometimes make as few as three loans per month. In most of our focus groups, participants also suggested that regulators could collect mortgage data in other ways. For example, one participant discussed how it would be less burdensome for lenders if federal examiners collected data on loan characteristics during compliance examinations. However, staff of federal regulators and consumer groups said that HMDA data are essential for enforcement of fair lending laws and regulations. Representatives of CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC and groups that advocate for consumer protection issues said that HMDA data has helped address discriminatory practices. For example, some representatives noted a decrease in “redlining” (refusing to make loans to certain neighborhoods or communities). CFPB staff noted that HMDA data provides transparency about lending markets, and that HMDA data from community banks and credit unions is critical for this purpose, especially in some rural parts of the country where they make the majority of mortgage loans. While any individual institution’s HMDA reporting might not make up a large portion of HMDA data for an area, CFPB staff told us that if all smaller institutions were exempted from HMDA requirements, regulators would have little or no data on the types of mortgages or on lending patterns in some areas. Agency officials also told us that few good alternatives to HMDA data exist and that the current collection regime is the most effective available option for collecting the data. NCUA officials noted that collecting mortgage data directly from credit unions during examinations to enforce fair lending rules likely would be more burdensome for the institutions. CFPB staff and consumer advocates we spoke with also said that HMDA provides a low-cost data source for researchers and local policy makers, which leads to other benefits that cannot be directly measured but are included in HMDA’s statutory goals—such as allowing local policymakers to target community investments to areas with housing needs. While representatives of some community banks and credit unions argued that HMDA data were no longer necessary because practices such as redlining have been reduced and they receive few requests for HMDA data from the public, representatives of some consumer advocate groups responded that eliminating the transparency that HMDA data creates could allow discriminatory practices to become more common. CFPB staff and representatives of one of these consumer groups also said that before the financial crisis of 2007–2009, some groups were not being denied credit outright but instead were given mortgages with terms, such as high interest rates, which made them more likely to default. The expanded HMDA data will allow regulators to detect such problematic lending practices for mortgage terms. CFPB and FDIC staff also told us that while lenders will have to collect and report more information, the new fields will add context to lending practices and should reduce the likelihood of incorrectly flagging institutions for potential discrimination. For example, with current data, a lender may appear to be denying mortgage applications to a particular racial or ethnic group, but with expanded data that includes applicant credit scores, regulators may determine that the denials were appropriate based on credit score underwriting. CFPB staff acknowledged that HMDA data collection and reporting may be time consuming, and said they have taken steps to reduce the associated burdens for community banks and credit unions. First, in its final rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act’s expanded HMDA data requirements, CFPB added exclusions for banks and credit unions that make very few mortgage loans. Effective January 2018, an institution will be subject to HMDA requirements only if it has originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans or at least 100 covered open-end lines of credit in each of the 2 preceding calendar years and also has met other applicable requirements. In response to concerns about the burden associated with the new requirement for reporting open-end lines of credit, in 2017. CFPB temporarily increased the threshold for collecting and reporting data for open-end lines of credit from 100 to 500 for the 2018 and 2019 calendar years. CFPB estimated that roughly 25 percent of covered depository institutions will no longer be subject to HMDA as a result of these exclusions. Second, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), which includes CFPB, announced the new FFIEC HMDA Examiner Transaction Testing Guidelines that specify when agency examiners should direct an institution to correct and resubmit its HMDA data due to errors found during supervisory examinations. CFPB said these revisions should greatly reduce the burden associated with resubmissions. Under the revised standards, institutions will no longer be directed to resubmit all their HMDA data if they exceeded the threshold for HMDA files with errors, but will still be directed to correct specific data fields that have errors exceeding the specified threshold. The revised guidelines also include new tolerances for some data fields, such as application date and loan amount. Third, CFPB also introduced a new online system for submitting HMDA data in November 2017. CFPB staff said that the new system, the HMDA Platform, will reduce errors by including features to allow institutions to validate the accuracy and correct the formatting of their data before submitting. They also noted that this platform will reduce burdens associated with the previous system for submitting HMDA data. For example, institutions no longer will have to regularly download software, and multiple users within an institution will be able to access the platform. NCUA officials added that some credit unions had tested the system and reported that it reduced their reporting burden. Finally, on December 21, 2017, CFPB issued a public statement announcing that, for HMDA data collected in 2018, CFPB does not intend to require resubmission of HMDA data unless errors are material, and does not intend to assess penalties for errors in submitted data. CFPB also announced that it intends to open a rule making to reconsider various aspects of the 2015 HMDA rule, such as the thresholds for compliance and data points that are not required by statute. In all our focus groups and many of our interviews, participants said they found BSA/AML requirements to be burdensome due to the staff time and other costs associated with their compliance efforts. To provide regulators and law enforcement with information that can aid in pursuing criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations, BSA/AML statutes and regulations require covered financial institutions to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) for cash transactions conducted by a customer for aggregate amounts of more than $10,000 per day and Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) for activity that might signal criminal activity (such as money laundering or tax evasion); and establish BSA/AML compliance programs that include efforts to identify and verify customers’ identities and monitor transactions to report, for example, transactions that appear to violate federal law. Participants in all of our focus groups discussed how BSA/AML compliance was time-consuming, and in most focus groups participants said this took time away from serving customers. For example, representatives of one institution we interviewed told us that completing a single SAR could take 4 hours, and that they might complete 2 to 5 SARs per month. However, representatives of another institution said that at some times of the year it has filed more than 300 SARs per month. In a few cases, representatives of institutions saw BSA/AML compliance as burdensome because they had to take actions that seemed unnecessary based on the nature of the transactions. For example, one institution’s representatives said that filing a CTR because a high school band deposited more than $10,000 after a fundraising activity seemed unnecessary, while another’s said that it did not see the need to file SARs for charitable organizations that are well known in their community. Representatives of institutions in most of our focus groups also noted that BSA/AML regulations required additional staff training. Some of these representatives noted that the requirements are complex and the activities, such as identifying transactions potentially associated with terrorism, are outside of their frontline staff’s core competencies. Representatives in all focus groups and a majority of interviews said BSA imposes financial costs on community banks and credit unions that must be absorbed by those institutions or passed along to customers. In most of our focus groups, representatives said that they had to purchase or upgrade software systems to comply with BSA/AML requirements, which can be expensive. Some representatives also said they had to hire third parties to comply with BSA/AML regulations. Representatives of some institutions also noted that the compliance requirements do not produce any material benefits for their institutions. In most of our focus groups, participants were particularly concerned that the compliance burden associated with BSA/AML regulations was increasing. In 2016, FinCEN—the bureau in the Department of the Treasury that administers BSA/AML rules—issued a final rule that expanded due-diligence requirements for customer identification. The final rule was intended to strengthen customer identification programs by requiring institutions to obtain information about the identities of the beneficial owners of businesses opening accounts at their institutions. The institutions covered by the rule are expected to be in compliance by May 11, 2018. Some representatives of community banks and credit unions that we spoke with said that this new requirement will be burdensome. For example, one community bank’s representatives said the new due-diligence requirements will require more staff time and training and cause them to purchase new or upgraded computer systems. Representatives of some institutions also noted that accessing beneficial ownership information about companies can be difficult, and that entities that issue business licenses or tax identification numbers could perform this task more easily than financial institutions. In some of our focus groups, and in some comment letters that we reviewed that community banks and credit unions submitted to bank regulators and NCUA as part of the EGRPRA process, representatives of community banks and credit unions said regulators should take steps to reduce the burdens associated with BSA/AML. Participants in two of our focus groups and representatives of two institutions we interviewed said that the $10,000 CTR threshold, which was established in 1972, should be increased, noting it had not been adjusted for inflation. One participant told us that if this threshold had been adjusted for inflation over time, it likely would be filing about half of the number of CTRs that it currently files. In several focus groups, participants also indicated that transactions that must be checked against the Office of Foreign Assets Control list also should be subject to a threshold amount. Representatives of one institution noted that they have to complete time-consuming compliance work for even very small transactions (such as less than $1). Representatives of some institutions suggested that the BSA/AML requirements be streamlined to make it easier for community banks and credit unions to comply. For example, representatives of one institution that participated in the EGRPRA review suggested that institutions could provide regulators with data on all cash transactions in the format in which they keep these records rather than filing CTRs. Finally, participants in one focus group said that regulators should better communicate how the information that institutions submit contributes to law enforcement successes in preventing or prosecuting crimes. Staff from FinCEN told us that the reports and due-diligence programs required in BSA/AML rules are critical to safeguarding the U.S. financial sector from illicit activity, including illegal narcotics and terrorist financing activities. They said they rely on CTRs and SARs that financial institutions file for the financial intelligence they disseminate to law enforcement agencies, and noted that they saw all BSA/AML requirements as essential because activities are designed to complement each other. Officials also pointed out that entities conducting terrorism, human trafficking, or fraud all rely heavily on cash, and reporting frequently made deposits makes tracking criminals easier. They said that significant reductions in BSA/AML reporting requirements would hinder