H.R. 976, the "1071 Repeal to Protect Small Business Lending Act," strikes the small‑business loan data collection mandate that Congress added to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) as section 704B (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2) via Dodd‑Frank section 1071. The bill also deletes the corresponding entry in the Dodd‑Frank table of contents and makes conforming edits to ECOA’s statutory table of contents and section 701(b).
The sponsors frame the change as regulatory relief for financial institutions—especially smaller banks and credit unions—arguing that the reporting rule increased compliance costs and could restrict credit access. Eliminating the statutory requirement removes the federal obligation to collect standardized small‑business application and lending data, with downstream effects for regulators, fair‑lending enforcement, research, and market transparency.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2), removes section 1071 from the Dodd‑Frank Act and its table of contents, and adjusts ECOA’s table of contents and section 701(b) to excise cross‑references tied to the data mandate. In short: it eliminates the federal statutory duty to collect and report small‑business lending data under ECOA.
Who It Affects
Depository institutions and nonbank lenders that would have been subject to Section 1071, with disproportionate effects on community banks and credit unions cited in the bill’s findings. It also affects the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), civil‑rights and research organizations that use loan‑level data, and any federal or state enforcement actions that would rely on that data.
Why It Matters
Removing the statutory data collection requirement alters the information available for fair‑lending enforcement and market analysis while reducing a compliance obligation for lenders. That shift changes how regulators and external monitors detect lending disparities and how lenders design compliance programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 976 is narrowly focused: it deletes the small‑business loan data collection provision Congress added to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act through Dodd‑Frank section 1071. The operative legal change is the repeal of the statutory text codified at 15 U.S.C. 1691c–2 (commonly called Section 704B of ECOA), which had required covered lenders to collect specified application and loan data for small‑business lending and to report that data to federal regulators.
The bill also makes tidy legislative housekeeping changes: it expunges section 1071 from the Dodd‑Frank Act’s body and table of contents and removes the corresponding entries in ECOA’s table of contents. In addition, it edits section 701(b) of ECOA to remove the paragraph references that relied on the now‑deleted provision, so the statute’s numbering and cross‑references are consistent after repeal.Because the statute is what empowered the CFPB to issue rules implementing Section 1071, removing the statutory text eliminates the federal legal obligation that underpinned data collection.
The bill does not, however, include substitute reporting frameworks, transitional provisions for already‑collected data, or funding changes for enforcement or data analysis. It is a legislative repeal, not a regulatory rulemaking, so its immediate effect is to erase the statutory mandate; subsequent administrative or contractual practices (including voluntary data collection or state initiatives) would be matters for regulators, lenders, or future legislation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals Section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2), the statutory provision added by Dodd‑Frank section 1071 that required small‑business loan data collection and reporting.
H.R. 976 strikes section 1071 from the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and removes the related entry from that Act’s table of contents.
The bill amends ECOA’s internal table of contents and revises section 701(b) to remove paragraph cross‑references tied to the deleted Section 704B, adjusting statutory numbering and references.
The text contains explicit findings asserting that the data requirements increased compliance costs and disproportionately affected community banks and credit unions, but it does not provide alternative data collection or monitoring mechanisms.
The repeal is statutory only: H.R. 976 does not address existing CFPB rules, previously collected datasets, transitional preservation of records, or whether state agencies could require similar reporting.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the "1071 Repeal to Protect Small Business Lending Act," a simple heading that frames the legislative purpose without adding legal effect beyond naming the measure.
Congressional findings
Lists sponsor findings that: the Dodd‑Frank addition of Section 704B created data collection and reporting duties; those duties raised compliance costs; smaller institutions were disproportionately affected; and repeal will reduce regulatory barriers. Findings are hortatory and provide legislative intent but do not create operative rights or obligations.
Repeal of Section 704B (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2)
Subsection 3(a) removes the statutory text that required covered lenders to gather specified small‑business application and loan data and report it to federal authorities. Practically, this withdraws the statutory authority that underpinned rulemaking and supervisory expectations tied to Section 1071.
Dodd‑Frank conforming changes
Deletes section 1071 from the Dodd‑Frank Act and removes its entry from Dodd‑Frank’s table of contents. This is a housekeeping step to keep chapter and contents references aligned once the statutory provision is gone; it also severs the title‑level link between Dodd‑Frank and the data mandate.
Equal Credit Opportunity Act conforming changes
Edits ECOA’s table of contents and excises a paragraph in section 701(b) so that the statute’s cross‑references do not point to the deleted provision. These edits ensure the remainder of ECOA reads without a dangling reference, but they do not introduce any new reporting duties or replacement language.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Community banks and credit unions — the bill’s findings identify these smaller institutions as bearing disproportionate compliance costs; repeal removes the federal reporting obligation those institutions would have had to implement.
- Other covered lenders (depository and nonbank) — all entities that would have complied with Section 1071 avoid the recurring burden of collecting, validating, and reporting loan‑level small‑business data.
- Loan operations and compliance departments — lenders will likely reduce resources devoted to data capture, vendor relationships, and reporting systems that Section 1071 required.
Who Bears the Cost
- CFPB, federal regulators, and enforcement agencies — loss of the statutory data stream reduces regulators’ direct line‑of‑sight into small‑business lending patterns and may complicate supervisory and fair‑lending work.
- Civil‑rights organizations and researchers — advocates and academics will have less standardized, comprehensive data to analyze disparities in small‑business lending and to support litigation or policy advocacy.
- Minority‑, women‑, and veteran‑owned small businesses — stakeholders who relied on aggregated data to document market gaps will have fewer authoritative datasets to demonstrate disparities or to inform outreach and policy responses.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill crystallizes a classic policy trade‑off: reduce regulatory burden on lenders—especially smaller institutions—to lower costs and, sponsors argue, expand credit availability, versus retain centralized, standardized data that regulators, researchers, and civil‑rights groups use to detect discrimination, measure market outcomes, and support enforcement. Eliminating the statutory mandate resolves the compliance cost side but simultaneously removes the primary tool for systemic visibility into small‑business lending patterns.
Repealing the statutory data mandate eliminates the federal obligation to collect standardized small‑business application and loan data, but it does not erase the practical dependence of enforcement and research on that data. The bill includes no transitional provisions for datasets already gathered under Section 1071, no direction on retention or public release of existing records, and no substitute mechanism to preserve comparable transparency.
That creates near‑term ambiguity: regulators may retain previously received data, but their authority to require future reporting is removed unless Congress or a separate legal basis reinstates it.
Operationally, repeal simplifies compliance for lenders but may shift costs and responsibilities elsewhere. Without a federal dataset, local supervisors, trade groups, or states could move to fill the transparency gap, producing a fragmented patchwork of requirements.
Additionally, removing statutory language does not automatically vacate agency rulemaking; the CFPB’s rules or guidance tied to Section 1071 could become legally vulnerable, may require formal revocation, or could be left dormant, creating legal uncertainty for supervised institutions and third‑party vendors. Finally, the bill’s findings assert access‑to‑credit benefits from repeal, but the statute itself contains no empirical mechanism to test or track whether repeal produces the claimed outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.