Proposed Rule2025-15090
Defining Larger Participants of the International Money Transfer Market
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 8, 2025
Issuing agencies
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Abstract
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is seeking information to assist it in considering whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the international money transfer market established by the Bureau's Defining Larger Participants of the International Money Transfer Market Final Rule published on September 9, 2014 (International Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule or 2014 Rule).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 151 (Friday, August 8, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 151 (Friday, August 8, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38412-38415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-15090]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
12 CFR Part 1090
[Docket No. CFPB-2025-0025]
RIN 3170-AB53
Defining Larger Participants of the International Money Transfer
Market
AGENCY: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is
seeking information to assist it in considering whether to propose a
rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the
international money transfer market established by the Bureau's
Defining Larger Participants of the International Money Transfer Market
Final Rule published on September 9, 2014 (International Money Transfer
Larger Participant Rule or 2014 Rule).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit responsive information and other comments,
identified by Docket No. CFPB-2025-0025, by any of the following
methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94a6a4a6a1b9d5dac4c6b9ddfae0f1e6faf5e0fdfbfaf5f8d9fbfaf1edc0e6f5fae7f2f1e6d4f7f2e4f6baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c5e5c5e59412d223c3e41250218091e020d180503020d002103020915381e0d021f0a091e2c0f0a1c0e420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.
Include Docket No. CFPB-2025-0025 in the subject line of the message.
<bullet> Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Comment Intake--Defining
Larger Participants of the International Money Transfer Market 2025, c/
o Legal Division Docket Manager, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
Instructions: The CFPB encourages the early submission of comments.
All submissions should include the agency name and docket number.
Additionally, where the Bureau has asked for specific comment on a
topic, commenters should seek to highlight the topic to which their
comment is applicable. Because paper mail is subject to delay,
commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In
general, all comments received will be posted without change to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. All submissions, including attachments and other
supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject
to public disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal
information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or
names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will
not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Gettler, Paralegal, Office of
Regulations, at 202-435-7380. If you require this document in an
alternative electronic format, please contact
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6724213725382604040214140e050e0b0e131e270401170549000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2764617765786644444254544e454e4b4e535e674441574509404851">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau is seeking information to
consider whether to propose a rule to amend the test which defines
larger participants in the international money transfer market.
Currently, a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of the
international money transfer market if the nonbank covered person has
at least one million aggregate annual international money transfers.
The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of the current threshold may
not justify the compliance burdens for many of the entities that are
currently considered larger participants in this market, and that the
current threshold may be diverting limited Bureau resources to
determine whom among the universe of providers may be subject to the
Bureau's supervisory authority and whether these providers should be
examined in a particular year.
I. Background
Section 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010
(CFPA),\1\ codified at 12 U.S.C. 5514,
[[Page 38413]]
gives the Bureau supervisory authority over all nonbank covered persons
\2\ offering or providing three enumerated types of consumer financial
products or services: (1) origination, brokerage, or servicing of
consumer loans secured by real estate and related mortgage loan
modification or foreclosure relief services; (2) private education
loans; and (3) payday loans.\3\ The Bureau also has supervisory
authority over ``larger participant[s] of a market for other consumer
financial products or services, as defined by rule[s]'' the Bureau
issues.\4\ To date, the Bureau has issued six rules defining larger
participants of markets for consumer financial products and services
for purposes of CFPA section 1024(a)(1)(B).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, Title X of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public
Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1955 (2010).
\2\ The provisions of 12 U.S.C. 5514 apply to certain categories
of covered persons, described in section (a)(1), and expressly
excludes from coverage persons described in 12 U.S.C. 5515(a) (very
large insured depository institutions and credit unions and their
affiliates) or 5516(a) (other insured depository institutions and
credit unions). The term ``covered person'' means ``(A) any person
that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product
or service; and (B) any affiliate of a person described [in (A)] if
such affiliate acts as a service provider to such person.'' 12
U.S.C. 5481(6).
\3\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(A), (D), (E).
\4\ 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B), (a)(2); see also 12 U.S.C. 5481(5)
(defining ``consumer financial product or service'').
