Rule2026-19966
Forms and Procedures for Review of State Certifications by the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee
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
September 30, 2026
Effective
September 30, 2026
Issuing agencies
Treasury Department
Abstract
The Department of the Treasury is issuing this interim final rule on behalf of the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (Committee). The Committee is adopting interim procedural regulations and forms to implement its responsibilities under section 4(c) of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act or the Act). The regulations set out a process to facilitate the Committee's approval or denial of certifications submitted by State payment stablecoin regulators under section 4(c)(4) of the GENIUS Act, and prescribe the form of such certifications. This interim final rule will ensure that interim forms and procedural regulations are in place to facilitate submission of certifications by the effective date of the GENIUS Act, and the Committee intends to revise these forms and procedural regulations, as appropriate, following consideration of comments.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61688-61703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
12 CFR Chapter XV
[TREAS-DO-2026-0562]
RIN 1505-AC97
Forms and Procedures for Review of State Certifications by the
Stablecoin Certification Review Committee
AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury is issuing this interim final
rule on behalf of the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee
(Committee). The Committee is adopting interim procedural regulations
and forms to implement its responsibilities under section 4(c) of the
Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act
(GENIUS Act or the Act). The regulations set out a process to
facilitate the Committee's approval or denial of certifications
submitted by State payment stablecoin regulators under section 4(c)(4)
of the GENIUS Act, and prescribe the form of such certifications. This
interim final rule will ensure that interim forms and procedural
regulations are in place to facilitate submission of certifications by
the effective date of the GENIUS Act, and the Committee intends to
revise these forms and procedural regulations, as appropriate,
following consideration of comments.
DATES:
Effective date: This interim final rule is effective September 30,
2026; however, certifications will not be accepted until after
Paperwork Reduction Act approval of the information collection.
Treasury will post a notification on its website as to when
certifications will be accepted.
Comment date: Comments on this interim final rule must be received
on or before November 30, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through one of two
methods:
<bullet> Electronic Submission: Comments may be submitted
electronically through the Federal Government eRulemaking portal at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
<bullet> Mail: Send to U.S. Department of the Treasury, Attention:
Office of General Counsel, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20220.
Given potential delays in the receipt of comments by mail, we
strongly encourage comments to be submitted via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. All comments should be captioned with ``GENIUS Act
SCRC Procedures.'' Please include your name, organizational
affiliation, address, email address, and telephone number in your
comment. In general, all comments received, including attachments and
other supporting materials, will be part of the public record and
subject to public disclosure. Do not submit any information in your
comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Treasury: Daniel Borman, Brendan Costello, and Carol Rodrigues,
Attorney-Advisors, Office of the General Counsel, Treasury, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#337c74706c74565d5a464072504773674156524046414a1d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="19565e5a465e7c77706c6a587a6d594d6b7c786a6c6b60377e766f">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-622-0480.
FDIC: C. Christopher Ledoux, Assistant General Counsel, Emerging
Technology Group, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 898-3535,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae9e6efeee5fff2caeceee3e9a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a39363f3e352f221a3c3e3339743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>, Legal Division.
Board: Kelley O'Mara, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 430-0911,
Daniel Hickman, Senior Counsel, (202) 469-1005, Benjamin Nuyens, Senior
Counsel, (202) 909-7574, Daniel Parks, Attorney, (771) 210-7183, Legal
Division; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Authority
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S.
Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act or Act), which was enacted on July 18,
2025, provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for issuers of
``payment stablecoins.'' \1\ As defined in section 2(22) of the GENIUS
Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(22)), ``payment stablecoin'' means a digital asset
\2\ ``(i) that is, or is designed to be, used as a means of payment or
settlement; and (ii) the issuer of which--(I) is obligated to convert,
redeem, or repurchase for a fixed amount of monetary value, not
including a digital asset denominated in a fixed amount of monetary
value; and (II) represents that such issuer will maintain, or create
the reasonable expectation that it will maintain, a stable value
relative to the value of a fixed amount of monetary value[.]'' The term
does not include a digital asset that is (i) a national currency; (ii)
a deposit (as defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813), including a deposit recorded
using distributed ledger technology; or (iii) a security, as
[[Page 61689]]
defined in 15 U.S.C. 77b, 78c, or 80a-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 119-27. 12 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.
\2\ The term ``digital asset'' means any digital representation
of value that is recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed
ledger. 12 U.S.C. 5901(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 3(a) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5902(a)), only
permitted payment stablecoin issuers may issue a payment stablecoin in
the United States, subject to certain exceptions and safe harbors.\3\
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA), and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC) (collectively, the primary Federal payment stablecoin
regulators) are generally tasked with establishing processes and
frameworks for the licensing, regulation, examination, and supervision
of permitted payment stablecoin issuers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 12 U.S.C. 5916, 91 FR 53368 (Aug. 19, 2026) (Treasury).