law enforcement, especially because depositing cash through ATMs has become very easy. FinCEN staff said they utilize a continuous evaluation process to look for ways to reduce burden associated with BSA/AML requirements, and noted actions taken as a result. They said that FinCEN has several means of soliciting feedback about potential burdens, including through its Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group that consists of industry, regulatory, and law enforcement representatives who meet twice a year, and also through public reporting and comments received through FinCEN’s regulatory process. FinCEN officials said that based on this advisory group’s recommendations, the agency provided SAR filing relief by reducing the frequency of submission for written SAR summaries on ongoing activity from 90 days to 120 days. FinCEN also has recognized that financial institutions do not generally see the beneficial impacts of their BSA/AML efforts, and officials said they have begun several different feedback programs to address this issue. FinCEN staff said they have been discussing ways to improve the CTR filing process, but in response to comments obtained as part of a recent review of regulatory burden they noted that the staff of law enforcement agencies do not support changing the $10,000 threshold for CTR reporting. FinCEN officials said that they have taken some steps to reduce the burden related to CTR reporting, such as by expanding the ability of institutions to seek CTR filing exemptions, especially for low-risk customers. FinCEN is also utilizing its advisory group to examine aspects of the CTR reporting obligations to assess ways to reduce reporting burden, but officials said it is too early to know the outcomes of the effort. However, FinCEN officials said that while evaluation of certain reporting thresholds may be appropriate, any changes to them or other CTR requirements to reduce burden on financial institutions, must still meet the needs of regulators and law enforcement, and prevent misuse of the financial system. FinCEN staff also said that some of the concerns raised about the upcoming requirements on beneficial ownership may be based on misunderstandings of the rule. FinCEN officials told us that under the final rule, financial institutions can rely on the beneficial ownership information provided to them by the entity seeking to open the account. Under the final rule, the party opening an account on behalf of the legal entity customer is responsible for providing beneficial ownership information, and the financial institution may rely on the representations of the customer unless it has information that calls into question the accuracy of those representations. The financial institution does not have to confirm ownership; rather, it has to verify the identity of the beneficial owners as reported by the individual seeking to open the account, which can be done with photocopies of identifying documents such as a driver’s license. FinCEN issued guidance explaining this aspect of the final rule in 2016. In all of our focus groups and many of our interviews, representatives of community banks and credit unions said that new requirements mandating consolidated disclosures to consumers for mortgage terms and fees have increased the time their staff spend on compliance, increased the cost of providing mortgage lending services, and delayed the completion of mortgages for customers. The Dodd Frank Act directed CFPB to issue new requirements to integrate mortgage loan disclosures that previously had been separately required by the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and their implementing regulations, Regulation Z and X, respectively. Effective in October 2015, the combined TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (known as TRID) requires mortgage lenders to disclose certain mortgage terms, conditions, and fees to loan applicants during the origination process for certain mortgage loans and prescribe how the disclosures should be made. The disclosure provisions also require lenders, in the absence of specified exceptions, to reimburse or refund to borrowers portions of certain fees that exceed the estimates previously provided in order to comply with the revised regulations. Under TRID, lenders generally must provide residential mortgage loan applicants with two forms, and deliver these documents within specified time frames (as shown in fig. 1). Within 3 business days of an application and at least 7 business days before a loan is consummated, lenders must provide the applicant with the loan estimate, which includes estimates for all financing costs and fees and other terms and conditions associated with the potential loan. If circumstances change after the loan estimate has been provided (for example, if a borrower needs to change the loan amount), a new loan estimate may be required. At least 3 days before a loan is consummated, lenders must provide the applicant with the closing disclosure, which has the loan’s actual terms, conditions, and associated fees. If the closing disclosure is mailed to an applicant, lenders must wait an additional 3 days for the applicant to receive it before they can execute the loan, unless they can demonstrate that the applicant has received the closing disclosure. If the annual percentage rate or the type of loan change after the closing disclosure is provided, or if a prepayment penalty is added, a new closing disclosure must be provided and a new 3-day waiting period is required. Other changes made to the closing disclosure require the provision of a revised closing disclosure, but a new 3-day waiting period is not required. If the fees in the closing disclosure are more than the fees in the loan estimate (subject to some exceptions and tolerances discussed later in this section), the lender must reimburse the applicant for the amount of the increase in order to comply with the applicable regulations. In all of our focus groups and most of our interviews, representatives of community banks and credit unions said that TRID has increased the time required to comply with mortgage disclosure requirements and increased the cost of mortgage lending. In half of our focus groups, participants discussed how they have had to spend additional time ensuring the accuracy of their initial estimates of mortgage costs, including fees charged by third parties, in part because they are now financially responsible for changes in fees during the closing process. Some participants also discussed how they have had to hire additional staff to meet TRID’s requirements. In one focus group of community banks, participants described how mortgage loans frequently involve the use of multiple third parties, such as appraisers and inspectors, and obtaining accurate estimates of the amounts these parties will charge for their services within the 3-day period prescribed by TRID can be difficult. The community banks we spoke with also discussed how fees from these parties often change at closing, and ensuring an accurate estimate at the beginning of the process was not always possible. As a result, some representatives said that community banks and credit unions have had to pay to cure or correct the difference in changed third-party fees that are outside their control. In most of our focus groups and some of our interviews, representatives told us that this TRID requirement has made originating a mortgage more costly for community banks and credit unions. Community banks and credit unions in half of our focus groups and some of our interviews also told us that TRID’s requirements are complex and difficult to understand, which adds to their compliance burden. Participants in one focus group noted that CFPB’s final rule implementing TRID was very long—the rule available on CFPB’s website is more than 1,800 pages including the rule’s preamble—and has many scenarios that require different actions by mortgage lenders or trigger different responsibilities as the following examples illustrate. Some fees in the loan estimate, such as prepaid interest, may be subsequently changed provided that the estimates were in good faith. Other fees, such as for third-party services where the charge is not paid to the lender or the lender’s affiliate, may be changed by as much as 10 percent in aggregate before the lender becomes liable for the difference. However, for some charges the lender must reimburse or refund to the borrower portions of subsequent increases, such as fees paid to the creditor, mortgage broker, or a lender affiliate, without any percentage tolerance. Based on a poll we conducted in all six focus groups, 40 of 43 participants said that they had to provide additional training to staff to ensure that TRID’s requirements were understood, which takes additional time from serving customers. In all of our focus groups and most of our interviews, community banks and credit unions also said that TRID’s mandatory waiting periods and disclosure schedules increased the time required to close mortgage loans, which created burdens for the institutions and their customers. Several representatives we interviewed told us that TRID’s waiting periods led to delays in closings of about 15 days. The regulation mandates that mortgage loans generally cannot be consummated sooner than 7 business days after the loan estimate is provided to an applicant, and no sooner than 3 business days after the closing disclosure is received by the applicant. If the closing disclosure is mailed, the lender must add another 3 business days to the closing period to allow for delivery. Representatives in some of our focus groups said that when changes needed to be made to a loan during the closing period, TRID requires them to restart the waiting periods, which can increase delays. For example, if the closing disclosure had been provided, and the loan product needed to be changed, a new closing disclosure would have to be provided and the applicant given at least 3 days to review it. Some representatives we interviewed said that their customers are frustrated by these delays and would like to close their mortgages sooner than TRID allows. Others said that TRID’s waiting periods decreased flexibility in scheduling the closing date, which caused problems for homebuyers and sellers (for instance, because transactions frequently have to occur on the same day). However, CFPB officials and staff of a consumer group said that TRID has streamlined previous disclosure requirements and is important for ensuring that consumers obtaining mortgages are protected. CFPB reported that for more than 30 years lenders have been required by law to provide mortgage disclosures to borrowers, and CFPB staff noted that prior time frames were similar to those required by TRID and Regulation Z. CFPB also noted that information on the disclosure forms that TRID replaced was sometimes overlapping, used inconsistent terminology, and could confuse consumers. In addition, CFPB staff and staff of a consumer group said that the previous disclosures allowed some mortgage-related fees to be combined, which prevented borrowers from knowing what charges for specific services were. They said that TRID disclosures better highlight important items for home buyers, allowing them to more readily compare loan options. Furthermore, CFPB staff told us that before TRID, lenders and other parties commonly increased a mortgage loan’s fees during the closing process, and then gave borrowers a “take it or leave it” choice just before closing. As a result, borrowers often just accepted the increased costs. CFPB representatives said that TRID protects consumers from this practice by shifting the responsibility for most fee increases to lenders, and increases transparency in the lending process. CFPB staff told us that it is too early to definitively identify what impact TRID has had on borrowers’ understanding of mortgage terms, but told us that some information they have seen indicated that it has been helpful. For example, CFPB staff said that preliminary results from the National Survey of Mortgage Originations conducted in 2017 found that consumer confidence in mortgage lending increased. While CFPB staff said that this may indicate that TRID, which became effective in October 2015, has helped consumers better understand mortgage terms, they noted that the complete survey results are not expected to be released until 2018. CFPB staff said that these results should provide valuable information on how well consumers generally understood mortgage terms and whether borrowers were comparison shopping for loans that could be used to analyze TRID’s effects on consumer understanding of mortgage products. CFPB staff also told us that complying with TRID should not result in significant time being added to the mortgage closing process. Based on the final rule, they noted that TRID’s waiting periods should not