1. (a) Authority of national banks. A national bank may receive deposits and engage in any activity incidental to receiving deposits, including issuing evidence of accounts, subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency and any other applicable Federal law.

2. (b) Applicability of state law. A national bank may exercise its deposit-taking powers without regard to state law limitations concerning:

   1. (1) Abandoned and dormant accounts; ³
   2. (2) Checking accounts;
   3. (3) Disclosure requirements;
   4. (4) Funds availability;
   5. (5) Savings account orders of withdrawal;
   6. (6) State licensing or registration requirements (except for purposes of service of process); and
   7. (7) Special purpose savings services; ⁴

3. (c) State laws that are not preempted. State laws on the following subjects are not inconsistent with the deposit-taking powers of national banks and apply to national banks to the extent consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, et al. 517 U.S. 25 (1996):

   1. (1) Contracts;
   2. (2) Torts;
   3. (3) Criminal law; ⁵
   4. (4) Rights to collect debts;
   5. (5) Acquisition and transfer of property;
   6. (6) Taxation;
   7. (7) Zoning; and
   8. (8) Any other law that the OCC determines to be applicable to national banks in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, Florida Insurance Commissioner, et al. 517 U.S. 25 (1996), or that is made applicable by Federal law.

³ This does not apply to state laws of the type upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Anderson Nat'l Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233 (1944), which obligate a national bank to “pay [deposits] to the persons entitled to demand payment according to the law of the state where it does business.” Id. at 248-249.

⁴ State laws purporting to regulate national bank fees and charges are addressed in 12 CFR 7.4002.

⁵ But see the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Easton v. Iowa, 188 U.S. 220, 238 (1903), where the Court stated that “[u]ndoubtedly a state has the legitimate power to define and punish crimes by general laws applicable to all persons within its jurisdiction * * *. But it is without lawful power to make such special laws applicable to banks organized and operating under the laws of the United States.” Id. at 239 (holding that Federal law governing the operations of national banks preempted a state criminal law prohibiting insolvent banks from accepting deposits).

[69 FR 1916, Jan. 13, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 43565, July 21, 2011]