\5\ These six rules defined larger participants of markets for
consumer reporting, 77 FR 42874 (July 20, 2012) (Consumer Reporting
Rule), consumer debt collection, 77 FR 65775 (Oct. 31, 2012)
(Consumer Debt Collection Rule), student loan servicing, 78 FR 73383
(Dec. 6, 2013) (Student Loan Servicing Rule), international money
transfers, 79 FR 56631 (Sept. 23, 2014) (International Money
Transfer Rule), automobile financing, 80 FR 37496 (June 30, 2015)
(Automobile Financing Rule), and general-use digital consumer
payment applications, 89 FR 99582 (Dec. 10, 2024) (General-Use
Digital Payment Applications Rule). The Bureau is issuing advance
notices of proposed rulemakings to reconsider the test for defining
larger participants in the consumer reporting, debt collection,
international money transfer, and automobile financing markets. The
Bureau will continue to assess whether it is appropriate to
reconsider the test for the student loan servicing market. The
General-Use Digital Payment Applications Rule was made ineffective
by a joint resolution of disapproval by Congress under the
Congressional Review Act. S.J. Res. 28--119th Congress (2025-2026),
Public Law 119-11; see also 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background on International Money Transfers
Consumers generally make international money transfers through
nonbank money transfer providers, depository institutions, or credit
unions. Many international money transfers operate through closed
networks, receiving and disbursing funds through their own outlets or
through agents such as grocery stores, neighborhood convenience stores,
or depository institutions. For an international money transfer
conducted through a money transfer provider, a consumer typically
provides basic identifying information about himself and the recipient
and often pays cash sufficient to cover the transfer amount and any
fees charged by the provider. The consumer may be provided a
confirmation code, which the consumer relays to the recipient. The
money transfer provider sends an instruction to a specified payout
location or locations in the recipient's country where the recipient
may pick up the transferred funds, often in cash and local currency,
upon presentation of the confirmation code or other identification on
or after a specified date. These transfers generally are referred to as
cash-to-cash transfers.
Many international money transfer providers also provide
international money transfers in other ways. For example, international
money transfer providers may permit transfers to be initiated using
credit cards, debit cards, or bank account debits and may use websites,
agent locations, standalone kiosks, or telephone lines to do so.
Abroad, international money transfer providers and their partners may
allow funds to be deposited into recipients' bank accounts, distributed
directly onto prepaid cards, or credited to mobile phone accounts.
The Remittance Rule, which took effect October 28, 2013, implements
subpart B of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).\6\ Amendments to
EFTA and the implementing Remittance Rule created Federal consumer
protections for remittance transfers that consumers in the United
States send to individuals and businesses in foreign countries. The
Remittance Rule applies to any institutions that send remittance
transfers in the normal course of their business, including banks,
credit unions, money transmitters, broker-dealers, and others. The
Bureau and prudential regulators can examine depository institutions
and credit unions within their supervisory authority for compliance
with the Remittance Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 77 FR 6194 (Feb. 7, 2012); 77 FR 40459 (July 10, 2012); 77
FR 50244 (Aug. 20, 2012); 78 FR 6025 (Jan. 29, 2013); 78 FR 30662
(May 22, 2013); 78 FR 49365 (Aug. 14, 2013) (codified at 12 CFR part
1005, subpart B). See also 12 U.S.C. 1693o-1 (specifying rules to be
issued by the CFPB). EFTA applies to all electronic money transfers
more broadly through subpart A of Reg. E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau's International Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule
Defining the Market
The Bureau published the International Money Transfer Larger
Participant Rule on September 23, 2014.\7\ The final rule defined an
international money transfer market that covers certain electronic
transfers of funds sent by nonbanks that are international money
transfer providers and established that nonbank covered persons with at
least one million aggregate annual international money transfers are
larger participants.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 12 CFR 1090.107; 79 FR 56631 (Sept. 23, 2014).
\8\ The Bureau also has enforcement authority over nonbank
remittance providers. 12 U.S.C. 5561 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International money transfers are electronic transfers of funds
sent by nonbank covered persons from consumers in the United States to
persons or entities abroad.\9\ This definition tracks the Bureau's
definition of ``remittance transfer,'' except in two respects. First,
the definition substitutes ``international money transfer provider'' in
each place where the term ``remittance transfer provider'' appears in
12 CFR 1005.30(e). Second, the International Money Transfer Larger
Participant Rule defines ``international money transfer'' without
regard to the amount of the transfer, unlike the Remittance Rule, which
excludes transfers of $15 or less from the definition of ``remittance
transfer.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Similar services are provided by depository institutions and
credit unions, including those subject to the Bureau's supervisory
authority under 12 U.S.C. 5515.
\10\ 12 CFR 1005.30(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonbank entities provide a significant portion of the transactions
to which the Remittance Rule applies. In promulgating the International
Money Transfer Larger Participant Rule, the Bureau found that
supervision of larger participants of the international money transfer
market would help to ensure that these nonbank entities are complying
with the consumer protections afforded by EFTA as implemented by the
Remittance Rule, as well as with other applicable requirements of
Federal consumer financial law.\11\ The Bureau lacked precise data on
the international money transfer market and did not receive comments
that provided detailed information about the market. However, available
data sources, including public information and confidential State
supervisory data provided by three States, enabled the Bureau to
conduct analyses during the proposal stage to gain a general
understanding of the market. The Bureau did not receive any comments
questioning or criticizing these analyses.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 79 FR 56631 at 56634.