lead to delays of more than 3 days. CFPB staff also pointed out that the overall 7-day waiting period and the 3-day waiting period can be modified or waived if the consumer has a bona fide personal financial emergency, and thus should not be creating delays for those consumers. To waive the waiting period, consumers have to provide the lender with a written statement that describes the emergency. CFPB staff also said that closing times are affected by a variety of factors and can vary substantially, and that the delays that community banks and credit unions we spoke with reported may not be representative of the experiences of other lenders. A preliminary CFPB analysis of industry-published mortgage closing data found that closing times increased after it first implemented TRID, but that the delays subsequently declined. CFPB staff also said that they plan to analyze closing times using HMDA data now that they are collecting these data, and that they expect that delays that community banks and credit unions may have experienced so far would decrease as institutions adjusted to the new requirements. Based on our review of TRID’s requirements and discussions with community banks and credit unions, some of the burden related to TRID that community banks and credit unions described appeared to result from institutions taking actions not required by regulations, and community banks and credit unions told us they still were confused about TRID requirements. For example, representatives of some institutions we interviewed said that they believed TRID requires the entire closing disclosure process to be restarted any time any changes were made to a loan’s amount. CFPB staff told us that this is not the case, and that revised loan estimates can be made in such cases without additional waiting periods. Representatives of several other community banks and credit unions cited 5- and 10-day waiting periods not in TRID requirements, or believed that the 7-day waiting period begins after the closing disclosure is received by the applicant, rather than when the loan estimate is provided. Participants in one focus group discussed that they were confused about when to provide disclosures and what needs to be provided. Representatives of one credit union said that if they did not understand a requirement, it was in their best interest to delay closing to ensure they were in compliance. CFPB staff said that they have taken several steps to help lenders understand TRID requirements. CFPB has published a Small Entity Compliance Guide and a Guide to the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure Forms. As of December 2017, these guides were accessible on a TRID implementation website that has links to other information about the rule, as well as blank forms and completed samples. CFPB staff told us that the bureau conducted several well-attended, in-depth webinars to explain different aspects of TRID, including one with more than 20,000 participants, and that recordings of the presentations remained available on the bureau’s TRID website. CFPB also encourages institutions to submit questions about TRID through the website, and the staff said that they review submitted questions for any patterns that may indicate that an aspect of the regulation is overly burdensome. However, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that CFPB’s guidance for TRID had not met the needs of mortgage lenders. In a 2017 report on reforming CFPB, this association stated that timely and accessible answers to frequently asked questions about TRID were still needed, noting that while CFPB had assigned staff to answer questions, these answers were not widely circulated. The association also reported that it had made repeated requests for additional guidance related to TRID, but the agency largely did not respond with additional materials in response to these requests. Although we found that misunderstandings of TRID requirements could be creating unnecessary compliance burdens for some small institutions, CFPB had not assessed the effectiveness of the guidance it provided to community banks and credit unions. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, CFPB has a general responsibility to ensure its regulations are not unduly burdensome, and internal control standards direct federal agencies to analyze and respond to risks related to achieving their defined objectives. However, CFPB staff said that they have not directly assessed how well community banks and credit unions have understood TRID requirements and acknowledged that some of these institutions may be applying the regulations improperly. They said that CFPB intends to review the effectiveness of its guidance, but did not indicate when this review would be completed. Until the agency assesses how well community banks and credit unions understand TRID requirements, CFPB may not be able to effectively respond to the risk that some smaller institutions have implemented TRID incorrectly, unnecessarily burdening their staff and delaying consumers’ home purchases. We did not find that regulators directed institutions to comply with regulations from which they were exempt, although institutions were concerned about the appropriateness of examiner expectations. To provide regulatory relief to community banks and credit unions, Congress and regulators have sometimes exempted smaller institutions from the need to comply with all or part of some regulations. Such exemptions are often based on the size of the financial institution or the level of particular activities. For example, CFPB exempted institutions with less than $45 million in assets and fewer than 25 closed-end mortgage loans or 500 open-end lines of credit from the expanded HMDA reporting requirements. In January 2013, CFPB also included exemptions for some institutions in a rule related to originating loans that meet certain characteristics—known as qualified mortgages—in order for the institutions to receive certain liability protections if the loans later go into default. To qualify for this treatment, the lenders must make a good faith effort to determine a borrower’s ability to repay a loan and the loan must not include certain risky features (such as interest-only or balloon payments). In its final rule, CFPB included exemptions that allow small creditors to originate loans with certain otherwise restricted features (such as balloon payments) and still be considered qualified mortgage loans. Concerns expressed to legislators about exemptions not being applied appeared to be based on misunderstandings of certain regulations. For example, in June 2016, a bank official testified that he thought his bank would be exempt from all of CFPB’s requirements. However, CFPB’s rules applicable to banks apply generally to all depository institutions, although CFPB only conducts compliance examinations for institutions with assets exceeding $10 billion. The depository institution regulators continue to examine institutions with assets below this amount (the overwhelming majority of banks and credit unions) for compliance with regulations enacted by CFPB. Although not generalizable, our analysis of select examinations did not find that regulators directed institutions to comply with requirements from which they were exempt. In our interviews with representatives from 17 community banks and credit unions, none of the institutions’ representatives identified any cases in which regulators required their institution to comply with a regulatory requirement from which they should have been exempt. We also randomly selected and reviewed examination reports and supporting material for 28 examinations conducted by the regulators to identify any instances in which the regulators had not applied exemptions. From our review of the 28 examinations, we found no instances in the examination reports or the scoping memorandums indicating that examiners had required these institutions to comply with the regulations covered by the eight selected exemptions. Because of the limited number of the examinations we reviewed, we cannot generalize our findings to the regulatory treatment of all institutions qualifying for exemptions. Although not identifying issues relating to exemptions, representatives of community banks and credit unions in about half of our interviews and focus groups expressed concerns that their regulators expected them to follow practices they did not feel corresponded to the size or risks posed by their institutions. For example, representatives from one institution we interviewed said that examiners directed them to increase BSA/AML activities or staff, whereas they did not see such expectations as appropriate for institutions of their size. Similarly, in public forums held by regulators as part of their EGRPRA reviews (discussed in the next section) a few bank representatives stated that regulators sometimes considered compliance activities by large banks to be best practices, and then expected smaller banks to follow such practices. However, institution representatives in the public forums and in our interviews and focus groups that said sometimes regulators’ expectations for their institutions were not appropriate, but did not identify specific regulations or practices they had been asked to consider following when citing these concerns. To help ensure that applicable exemptions and regulatory expectations are appropriately applied, federal depository institution regulators told us they train their staff in applicable requirements and conduct senior-level reviews of examinations to help ensure that examiners only apply appropriate requirements and expectations on banks and credit unions. Regulators said that they do not conduct examinations in a one-size-fits- all manner, and aim to ensure that community banks and credit unions are held to standards appropriate to their size and business model. To achieve this, they said that examiners undergo rigorous training. For example, FDIC staff said that its examiners have to complete four core trainings and then receive ongoing on-the-job instruction. Each of the four regulators also said they have established quality assurance programs to review and assess their examination programs periodically. For example, each Federal Reserve Bank reviews its programs for examination inconsistency and the Federal Reserve Board staff conducts continuous and point-in-time oversight reviews of Reserve Banks’ examination programs to identify issues or problems, such as examination inconsistency. The depository institution regulators also said that they have processes for depository institutions to appeal examination findings if they feel they were held to inappropriate standards. In addition to less formal steps, such as contacting a regional office, each of the four regulators have an ombudsman office to which institutions can submit complaints or concerns about examination findings. Staffs of the various offices are independent from the regulators’ management and work with the depository institutions to resolve examination issues and concerns. If the ombudsman is unable to resolve the complaints, then the institutions can further appeal their complaints through established processes. Federal depository institution regulators address regulatory burden of their regulated institutions through the rulemaking process and also through retrospective reviews that may provide some regulatory relief to community banks. However, the retrospective review process has some limitations that limit its effectiveness in assessing and addressing regulatory burden on community banks and credit unions. Federal depository institution regulators can address the regulatory burden of their regulated institutions throughout the rulemaking process and through mandated, retrospective or “look back” reviews. According to the regulators, attempts to reduce regulatory burden start during the initial rulemaking process. Staff from FDIC, Federal Reserve, NCUA, and OCC all noted that when promulgating rules, their staff seek input from institutions and others throughout the process to design requirements that achieve the goals of the regulation at the most reasonable cost and effort for regulated entities. Once a rule has been drafted, the regulators publish it in the Federal Register for public comment. The staff noted that regulators often make revisions in response to the comments received to try to reduce compliance burdens in the final regulation. After regulations are implemented, banking regulators also address regulatory burdens by periodically conducting mandated reviews of their regulations. The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA) directs three regulators (Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC, as agencies represented on the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council) to review at least every 10 years all of their regulations