Banking and Finance Law Daily Wrap Up, FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY—Banking associations urge agencies to adopt payment stablecoin committee procedural rules, (Jul 30, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

In a comment letter, several banking associations appeared to warn of design-by-committee issues if the GENIUS ACT Stablecoin Certification Review Committee does not adopt strong procedural rules.

The American Bankers Association (ABA) and three other major banking associations sent a letter to the federal banking regulatory agencies on July 29, 2026, urging strong, transparent procedural rules for the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (SCRC) to follow before it begins making GENIUS Act determinations that will shape the future of the payment stablecoin market. The three other banking associations who joined the ABA in sending the letter were the Bank Policy Institute, Consumer Bankers Association, and Independent Community Bankers of America (collectively, the banking associations). The banking associations directed their joint letter to the Department of the Treasury, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Board, and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

The ABA’s accompanying press release described the SCRC as a new committee created by the GENIUS Act tasked with reviewing the potential choice of state and foreign regulatory frameworks for issuers of payment stablecoins. Under the GENIUS ACT, SCRC is composed only of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board (or the Vice Chair for Supervision, if so delegated), and the Chair of the FDIC. It does not provide a seat for the OCC or NCUA. The GENIUS Act permits state or potentially foreign regulation of payment stablecoin issuers as long as such regulatory systems are substantially comparable to federal regulation.

Insofar as the SCRC sits at the center of consequential decisions under the GENIUS Act, the banking associations’ letter recommended the SCRC adopt procedural rules that govern all determinations before it acts and that it set forth what those rules should require. Among the recommendations, the banking associations said the SCRC should adopt a rule that it must formally consult with the OCC and NCUA before it makes any decisions.

Among the three of the most consequential gatekeeping decisions under the GENIUS Act, the SCRC determines, first, whether state regulation can apply to a stablecoin to the extent that such state regulation is substantially similar to the federal framework. Second, the Secretary of the Treasury may make a comparability determination that permits foreign issuers to operate in the United States if the other SCRC members concur. Third, the SCRC decides whether a public or foreign company that is “not predominantly engaged” in financial activities may issue a payment stablecoin in the U.S. at all. Because the GENIUS Act, itself, is silent on these three points, the associations advocated “robust procedural rules.”

The letter continued that the process of choosing a supervisor necessarily involves substantive determinations. If the SCRC does not have strong procedures in making choice-of-supervisor determinations, market access and other market inconsistencies will flow from regulatory inconsistencies. In addition, channeled authority among the supervisory agencies “should not place the SCRC determination beyond the reach of the laws” that ordinarily govern the agencies’ independent obligations to supervise.

More specifically, the letter advocated that dedicated procedural rulemaking should address, at a minimum:

• confirmation that the SCRC will administer its determinations consistent with existing statutory frameworks governing supervisory agency conduct;

• a standardized process for each category of SCRC determination, with defined documentation requirements and determination standards;

• defined timelines for intake and review;

• a notice-and-comment period for all SCRC determinations to provide all actors, including foreign regimes and other stakeholders, a meaningful opportunity to be heard;

• a publication requirement with a statement of reasons to be made part of an administrative record;

• explicit voting and recusal rules; and,

• clarification that SCRC determinations are final agency action subject to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) arbitrary-and-capricious review.

The associations recommended that the Treasury Department lead and begin procedural rulemaking in coordination with the other supervisory agencies before the SCRC makes any determinations.

The associations also said the final rule should require SCRC to formally consult with OCC and NCUA before making any state or foreign regime choice-of-regulator determination to the extent the OCC and NCUA do not have a seat on the committee. OCC has a responsibility for the national currency relative to state or foreign regulatory regimes applied to payment stablecoins, while NCUA has a supervisory interest with respect to credit unions that might issue payment stablecoins.

Although the GENIUS Act did not include OCC or NCUA on the SCRC, the letter urged that nothing precludes the SCRC from creating a mandatory OCC and NCUA consultation requirement before rulemaking with respect to state and foreign regulatory regimes. The letter contended that Treasury has broad authority to draw on OCC and NCUA expertise before making determinations, and it ought to formally bootstrap and exercise that authority.

The letter also noted an “instability” insofar as the federal regulatory foundation for the GENIUS ACT state and foreign regime certification framework is neither currently final nor fixed. Changes to the federal regulatory foundation can place a certified state or foreign regime out of initial comparability. Issuers operating under a state or foreign regime would have no clear path forward to regain certification. The associations said these circumstances call for a procedural rule that addresses a grace period after legal change affects regime certification; a process for recertification; agreement on how to proceed if a state or foreign country fails to re-conform; Treasury commitment to publish advance notice of amendments to the regulations governing state and foreign regime determinations with a public comment period, rather than Treasury unilateral adjustment; and a requirement that the Treasury Secretary periodically review foreign compatibility determinations on some defined basis.

Last, the letter noted that while non-financial company payment stablecoin issuance is subject to unanimous SCRC approval, such approval should have a limited duration with automatic expiration and be subject to periodic reconfirmation. The letter contended here that approval must remain appropriate over time because the risks involved with particular payment stablecoins may change.

Companies: American Bankers Association; Bank Policy Institute; Consumer Bankers Association; Independent Community Bankers of America

MainStory: TopStory Blockchain FinancialIntermediaries FinTech GCNNews