WASHINGTON—Four major banking trade groups urged federal regulators to delay comment deadlines on a series of proposed rules implementing the GENIUS Act, arguing the scope and complexity of the rulemakings make meaningful public input difficult under current timelines.
In a joint letter, the American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, Consumer Bankers Association, and Independent Community Bankers of America requested that the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control extend the comment periods for their respective notices of proposed rulemaking tied to the GENIUS Act.
The groups asked regulators to extend the deadlines by 60 days following the issuance of a final rule by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is also developing related regulations under the law.
The groups noted the GENIUS Act proposals—including Treasury’s rule on state regulatory equivalency, the FDIC’s standards for supervised stablecoin issuers and insured institutions, and the joint FinCEN/OFAC rule on anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance—carry staggered deadlines in early June.
Shouldn’t be Evaluated in Isolation
The four groups said the proposals are highly interdependent and should be evaluated together, not in isolation. They argued that regulators themselves have emphasized the need for coordination across agencies and that the law requires alignment among federal stablecoin regulators.
“The volume, complexity, and interdependence” of the rulemakings warrant a more comprehensive review period, the groups said, adding that fragmented timelines could undermine regulatory consistency and limit the usefulness of public feedback.
The associations also pointed to uncertainty surrounding the OCC’s forthcoming final rule, noting that stakeholders cannot fully assess the broader regulatory framework without understanding how that rule will be finalized.
In addition, the groups said the FinCEN/OFAC proposal represents only one component of a broader regulatory regime for payment stablecoin issuers, making it difficult to provide meaningful feedback without evaluating the complete framework.
An extension, the organizations said, would allow trade groups, financial institutions and other stakeholders to develop “carefully considered and well-informed” comments on what they described as consequential rulemakings shaping the future oversight of payment stablecoins.