and through public comment identify areas of the regulations that are outdated, unnecessary or unduly burdensome on insured depository institutions. Under the act, the regulators are to categorize their regulations and provide notice and solicit public comment on all the regulations for which they have regulatory authority. The act also includes a number of requirements on how the regulators should conduct the review, including reporting results to Congress. The first EGRPRA review was completed in 2007. The second EGRPRA review began in 2014 and the report summarizing its results was submitted to Congress in March 2017. While NCUA is not required to participate in the EGRPRA review (because EGRPRA did not include the agency in the list of agencies that must conduct the reviews), NCUA has been participating voluntarily. NCUA’s assessment of its regulations appears in separate sections of the reports provided to Congress for each of the 2007 and 2017 reviews. Regulators began the most recent EGRPRA review by providing notice and soliciting comments in 2014–2016. The Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC issued four public notices in the Federal Register seeking comments from regulated institutions and interested parties on 12 categories of regulations they promulgated. The regulators published a list of all the regulations they administer in the notices and asked for comments, including comments on the extent to which regulations were burdensome. Although not specifically required under EGRPRA, the regulators also held six public meetings across the country with several panels of banks and community groups. At each public meeting, at least three panels of bank officials represented banks with assets of generally less than $5 billion and a large number of the panels included banks with less than $2 billion in assets. Panels were dedicated to specific regulations or sets of regulations. For example, one panel covered capital-related rules, consumer protection, and director-related rules, and another addressed BSA/AML requirements. Although panels were dedicated to specific regulations or sets of regulations, the regulators invited comment on all of their regulations at all public meetings. The regulators then assessed the public comments they received and described actions they intended to take in response. EGRPRA requires that the regulators identify the significant issues raised by the comments. The regulators generally deemed the issues that received the most public comments as significant. For the 2017 report, representatives at the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC reviewed, evaluated, and summarized more than 200 comment letters and numerous oral comments they received. For interagency regulations that received numerous comments, such as those relating to capital and BSA/AML requirements, the comment letters for each were provided to staff of one of the three regulators or to previously established interagency working groups to conduct the initial assessments. The regulators’ comment assessments also included reviews by each agency’s subject-matter experts, who prepared draft summaries of the concerns and proposed agency responses for each of the rules that received comments. According to one bank regulator, the subject-matter experts assessed the comments across three aspects: (1) whether a suggested change to the regulation would reduce bank burdens; (2) how the change to the regulation would affect the safety and soundness of the banking system; and (3) whether a statutory change would be required to address the comment. The summaries drafted by the subject-matter experts then were shared with staff representing all three regulators and further revised. The staff of the three regulators said they then met jointly to analyze the merits of the comments and finalize the comment responses and the proposed actions for approval by senior management at all three regulators. In the 2017 report summarizing their assessment of the comments received, the regulators identified six significant areas in which commenters raised concerns: (1) capital rules, (2) financial condition reporting (Call Reports), (3) appraisal requirements, (4) examination frequency, (5) Community Reinvestment Act, and (6) BSA/AML. Based on our analysis of the 2017 report, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC had taken or pledged to take actions to address 11 of the 28 specific concerns commenters had raised across these six areas. We focused our analysis on issues within the six significant issues that affected the smaller institution and defined an action taken by the regulators as a change or revision to a regulation or the issuance of guidance. Capital rules. The regulators noted in the 2017 EGRPRA report that they received comment letters from more than 30 commenters on the recently revised capital requirements. Although some of the concerns commenters expressed related to issues affecting large institutions, some commenters sought to have regulators completely exempt smaller institutions from the requirements. Others objected to the amounts of capital that had to be held for loans made involving more volatile commercial real estate. In response, the regulators stated that the more than 500 failures of banks in the recent crisis, most of which were community banks, justified requiring all banks to meet the new capital requirements. However, they pledged in the report to make some changes, and have recently proposed rules that would alter some of the requirements. For example, on September 27, 2017, the regulators proposed several revisions to the capital requirements that would apply to banks not subject to the advanced approach requirements under the capital rules (generally, banks with less than $250 billion in assets and less than $10 billion in total foreign exposure). For example, the proposed rule simplifies the capital treatment for certain commercial acquisition, development, and construction loans, and would change the treatment of mortgage servicing assets. Call Reports. The regulators also received more than 30 comments relating to the reports—known as Call Reports—that banks file with the regulators outlining their financial condition and performance. Generally, the commenters requested relief (reducing the number of items required to be reported) for smaller banks and also asked that the frequency of reporting for some items be reduced. In response to these concerns, the regulators described a review of the Call Report requirements intended to reduce the number of items to be reported to the regulators. The regulators had started this effort to address Call Report issues soon after the most recent EGRPRA process had begun in June 2014. In the 2017 EGRPRA report, the regulators noted that they developed a new Call Report form for banks with assets of less than $1 billion and domestic offices only. For instance, according to the regulators, the new form reduced the number of items such banks had to report by 40 percent. Staff from the regulators told us that about 3,500 banks used the new small-bank reporting form in March 2017, which represented about 68 percent of the banks eligible to use the new form. OCC officials told us that an additional 100 federally chartered banks submitted the form for the 2017 second quarter reporting period. After the issuance of the 2017 EGRPRA report, in June 2017 the regulators issued additional proposed revisions to the three Call Report forms that banks are required to complete. These proposed changes are to become effective in June 2018. For example, one of the proposed changes to the new community bank Call Report form would change the frequency of reporting certain data on non-accrual assets— nonperforming loans that are not generating their stated interest rate— from quarterly to semi-annually. In November 2017, the agencies issued further proposed revision to the community bank Call Report that would delete or consolidate a number of items and add a new, or raise certain existing, reporting thresholds. The proposed revision would take effect as of June 2018. Appraisals. The three bank regulators and NCUA received more than 160 comments during the 2017 EGRPRA process related to appraisal requirements. The commenters included banks and others that sought to raise the size of the loans that require appraisals, and a large number of appraisers that objected to any changes in the requirements According to the EGRPRA report, several professional appraiser associations argued that raising the threshold could undermine the safety and soundness of lenders and diminish consumer protection for mortgage financing. These commenters argued that increasing the thresholds could encourage banks to neglect collateral risk-management responsibilities. In response, in July 2017, the regulators proposed raising the threshold for when an appraisal is required from $250,000 to $400,000 for commercial real estate loans. The regulators indicated that the appraisal requirements for 1-4 family residential mortgage loans above the current $250,000 would not be appropriate at the this time because they believed having such appraisals for loans above that level increased the safety of those loans and better protected consumers and because other participants in the housing market, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the government-sponsored enterprises, also required appraisals for loans above that amount. However, the depository institution regulators included in the proposal a request for comment about the appraisal requirements for residential real estate and what banks think are other factors that should be included when considering the threshold for these loans. As part of the 2017 EGRPRA process, the regulators also received comments indicating that banks in rural areas were having difficulty securing appraisers. In the EGRPRA report, the regulators acknowledged this difficulty and in May 2017, the bank regulators and NCUA issued agency guidance on how institutions could obtain temporary waivers and use other means to expand the pool of persons eligible to prepare appraisals in cases in which suitable appraiser staff were unavailable. The agencies also responded to commenters who found the evaluation process confusing by issuing an interagency advisory on the process in March 2016. Evaluations may be used instead of an appraisal for certain transactions including those under the threshold. Frequency of safety and soundness examinations. As part of the 2017 EGRPRA process, the agencies also received comments requesting that they raise the total asset threshold for an insured depository institution to qualify for the extended 18-month examination cycle from $1 billion to $2 billion and to further extend the examinations cycle from 18 months to 36 months. During the EGRPRA process, Congress took legislative action to reduce examination frequency for smaller, well-capitalized banks. In 2015, the FAST Act raised the threshold for the 18-month examination cycle from less than $500 million to less than $1 billion for certain well-capitalized and well-managed depository institutions with an “outstanding” composite rating and gave the agencies discretion to similarly raise this threshold for certain depository institutions with an “outstanding” or “good” composite rating. The agencies exercised this discretion and issued a final rule in 2016 making qualifying depository institutions with less than $1 billion in total assets eligible for an 18-month (rather than a 12-month) examination cycle. According to the EGRPRA report, agency staff estimated that the final rules allowed approximately 600 more institutions to qualify for an extended 18-month examination cycle, bringing the total number of qualifying institutions to 4,793. Community Reinvestment Act. The commenters in the 2017 EGRPRA process also raised various issues relating to the Community Reinvestment Act, including the geographic areas in which institutions were expected to provide loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers and whether credit unions should be required to comply with the act’s requirements. The regulators noted that they were not intending to take any actions to revise regulations relating to this act because many of the revisions the commenters suggested would require changes to the statute (that is, legislative action). The regulators also noted that they had addressed some of the concerns by revising the Interagency Questions and Answers relating to this act in 2016. Furthermore, the agencies noted that they have been reviewing their existing examination procedures and practices to identify policy and process improvements. BSA/AML. The regulators also received a number of comments as part of the 2017 EGRPRA process on the burden institutions encounter in complying with BSA/AML requirements. These included the threshold