\12\ Id. at 56634-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38414]]
Larger Participant Test in the 2014 Rule
Under the 2014 rule, a nonbank covered person qualifies as a larger
participant in this market if it satisfies the following test: it has
at least 1,000,000 aggregate annual international money transfers.\13\
Based on the Bureau's analysis of data that State regulators collected
from the fourth quarter of 2023 through the third quarter of 2024,
approximately 28 nonbank covered persons currently meet the test under
this rule.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The 2014 rule also estimated that this test may result in
at least some--albeit a relatively small number--small entities
qualifying as larger participants. 79 FR 56631 at 56649 (estimating
``less than one percent'' of small businesses in the international
money transfer market may qualify as larger participants under the
test).
\14\ The estimates of market participants and market share are
preliminary and are based on limited data. Further, as noted, some
of the data sources the CFPB relied upon may be overinclusive by
including certain payments that are not within the defined market,
such as certain business-to-business or business-to-consumer
payments. These estimates may change in any future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bureau's 2014 International Money Transfer Larger
Participant Rule, the Bureau acknowledged that it was not aware of a
data source where institutions report their total number of
international money transfers in a manner that is totally consistent
with the definition of the larger participant market. This limitation
is also true now. For example, while State regulators collect certain
data about money transfers, none of the standardized data sets obtained
from the States distinguish between transfers initiated by consumers
and those initiated by businesses. Yet business-initiated international
transfers do not count towards the million-transfer threshold.
Reasons for a Potential Reconsideration of the Larger Participant Test
for the International Money Transfer Market
The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of supervisory authority
over nonbank covered persons with at least 1,000,000 aggregate annual
international money transfers may not exceed the costs of increased
compliance burdens for many entities that are considered larger
participants under the current test. The Bureau also notes that the
market for international money transfers provided by nonbank covered
persons is heavily concentrated. According to the data described above,
the largest eight non-depository financial institutions by transfer
volume conducted approximately 77 percent of estimated remittance
transfers. This concentration supports the fact that a higher threshold
might better balance the goals of protecting consumers while also not
unnecessarily imposing costs on covered persons. The Bureau further is
concerned that smaller international money transfer providers who may
be considered larger participants are being disproportionately impacted
by the current threshold.
The Bureau is also concerned that the number of larger participants
in the international money transfer market subject to supervision may
be too large and is potentially diverting limited Bureau resources to
determine whom among smaller providers may be subject to the Bureau's
supervisory authority and whether these providers should be examined in
a particular year. The Bureau therefore seeks comment on the topics and
questions listed below in light of the Bureau's intent to propose
amending the test to define larger participants in the international
money transfer market.
By raising the threshold for the test to define larger participants
in the international money transfer market, the Bureau could focus its
supervisory oversight on the market participants that send the greatest
number of transfers and, therefore, likely interact with the largest
numbers of consumers. For example, the Bureau's current threshold of
1,000,000 international money transfers per year covers approximately
28 nonbank providers and these providers provide an estimated 98
percent of all international money transfers. If the Bureau raises the
threshold to 10,000,000 international money transfers per year, the
Bureau preliminarily estimates that approximately 15 nonbank covered
persons would qualify as larger participants and that they provide an
estimated 94 percent of all international money transfers. As another
option, if the Bureau raises the threshold to 30,000,000 international
money transfers, we preliminarily estimate that approximately eight
nonbank covered persons would qualify as larger participants and that
they provide an estimated 77 percent of all international money
transfers. A third option would be to raise the threshold to 50,000,000
international money transfers. The Bureau preliminarily estimates that
approximately four nonbank covered persons would qualify as larger
participants and that they provide an estimated 61 percent of all
international money transfers.
Since the Bureau began supervising larger participants in the
international money transfer market, the market has increasingly
involved online platforms, including mobile application-based
platforms. Using any one of these thresholds, the Bureau would cover
both online and in-person remittance transfer providers.
II. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, as
amended. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this action.