for reporting currency transactions and suspicious activities. The regulators also received comments on both BSA/AML examination frequency and the frequency of safety and soundness examinations generally. Agencies typically review BSA/AML compliance programs during safety and soundness examinations. As discussed previously, regulators allowed more institutions of outstanding or good composite condition to be examined every 18 months instead of every 12 months. Institutions that qualify for less frequent safety-and-soundness examinations also will be eligible for less frequent BSA/AML examinations. For the remainder of the issues raised by commenters, the regulators noted they do not have the regulatory authority to revise the requirements but provided the comments to FinCEN, which has authority for these regulations. A letter with FinCEN’s response to the comments was included as an appendix of the EGRPRA report. In the letter, the FinCEN Acting Director stated that FinCEN would work through the issues raised by the comments with its advisory group consisting of regulators, law enforcement staff, and representatives of financial institutions. Additional Burden Reduction Actions. In addition to describing some changes in response to the comments deemed significant, the regulators’ 2017 report also includes descriptions of additional actions the individual agencies have taken or planned to take to reduce the regulatory burden for banks, including community banks. The Federal Reserve Board noted that it changed its Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement that allows small bank holding companies to hold more debt than permitted for larger bank holding companies. In addition, the Federal Reserve noted that it had made changes to certain supervisory policies, such as issuing guidance on assessing risk management for banks with less than $50 billion in assets and launching an electronic application filing system for banks and bank holding companies. OCC noted that it had issued two final rules amending its regulations for licensing/chartering and securities-related filings, among other things. According to OCC staff, the agency conducted an internal review of its agency-specific regulations and many of the changes to these regulations came from the internal review. The agency also noted that it integrated its rules for national banks and federal savings associations where possible. In addition, OCC noted that it removed redundant and unnecessary information requests from those made to banks before examinations. FDIC noted that it had rescinded enhanced supervisory procedures for newly insured banks and reduced the consumer examination frequency for small and newly insured banks. Similarly to OCC, FDIC is integrating its rules for both non-state member banks and state- chartered savings and loans associations. In addition, FDIC noted it had issued new guidance on banks’ deposit insurance filings and reduced paperwork for new bank applications. The 2017 report also presents the results of NCUA’s concurrent efforts to obtain and respond to comments as part of the EGRPRA process. NCUA conducts its review separately from the bank regulators’ review. In four Federal Register notices in 2015, NCUA sought comments on 76 regulations that it administers. NCUA received about 25 comments raising concerns about 29 of its regulations, most of which were submitted by credit union associations. NCUA received no comments on 47 regulations. NCUA’s methodology for its regulatory review was similar to the bank regulators’ methodology. According to NCUA, all comment letters responding to a particular notice were collected and reviewed by NCUA’s Special Counsel to the General Counsel, an experienced, senior-level attorney with overall responsibility for EGRPRA compliance. NCUA staff told us that criteria applied by the Special Counsel in his review included relevance, depth of understanding and analysis exhibited by the comment, and degree to which multiple commenters expressed the same or similar views on an issue. The Special Counsel prepared a report summarizing the substance of each comment. The comment summary was reviewed by the General Counsel and circulated to the NCUA Board and reviewed by the Board members and staff. NCUA identified in its report the following as significant issues relating to credit union regulation: (1) field of membership and chartering; (2) member business lending; (3) federal credit union ownership of fixed assets; (4) expansion of national credit union share insurance coverage; and (5) expanded powers for credit unions. For these, NCUA took various actions to address the issues raised in the comments. For example, NCUA modified and updated its field of credit union membership by revising the definition of a local community, rural district and underserved area, which provided greater flexibility to federal credit unions seeking to add a rural district to their field of membership. NCUA also lessened some of the restrictions on member lending to small business; and raised some of the asset thresholds for what would be defined as a small credit union so that fewer requirements would apply to these credit unions. Also, in April 2016, the NCUA Board issued a proposed rule that would eliminate the requirement that federal credit unions must have a plan by which they will achieve full occupancy of premises within an explicit time frame. The proposal would allow for federal credit unions to plan for and manage their use of office space and related premises in accordance with their own strategic plans and risk-management policies. The bank and credit union regulators’ process for the 2007 EGRPRA review also began with Federal Register notices that requested comments on regulations. The regulators then reviewed and assessed the comments and issued a report in 2007 to Congress in which they noted actions they took in some of the areas raised by commenters. Our analysis of the regulators’ responses indicated that the regulators took responsive actions in a few areas. The regulators noted they already had taken action in some cases (including after completion of a pending study and as a result of efforts to work with Congress to obtain statutory changes). However, for the remaining specific concerns, the four regulators indicated that they would not be taking actions. Similar to its response in 2017, NCUA discussed its responses to the significant issues raised about regulations in a separate section of the 2007 report. Our analysis indicated that NCUA took responsive actions in about half of the areas. For example, NCUA adjusted regulations in one case and in another case noted previously taken actions. For comments related to three other areas, NCUA took actions not reflected in the 2007 report because the actions were taken over a longer time frame (in some cases, after 8 years). In the remaining areas, NCUA deemed actions as not being desirable in four cases and outside of its authority in two other cases. The bank regulators do not conduct other retrospective reviews of regulations outside of the EGRPRA process. We requested information from the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC about any discretionary regulatory retrospective reviews that they performed in addition to the EGRPRA review during 2012–2016. All three regulators reported to us they have not conducted any retrospective regulatory reviews outside of EGRPRA since 2012. However, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), federal agencies are required to conduct what are referred to as section 610 reviews. The purpose of these reviews is to determine whether certain rules should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of small entities. Section 610 reviews are to be conducted within 10 years of an applicable rule’s publication. As part of other work, we assessed the bank regulators’ section 610 reviews and found that the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC conducted retrospective reviews that did not fully align with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s requirements. Officials at each of the agencies stated that they satisfy the requirements to perform section 610 reviews through the EGRPRA review process. However, we found that the requirements of the EGRPRA reviews differ from those of the RFA-required section 610 reviews, and we made recommendations to these regulators to help ensure their compliance with this act in a separate report issued in January 2018. In addition to participating in the EGRPRA review, NCUA also reviews one-third of its regulations every year (each regulation is reviewed every 3 years). NCUA’s “one-third” review employs a public notice and comment process similar to the EGRPRA review. If a specific regulation does not receive any comments, NCUA does not review the regulation. For the 2016 one-third review, NCUA did not receive comments on 5 of 16 regulations and thus these regulations were not reviewed. NCUA made technical changes to 4 of the 11 regulations that received comments. In August 2017, NCUA staff announced they developed a task force for conducting additional regulatory reviews, including developing a 4-year agenda for reviewing and revising NCUA’s regulations. The primary factors they said they intend to use to evaluate their regulations will be the magnitude of the benefit and the degree of effort that credit unions must expend to comply with the regulations. Because the 4-year reviews will be conducted on all of NCUA’s regulations, staff noted that the annual one-third regulatory review process will not be conducted again until 2020. Our analysis of the EGRPRA review found three limitations to the current process. First, the EGRPRA statute does not include CFPB and thus the significant mortgage-related regulations and other regulations that it administers— regulations that banks and credit unions must follow—were not included in the EGRPRA review. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, CFPB was given financial regulatory authority, including for regulations implementing the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C); the Truth-in-Lending Act (Regulation Z); and the Truth-in-Savings Act (Regulation DD). These regulations apply to many of the activities that banks and credit unions conduct; the four depository institution regulators conduct the large majority of examinations of these institutions’ compliance with these CFPB-administered regulations. However, EGRPRA was not amended after the Dodd-Frank Act to include CFPB as one of the agencies that must conduct the EGRPRA review. During the 2017 EGRPRA review, the bank regulators only requested public comments on consumer protection regulations for which they have regulatory authority. But the banking regulators still received some comments on the key mortgage regulations and the other regulations that CFPB now administers. Our review of 2017 forum transcripts identified almost 60 comments on mortgage regulations, such as HMDA and TRID. The bank regulators could not address these mortgage regulation-related comments because they no longer had regulatory authority over these regulations; instead, they forwarded these comment letters to CFPB staff. According to CFPB staff, their role in the most recent EGRPRA process was very limited. CFPB staff told us they had no role in assessing the public comments received for purposes of the final 2017 EGRPRA report. According to one bank regulator, the bank regulators did not share non- mortgage regulation-related letters with CFPB staff because those comment letters did not involve CFPB regulations. Another bank regulator told us that CFPB was offered the opportunity to participate in the outreach meetings and were kept informed of the EGRPRA review during the quarterly FFIEC meetings that occurred during the review. Before the report was sent to Congress, CFPB staff said that they reviewed several late-stage drafts, but generally limited their review to ensuring that references to CFPB’s authority and regulations and its role in the EGRPRA process were properly characterized and explained. As a member of FFIEC, which issued the final report, CFPB’s Director was given an opportunity to review the report again just prior to its approval by FFIEC. CFPB must conduct its own reviews of regulations after they are implemented. Section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires CFPB to conduct an assessment of each significant rule or order adopted by the bureau under federal consumer financial law. CFPB must publish a report of the assessment not later than 5 years after the effective date of such rule or order. The assessment must address, among other relevant factors, the rule’s effectiveness in meeting the purposes and objectives of title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and specific goals stated by CFPB. The assessment also must