III. Questions for Commenters
As discussed above, the Bureau is concerned that the benefits of
supervisory authority over nonbank covered persons with one million
aggregate annual international money transfers may not justify the
costs of increased compliance burdens for many entities that are
considered larger participants under the current test.\15\ The Bureau
is particularly concerned that smaller money transfer providers that
now qualify as larger participants are being disproportionately
impacted by the current threshold. For example, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) classifies a money transmission service (an
illustrative example under NAICS Code 522390 \16\) as a small business
concern if its annual revenues are no more than $28.5 million.\17\ The
CFPB's Remittance Rule Assessment found that the average remittance
transfer from a money services business was $381 in 2017 and the cost
to send was around 4 percent depending on the destination region.\18\
These data illustrate how an entity that provides between 1,000,000 and
1,870,078 international money transfers of an average size for 2017
would qualify as a larger participant based on the current threshold
even though its revenue from that activity (at an average 4 percent
fee) would fall below the SBA size threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For a discussion of compliance burdens, see generally
section IV.B of the International Money Transfer Larger Participant
Rule (describing costs of increased compliance, costs of supervisory
activity, and costs of assessing larger participant status). 79 FR
56631 at 56644-48.
\16\ See NAICS Code 2022 definitions, <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=522390&year=2022&details=522390">https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=522390&year=2022&details=522390</a>.
\17\ See SBA Table of Small Business Size Standards at 26,
<a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>.
\18\ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Remittance rule
assessment report (April 24, 2019), at 68, 89, and 90, <a href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/remittance-rule-assessment-report/">https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/remittance-rule-assessment-report/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau is also concerned that the pool of entities subject to
supervision may be too broad and is potentially diverting limited
Bureau resources to determine who is a larger participant
[[Page 38415]]
and whether those entities should be examined in a particular year.
The Bureau notes that it has not evaluated whether changes in the
international money transfer market call for updating the test to
define larger participants since it published the International Money
Transfer Larger Participant Rule over ten years ago. The Bureau
therefore seeks comment on the topics and questions listed below in
light of the Bureau's intent to consider proposing to amend the test to
define larger participants in the international money transfer market.
1. What additional sources of data, if any, are available that can
reliably inform estimates of the current size of the international
money transfer market, the participation in the market by nonbanks,
banks, and credit unions, and the number of institutions that qualify
as larger participants?
2. Should the Bureau consider defining larger participants in the
international money transfer market in relation to the Small Business
Administration's size standards? If so, how?
3. Should the Bureau reconsider the 1,000,000 annual aggregate
money transfer threshold for qualifying as a larger participant in the
international money transfer market? If so, what threshold and number
of participants would allow the Bureau to effectively focus on the
largest participants and efficiently use its resources?
4. Would an increase in the threshold have a potential
disproportionate impact on any geographic corridors, and, if so, how?
5. Is annual aggregate international money transfers an appropriate
criterion for determining which entities should be considered larger
participants in the international money transfer market? If not, what
alternative criteria (e.g., dollar value of international money
transfers) and what threshold would be more appropriate and why?
6. How would consumers be impacted by a potential increase in the
threshold? Submissions of data related to the benefits or costs to
consumers of the current rule and any particular change to the
threshold are encouraged.
7. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants
alter the behavior of participants in the international money transfer
market? How would these changes benefit or harm consumers and
participants? Would those changes in behavior have impacts beyond this
specific market?
8. How would changing the current threshold for larger participants
affect the Bureau's ability to address potential market failures in the
international money transfer market and related areas?
9. What are the costs to covered entities that are specific to the
Bureau's supervisory authority for larger participants in the
international money transfer market? Specific figures as to staffing,
staff time, and other resources are encouraged. How often are these
costs incurred for larger participants under the current rule who are
close to the current threshold for being larger participants?
10. What are the costs to covered persons that are not specific to
the Bureau's supervisory authority, but are specific to being a larger
participant in the international money transfer market? For instance,
are there costs of monitoring status as a large participant or costs
related to complying with relevant Federal statutes and regulations
beyond what the firm would find reasonable absent the possibility of
supervision?
11. Are there costs to covered persons from the current larger
participant rule that specifically apply to firms who transfer fewer
international money transfers than the threshold, but are close to the
threshold?
12. Are there costs or benefits to consumers, including rural
consumers, servicemembers, and veterans, of raising the larger
participant threshold?
13. Do small business concerns, as defined by the Small Business
Administration, or other smaller- or mid-size entities qualify as
larger participants under the current threshold? Do these entities
incur costs of compliance with their larger participant status that are
not in proportion to their size relative to other larger participants
in the international money transfer market?
14. Are there significant recordkeeping requirements that would be
reduced by raising the larger participant threshold?
15. What other specific costs or benefits, not mentioned above,
would a change in the larger participant threshold have for consumers
and covered persons?
Russell Vought,
Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2025-15090 Filed 8-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 8, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.