reflect available evidence and any data that CFPB reasonably may collect. Before publishing a report of its assessment, CFPB must invite public comment on recommendations for modifying, expanding, or eliminating the significant rule or order. CFPB announced in Federal Register notices in spring 2017 that it was commencing assessments of rules related to Qualified Mortgage/Ability- to-Repay requirements, remittances, and mortgage servicing regulations. The notices described how CFPB planned to assess the regulations. In each notice, CFPB requested comment from the public on the feasibility and effectiveness of the assessment plan, data, and other factual information that may be useful for executing the plan; recommendations to improve the plan and relevant data; and data and other factual information about the benefits, costs, impacts, and effectiveness of the significant rule. Reports of these assessments are due in late 2018 and early 2019. According to CFPB staff, the requests for data and other factual information are consistent with the statutory requirement that the assessment must reflect available evidence and any data that CFPB reasonably may collect. The Federal Register notices also describe other data sources that CFPB has in-house or has been collecting pursuant to this requirement. CFPB staff told us that they have not yet determined whether certain other regulations that apply to banks and credit unions, such as the revisions to TRID and HMDA requirements, will be designated as significant and thus subjected to the one-time assessments. CFPB staff also told us they anticipate that within approximately 3 years after the effective date of a rule, it generally will have determined whether the rule is a significant rule for section 1022(d) assessment purposes. In tasking the bank regulators with conducting the EGRPRA reviews, Congress indicated its intent was to require these regulators to review all regulations that could be creating undue burden on regulated institutions. According to a Senate committee report relating to EGRPRA, the purpose of the legislation was to minimize unnecessary regulatory impediments for lenders, in a manner consistent with safety and soundness, consumer protection, and other public policy goals, so as to produce greater operational efficiency. Some in Congress have recognized that the omission of CFPB in the EGRPRA process is problematic, and in 2015 legislation was introduced to require that CFPB—and NCUA—formally participate in the EGRPRA review. Currently, without CFPB’s participation, key regulations that affect banks and credit unions may not be subject to the review process. In addition, these regulations may not be reviewed if CFPB does not deem them significant. Further, if reviewed, CFPB’s mandate is for a one-time, not recurring, review. CFPB staff told us that they have two additional initiatives designed to review its regulations, both of which have been announced in CFPB’s spring and fall 2017 Semiannual Regulatory Agendas. First, CFPB launched a program to periodically review individual existing regulations—or portions of large regulations—to identify opportunities to clarify ambiguities, address developments in the marketplace, or modernize or streamline provisions. Second, CFPB launched an internal task force to coordinate and bolster their continuing efforts to identify and relieve regulatory burdens, including with regard to small businesses such as community banks that potentially will address any regulation the agency has under its jurisdiction. Staff told us the agency has been considering suggestions it received from community banks and others on ways to reduce regulatory burden. However, CFPB has not provided public information specifically on the extent to which it intends to review regulations applicable to community banks and credit unions and other institutions or provided information on the timing and frequency of the reviews. In addition, it has not indicated the extent to which it will coordinate the reviews with the federal depository institution regulators as part of the EGRPRA reviews. Until CFPB publicly provides additional information indicating its commitment to periodically review the burden of all its regulations, community banks, credit unions, and other depository institutions may face diminished opportunities for relief from regulatory burden. Second, the federal depository institution regulators have not conducted or reported on quantitative analyses during the EGRPRA process to help them determine if changes to regulations would be warranted. Our analysis of the 2017 report indicated that in responses to comments in which the regulators did not take any actions, the regulators generally only provided their arguments against taking actions and did not cite analysis or data to support their narrative. In contrast, other federal agencies that are similarly tasked with conducting retrospective regulatory reviews are required to follow certain practices for such reviews that could serve as best practices for the depository institution regulators. For example, the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-4 guidance on regulatory analysis notes that a good analysis is transparent and should allow qualified third parties reviewing such analyses to clearly see how estimates and conclusions were determined. In addition, executive branch agencies that are tasked under executive orders to conduct retrospective reviews of regulations they issue generally are required under these orders to collect and analyze quantitative data as part of assessing the costs and benefits of changing existing regulations. However, EGRPRA does not require the regulators to collect and report on any quantitative data they collected or analyzed as part of assessing the potential burden of regulations. Conducting and reporting on how they analyzed the impact of potential regulatory changes to address burden could assist the depository institution regulators in conducting their EGRPRA reviews. For example, as discussed previously, Community Reinvestment Act regulations were deemed a significant issue, with commenters questioning the relevance of requiring small banks to make community development loans and suggesting that the asset threshold for this requirement be raised from $1 billion to $5 billion. The regulators told us that if the thresholds were raised, then community development loans would decline, particularly in underserved communities. However, regulators did not collect and analyze data for the EGRPRA review to determine the amount of community development loans provided by banks with assets of less than $1 billion; including a discussion of quantitative analysis might have helped show that community development loans from smaller community banks provided additional credit in communities—and thus helped to demonstrate the benefits of not changing the requirement as commenters requested. By not performing and reporting quantitative analyses where appropriate in the EGRPRA review, the regulators may be missing opportunities to better assess regulatory impacts after a regulation has been implemented, including identifying the need for any changes or benefits from the regulations and making their analyses more transparent to stakeholders. As the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-4 guidance on the development of regulatory analysis noted, sound quantitative estimates of costs and benefits, where feasible, are preferable to qualitative descriptions of benefits and costs because they help decision makers understand the magnitudes of the effects of alternative actions. By not fully describing their rationale for the analyses that supported their decisions, regulators may be missing opportunities to better communicate their decisions to stakeholders and the public. Lastly, in the EGRPRA process, the federal depository institution regulators have not assessed the ways that the cumulative burden of the regulations they administer may have created overlapping or duplicative requirements. Under the current process, the regulators have responded to issues raised about individual regulations based on comments they have received, not on bodies of regulations. However, congressional intent in tasking the depository institution regulators with the EGRPRA reviews was to ensure that they considered the cumulative effect of financial regulations. A 1995 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs report stated while no one regulation can be singled out as being the most burdensome, and most have meritorious goals, the aggregate burden of banking regulations ultimately affects a bank’s operations, its profitability, and the cost of credit to customers. For example, financial regulations may have created overlapping or duplicative regulations in the areas of safety and soundness. One primary concern noted in the EGRPRA 2017 report was the amount of information or data banks are required to provide to regulators. For example, the cumulative burden of information collection was raised by commenters in relation to Call Reports, Community Reinvestment Act, and BSA/AML requirements. But in the EGRPRA report, the regulators did not examine how the various reporting requirements might relate to each other or how they might collectively affect institutions. In contrast, the executive branch agencies that conduct retrospective regulatory reviews must consider the cumulative effects of their own regulations, including cumulative burdens. For example, Executive Order 13563 directs agencies, to the extent practicable, to consider the costs of cumulative regulations. Executive Order 13563 does not apply to independent regulatory agencies such as the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, NCUA, or CFPB. A memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance to the agencies required to follow this order for assessing the cumulative burden and costs of regulations. The actions suggested for careful consideration include conducting early consultations with affected stakeholders to discuss potential interactions between rulemaking under consideration and existing regulations as well as other anticipated regulatory requirements. The executive order also directs agencies to consider regulations that appear to be attempting to achieve the same goal. However, other researchers often acknowledge that cumulative assessments of burden are difficult. Nevertheless, until the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and NCUA identify ways to consider the cumulative burden of regulations, they may miss opportunities to streamline bodies of regulations to reduce the overall compliance burden among financial institutions, including community banks and credit unions. For example, regulations applicable to specific activities of banks, such as lending or capital, could be assessed to determine if they have overlapping or duplicative requirements that could be revised without materially reducing the benefits sought by the regulations. New regulations for financial institutions enacted in recent years have helped protect mortgage borrowers, increase the safety and soundness of the financial system, and facilitate anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering efforts. But the regulations also entail compliance burdens, particularly for smaller institutions such as community banks and credit unions, and the cumulative burden on these institutions can be significant. Representatives from the institutions with which we spoke cited three sets of regulations—HMDA, BSA/AML, and TRID—as most burdensome for reasons that included their complexity. In particular, the complexity of TRID regulations appears to have contributed to misunderstandings that in turn caused institutions to take unnecessary actions. While regulators have acted to reduce burdens associated with the regulations, CFPB has not assessed the effectiveness of its TRID guidance. Federal internal control standards require agencies to analyze and respond to risks to achieving their objectives, and CFPB’s objectives include addressing regulations that are unduly burdensome. Assessing the effectiveness of TRID guidance represents an opportunity to reduce misunderstandings that create additional burden for institutions and also affect individual consumers (for instance, by delaying mortgage closings). The federal depository institution regulators (FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC, as well as NCUA) also have opportunities to enhance the activities they undertake during EGRPRA reviews. Congress intended that the burden of all regulations applicable to depository institutions would be periodically assessed and reduced through the EGRPRA process. But because CFPB has not been included in this process, the regulations for which it is responsible were not assessed, and CFPB has not yet provided public information about what regulations it will review, and when, and whether it will coordinate with other regulators during EGPRA reviews. Until such information is publicly available, the extent to which the regulatory burden of CFPB regulation will be periodically addressed remains unclear. The effectiveness of the EGRPRA process also has been hampered by other limitations, including not conducting and reporting on depository institution regulators’ analysis of quantitative data and assessing the cumulative effect of regulations on institutions. Addressing these limitations in their EGRPRA processes likely would make the analyses the regulators perform more transparent, and potentially result in additional burden reduction. We make a total of 10 recommendations, which consist of 2 recommendations to CFPB, 2 to FDIC, 2 to the Federal Reserve, 2 to OCC, and 2 to NCUA. The Director of CFPB should assess the effectiveness of TRID guidance to determine the extent to which TRID’s requirements are accurately understood and take steps to address any issues as necessary. (Recommendation 1) The Director of CFPB should issue public information on its plans for reviewing regulations applicable to banks and credit unions, including information describing the scope of regulations the timing and frequency of the reviews, and the extent to which the reviews will be coordinated with the federal depository institution regulators as part of their periodic EGRPRA reviews. (Recommendation 2) The Chairman, FDIC, should, as part of the EGRPRA process, develop plans for their regulatory analyses describing how they will conduct and report on quantitative analysis whenever feasible to strengthen the rigor and transparency of the EGRPRA process. (Recommendation 3) The Chairman, FDIC, should, as part of the EGRPRA process, develop plans for conducting evaluations that would identify opportunities for streamlining bodies of regulation. (Recommendation 4) The Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, should, as part of the EGRPRA process develop plans for their regulatory analyses describing how they will conduct and report on quantitative analysis whenever feasible to strengthen the rigor and transparency of the EGRPRA process. (Recommendation 5) The Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, should, as part of the EGRPRA process, develop plans for conducting evaluations that would identify opportunities to streamline bodies of regulation. (Recommendation 6) The Comptroller of the Currency should, as part of the EGRPRA process, develop plans for their regulatory analyses describing how they will conduct and report on quantitative analysis whenever feasible to strengthen the rigor and transparency of the EGRPRA process. (Recommendation 7) The Comptroller of the Currency should, as part of the EGRPRA process, develop plans for conducting evaluations that would identify opportunities to streamline bodies of regulation. (Recommendation 8) The Chair of NCUA should, as part of the EGRPRA process, develop plans for their regulatory analyses describing how they will conduct and report on quantitative analysis whenever feasible to strengthen the rigor and transparency of the EGRPRA process. (Recommendation 9) The Chair of NCUA should, as part of the EGRPRA process, develop plans for conducting evaluations that would identify opportunities to streamline bodies of regulation. (Recommendation 10) We provided a draft of this report to CFPB, FDIC, FinCEN, the Federal Reserve, NCUA, and OCC. We received written comments from CFPB, FDIC, the Federal Reserve, NCUA, and OCC that we have reprinted in appendixes II through VI, respectively. CFPB, FDIC, FinCEN, the Federal Reserve, NCUA, and OCC also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In its written comments, CFPB agreed with the recommendation to assess its TRID guidance to determine the extent to which it is understood. CFPB stated it intends to solicit public input on how it can improve its regulatory guidance and implementation support. In addition, CFPB agreed with the recommendation on issuing public information on its plan for reviewing regulations. CFPB committed to developing additional plans with respect to their reviews of key regulations and to publicly releasing such information and in the interim, CFPB stated it intends to solicit public input on how it should approach reviewing regulations. FDIC stated that it appreciated the two recommendations and stated that it would work with the Federal Reserve and OCC to find the most appropriate ways to ensure that the three regulators continue to enhance their rulemaking analyses as part of the EGRPRA process. In addition, FDIC stated that as part of the EGRPRA review process, it would continue to monitor the cumulative effects of regulation through for example, a review of the community and quarterly banking studies and community bank Call Report data. The Federal Reserve agreed with the two recommendations pertaining to the EGRPRA process. Regarding the need conduct and report on quantitative analysis whenever feasible to strengthen and to increase the transparency of the EGRPRA process, the Federal Reserve plans to coordinate with FDIC and OCC to identify opportunities to conduct quantitative analyses where feasible during future EGRPRA reviews. With respect to the second recommendation, the Federal Reserve agreed that the cumulative impact of regulations on depository institutions is important and plans to coordinate with FDIC and OCC to identify further opportunities to seek comment on bodies of regulations and how they could be streamlined. NCUA acknowledged the report’s conclusions as part of their voluntary compliance with the EGRPRA process; NCUA should improve its qualitative analysis and develop plans for continued reductions to regulatory burden within the credit union industry. In its letter, NCUA noted it has appointed a regulatory review task force charged with reviewing and developing a four-year plan for revising their regulations and the review will consider the benefits of NCUA’s regulations as well as the burden they have on credit unions. In its written comments, OCC stated that it understood the importance of GAO’s recommendations. They stated they OCC will consult and coordinate with the Federal Reserve and FDIC to develop plans for regulatory analysis, including how the regulators should conduct and report on quantitative analysis and also, will work with these regulators to increase the transparency of the EGRPRA process. OCC also stated it will consult with these regulators to develop plans, as part of the EGRPRA process, to conduct evaluations that identify ways to decrease the regulatory burden created by bodies of regulations. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to CFPB, FDIC, FinCEN, the Federal Reserve, NCUA, and OCC. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or evansl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII. This report examines the burdens that regulatory compliance places on community banks and credit unions and actions that federal regulators have taken to reduce these burdens; specifically: (1) the financial regulations that community banks and credit unions reported viewing as the most burdensome, the characteristics of those regulations that make them burdensome, and the benefits are associated with those regulations and (2) federal financial regulators’ efforts to reduce any existing regulatory burden on community banks and credit unions. To identify the regulations that community banks and credit unions viewed as the most burdensome, we first constructed a sample frame of financial institutions that met certain criteria for being classified as community banks or community-focused credit unions for the purposes of this review. These sample frames were then used as the basis for drawing our non-probability samples of institutions for purposes of interviews, focus group participation, and document review. Defining a community bank is important because, as we have reported, regulatory compliance may be more burdensome for community banks and credit unions than for larger banks because they are not as able to benefit from economies of scale in compliance resources. While there is no single consensus definition for what constitutes a community bank, we reviewed criteria for defining community banks developed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), officials from the Independent Community Bankers Association, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Based on this review, we determined that institutions that had the following characteristics would be the most appropriate to include in our universe of institutions, (1) fewer total assets, (2) engage in traditional lending and deposit taking activities, have limited geographic scope, and (3) did not have complex operating structures. To identify banks that met these characteristics, we began with all banks that filed a Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) for the first quarter of 2016 (March 31, 2016) and are not themselves subsidiaries of another bank that filed a Call Report. We then excluded banks using an asset-size threshold, to ensure we are including only small institutions. Based on interviews with regulators and our review of the FDIC’s community bank study, we targeted institutions around the $1 billion in assets as the group that could be relatively representative of the experiences of many community banks in complying with regulations. Upon review of the Call Reports data, we found that the banks in the 90th percentile by asset size were had about $1.2 billion, and we selected this to be an appropriate cutoff for our sample frame. In addition we excluded institutions with characteristics suggesting they do not engage in typical community banking activities like such as deposit-taking and lending; and those with characteristics suggesting they conduct more specialized operations not typical of community banking, such as credit card banks. In addition to ensure that we excluded banks whose views of regulatory compliance might be influenced by being part of a large and/or complex organization, we also excluded banks with foreign offices and banks that are subsidiaries of either foreign banks or of holding companies with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets. Finally, as a practical matter, we excluded banks for which we could not obtain data on one or more of the characteristics listed below. We also relied on a similar framework to construct a sample frame for credit unions. We sought to identify credit unions that were relatively small, engaged in traditional lending and deposit taking activities, and had limited geographic scope. To do this, we began with all insured credit unions that filed a Call Report for the first quarter of 2016 (March 31, 2016). We then excluded credit unions using an asset-size threshold of $860 million, which is the 95th percentile of credit unions, to ensure we are including only smaller institutions. The percentile of credit unions was higher than the percentile of banks because there are more large banks than there are credit unions. We then excluded credit unions that did not engage in activities that are typical of community lending, such as taking deposits, making loans and leases, and providing consumer checking accounts, as well as those credit unions with headquarters outside of the United States. We assessed the reliability of data from FFIEC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and NCUA by reviewing relevant documentation and electronically testing the data for missing values or obvious errors, and we found the data from these sources to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of creating sample frames of community banks and credit unions. The sample frames were then used as the basis for drawing our nonprobability samples of institutions for purposes of interviews and focus groups. To identify regulations that community banks and credit unions viewed as among the most burdensome, we conducted structured interviews and focus groups with a sample of a total of 64 community banks and credit unions. To reduce the possibility of bias, we selected the institutions to ensure that banks and credit unions with different asset sizes and from different regions of the country were included. We also included at least one bank overseen by each of the three primary federal depository institution regulators, Federal Reserve, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC in the sample. We interviewed 17 institutions (10 banks and 7 credit unions) about which regulations their institutions experienced the most compliance burden. On the basis of the results of these interviews, we determined that considerable consensus existed among these institutions as to which regulations were seen as most burdensome, including those relating to mortgage fees and terms disclosures to consumers, mortgage borrower and loan characteristics reporting, and anti-money laundering activities. As a result, we determined to conduct focus groups with institutions to identify the characteristics of the regulations identified in our interviews that made these regulations burdensome. To identify the burdensome characteristics of the regulations identified in our preliminary interviews, we selected institutions to participate in three focus groups of community banks and three focus groups of credit unions. For the first focus group of community banks, we randomly selected 20 banks among 647 banks between $500 million and $1 billion located in nine U.S. census geographical areas using the sample frame of community banks we developed, and contacted them asking for their participation. Seven of the 20 banks agreed to participate in the first focus group. However, mortgages represented a low percentage of the assets of two participants in the first focus group, so we revised our selection criteria because two of the regulations identified as burdensome were related to mortgages. For the remaining two focus groups with community banks, we randomly selected institutions with more than $45 million and no more than $1.2 billion in assets to ensure that they would be required to comply with the mortgage characteristics reporting and with at least a 10 percent mortgage to asset ratio to better ensure that they would be sufficiently experienced with mortgage regulations. After identifying the large percentage of FDIC regulated banks in the first 20 banks we contacted, we decided to prioritize contact with banks regulated by OCC and the Federal Reserve for the institutions on our list. When banks declined or when we determined an institution merged or was acquired, we selected a new institution from that state and preferenced institutions regulated by OCC and the Federal Reserve. The three focus groups totaled 23 community banks with a range of assets. We used a similar selection process for three focus groups of credit unions consisting of 23 credit unions. We selected credit unions with at least $45 million in assets so that they would be required to comply with the mortgage regulations and with at least a 10 percent mortgage-to-asset ratio. During each of the focus groups, we asked the representatives from participating institutions what characteristics of the relevant regulations made them burdensome with which to comply. We also polled them about the extent to which they had to take various actions to comply with regulations, including hiring or expanding staff resources, investing in additional information technology resources, or conducting staff training. During the focus groups, we also confirmed with the participants that the three sets of regulations (on mortgage fee and other disclosures to consumers, reporting of mortgage borrower and loan characteristics, and anti-money laundering activities) were generally the ones they found most burdensome. To identify in more detail the steps a community bank or credit union may take to comply with the regulations identified as among the most burdensome, we also conducted an in-depth on-site interview with one community bank. We selected this institution by limiting the community bank sample to only those banks in the middle 80 percent of the distribution in terms of assets, mortgage lending, small business lending, and lending in general that were no more than 70 miles from Washington, D.C. We limited the sample in this way to ensure that the institution was not an outlier in terms of activities or size, and to limit the travel resources needed to conduct the site visit. We also interviewed associations representing consumers to understand the benefits of these regulations. These groups were selected using professional judgement of their knowledge of relevant banking regulations. We interviewed associations representing banks and credit unions. To identify the requirements of the regulations identified as among the most burdensome, we reviewed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation C; Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) regulations, including those deriving from the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, commonly known as the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act; and the Integrated Mortgage Disclosure Rule Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) with the implementing Regulation X; and the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) with implementing Regulation Z. We reviewed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) small entity guidance and supporting materials on the TILA- RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) regulation and HMDA to clarify the specific requirements of each rule and to analyze the information included in the CFPB guidance. We interviewed staff from each of the federal regulators responsible for implementing the regulations, as well as from the federal regulators responsible for examining community banks and credit unions. To identify the potential benefits of the regulations that were considered burdensome by community banks and credit unions, we interviewed representatives from four community groups to document their perspectives on the benefits provided by the identified regulations. To determine whether the bank regulators had required banks to comply with certain provisions from which the institutions might be exempt, we identified eight exemptions from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 from which community banks and credit unions should be exempt and reviewed a small group of the most recent examinations to identify instances in which a regulator may not have applied an exemption for which a bank was eligible. We reviewed 20 safety and soundness and consumer compliance examination reports of community banks and eight safety and soundness examination reports of credit unions. The bank examination reports we reviewed were for the first 20 community banks we contacted requesting participation in the first focus group. The bank examination reports included examinations from all three bank regulators (FDIC, Federal Reserve, and OCC). The NCUA examination reports we reviewed were for the eight credit unions that participated in the second focus group of credit unions. Because of the limited number of the examinations we reviewed, we cannot generalize whether regulators extended the exemptions to all qualifying institutions. To assess the federal financial regulators’ efforts to reduce the existing regulatory burden on community banks and credit unions, we identified the mechanisms the regulators used to identify burdensome regulations and actions to reduce potential burden. We reviewed laws and congressional and agency documentation. More specifically, we reviewed the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA) that requires the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC to review all their regulations every 10 years and identify areas of the regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome and reviewed the 1995 Senate Banking Committee report, which described the intent of the legislation. We reviewed the Federal Register notices that bank regulators and NCUA published requesting comments on their regulations. We also reviewed over 200 comment letters that the regulators had received through the EGRPRA process from community banks, credit unions, their trade associations, and others, as well as the transcripts of all six public forums regulators held as part the 2017 EGRPRA regulatory review efforts they conducted. We analyzed the extent to which the depository institutions regulators addressed the issues raised in comments received for the review. In assessing the 2017 and 2007 EGRPRA reports sent to Congress, we reviewed the significant issues identified by the regulators and determined the extent to which the regulators proposed or took actions in response to the comments relating to burden on small entities. We compared the requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13610 issued by Office of Management and Budget with the actions taken by the regulators in implementing their 10-year regulatory retrospective review. The executive orders included requirements on how executive branch agencies should conduct retrospective reviews of their regulations. For both objectives, we interviewed representatives from CFPB, FDIC, Federal Reserve, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, NCUA, and OCC to identify any steps that regulators took to reduce the compliance burden associated with each of the identified regulations and to understand how they conduct retrospective reviews. We also interviewed representatives of the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, which reviews and comments on the burdens of regulations affecting small businesses, including community banks. We conducted this performance audit from March 2016 to February 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. In addition to the contact name above, Cody J. Goebel (Assistant Director); Nancy Eibeck (Analyst in Charge); Bethany Benitez; Kathleen Boggs; Jeremy A. Conley; Pamela R. Davidson; Courtney L. LaFountain; William V. Lamping; Barbara M. Roesmann; and Jena Y. Sinkfield made key contributions to this report.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: Broadband furthers economic development, educational attainment, and public health and safety; however, residents of tribal lands have lower levels of broadband access relative to the U.S. population. Congress has prioritized identifying and targeting funds to unserved areas. FCC uses data from broadband providers to develop maps and reports depicting broadband availability in the United States, with specific information on tribal lands. GAO was asked to review FCC's efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands. This report examines the extent to which: (1) FCC's approach to collecting broadband data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the data. GAO interviewed stakeholders from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned providers, and visited nine tribal lands. The selected tribes varied geographically and in levels of broadband availability, among other characteristics. GAO also reviewed FCC's rulemakings on broadband data and interviewed other tribal stakeholders, FCC officials, and 13 non-tribal broadband providers selected to include a diversity of technologies. Provider and tribal interviews were based on non-generalizable samples. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) collects data on broadband availability from providers, but these data do not accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC collects data on broadband availability; these data capture where providers may have broadband infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. This leads to overstatements of service for specific locations like tribal lands (see figure). FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands. Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors—such as affordability, quality, and denials of service—that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband services. FCC provides broadband funding for unserved areas based on its broadband data. Overstatements of access limit FCC's and tribal stakeholders' abilities to target broadband funding to such areas. For example, some tribal officials stated that inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan their own broadband networks and obtain funding to address broadband gaps on their lands. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal areas that need it the most and to more accurately assess FCC's progress toward its goal of increasing all Americans' access to affordable broadband. FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data. In the National Broadband Plan , FCC highlighted the need for a targeted approach to improve broadband availability data for tribal lands. As outlined in the plan, such an approach would include working with tribes to ensure that information is accurate and useful. About half of the tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed raised concerns that FCC relies solely on data from providers, and most stated FCC should work with tribes to improve the accuracy of FCC's data. Establishing a formal process to obtain input from tribal governments on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data could help improve the accuracy of FCC's broadband data for tribal lands. GAO is making three recommendations to FCC, including that it collect and report data that accurately measure tribal broadband access as well as develop a process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of the data. FCC agreed with the recommendations.