\4\ See 12 U.S.C. 5901(25), 5903-5904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)), State-
qualified payment stablecoin issuers with a consolidated total
outstanding issuance of payment stablecoins of not more than $10
billion may opt for State regulation provided that (i) the State
payment stablecoin regulator has submitted a certification, including
an attestation that the State regulatory regime meets the criteria for
substantial similarity established by Treasury,\5\ and (ii) the
Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (the Committee) has approved
the State-level regulatory regime upon determining that it meets or
exceeds the standards and requirements described in section 4(a) of the
GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)). Pursuant to section 2(27) of the GENIUS
Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(27)), the Secretary of the Treasury chairs the
Committee, which also includes the Chair of the Board (or the Vice
Chair for Supervision, if delegated by the Board Chair) and the
Chairman of the FDIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ On April 3, 2026, pursuant to section 4(c)(2) of the GENIUS
Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(2)), Treasury published proposed broad-based
principles for determining whether a State-level regulatory regime
is substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework. 91 FR
16844 (Apr. 3, 2026) (Treasury). Changes to Treasury's principles
between proposal and final adoption inherently will affect the
certifications that States submit under part 1522. The Committee has
endeavored to keep these interim procedural regulations and forms at
a sufficiently high level to generally apply regardless of the
substance of Treasury's principles. However, the Committee may
adjust part 1522 to ensure appropriate alignment with the
substantial similarity principles, based on the Committee's
determination of, among other things, how any changes to the
principles may affect the certification or procedures under part
1522. The Committee therefore encourages the public to carefully
review the proposed broad-based principles alongside these interim
procedures and forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GENIUS Act directs Treasury and each of the primary Federal
payment stablecoin regulators to promulgate regulations to carry out
their respective responsibilities under the Act.\6\ With respect to the
Committee's review of State-level regulatory regimes under section 4(c)
of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)), the Act requires States to submit
certifications to the Committee, including an attestation ``in a form
prescribed by the [Committee],'' \7\ and directs the Committee to
follow certain procedures.\8\ The Committee is issuing this rule to
prescribe the form of certifications and to implement the procedures
necessary for the Committee to carry out its statutory review
responsibilities under section 4(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 5913.
\7\ Id. at section 4(c)(4)(B) (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(B)).
\8\ See, e.g., id. at section 4(c)(5) (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)).
\9\ See generally Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,
435 U.S. 519, 544 (1978) (recognizing the ``very basic tenet of
administrative law that agencies should be free to fashion their own
rules of procedure''). See also Perez v. Mortgage Banker's Ass'n,
575 U.S. 92, 102 (2015) (reaffirming this ``very basic tenet'' set
out in Vermont Yankee); FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S.
134, 138 (1940) (observing, in the context of a particular statutory
licensing structure, that ``[n]ecessarily . . . the subordinate
questions of procedure . . . when the Commission's licensing
authority is invoked . . . were explicitly and by implication left
to the Commission's own devising'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 19, 2025, Treasury published in the Federal Register
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public
comment on questions relating to the implementation of the GENIUS
Act.\10\ In drafting these procedures, the Committee considered
comments received on the ANPRM that were material and relevant to the
subjects contained herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 90 FR 45159 (September 19, 2025) (Treasury); 90 FR 47251
(October 1, 2025) (extending the comment period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Rule
A. Overview of the Rule
Section 1522.1 sets forth the scope and applicability of part 1522,
which is intended to contain all rules issued by the Committee. Section
1522.2 provides definitions of certain terms used throughout the part.
Section 1522.3 includes a severability provision. Section 1522.4
reserves authority for the Committee to waive the requirements in part
1522 in exceptional circumstances and only to the extent consistent
with the Act.
Section 1522.10 sets out the procedures by which the Committee will
review State ``substantial similarity'' certifications and
recertifications under section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)). Paragraph (a) addresses the manner of submission. Paragraph
(b) sets out the form of initial certifications, and the preamble
solicits comment on the effect of the one-year deadline in section
4(c)(4)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(A)), including the extent
to which the Committee may consider later-filed certifications.
Paragraph (c) addresses the form and timing of annual recertifications
and provides that approval of a State's certification shall be
suspended if an annual recertification is not timely filed. Paragraph
(d) addresses when a certification or recertification will be
considered submitted, and paragraph (e) sets forth the standards for
the Committee's determinations. Finally, paragraph (f) sets forth
procedures relating to denial, opportunity to cure, resubmission, and
appeal. Recognizing that States may need additional time for the State
level regulatory regime to appropriately reflect any changes to Federal
statutes, interpretations, regulations, or orders, it provides that the
cure period is two years from the date of enactment of an Act of
Congress or two years from the date of publication of the regulatory
materials.
Appendices A and B contain forms for the attestations to be
included in the initial and annual certifications.
B. Scope and Applicability
Subpart A of part 1522 sets out general provisions related to the
Committee's rules under part 1522. Section 1522.1 sets forth the scope
and applicability of part 1522. Specifically, it provides that part
1522 is being issued to implement certain responsibilities of the
Committee under the GENIUS Act. It further provides that the
regulations issued under part 1522 are those of the Committee,
published by the agency of its Chair, the Department of the Treasury,
at the Committee's direction. Section 1522.1(b) states that subpart B
of part 1522 sets forth the procedures related to the Committee's
review of State ``substantial similarity'' certifications and
recertifications under section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)). The Committee may issue additional rules under part 1522 that
relate to responsibilities other than those set out in section 4(c) of
the Act, as appropriate.
Question 1: Is it clear how subpart B of part 1522 relates to the
broad-based principles proposed by Treasury in part 1521? Should Sec.
1522.1, or subpart B of part 1522, more closely reference, incorporate,
or rely on part 1521? Alternatively, should Sec. 1522.1, or
[[Page 61690]]
subpart B of part 1522, more clearly distinguish the procedures in part
1522 from the principles set forth in part 1521? If so, how?
C. Definitions
Section 1522.2(a) provides that to the extent not otherwise defined
in this part, the terms used in this part have the same meaning given
to them as in section 2 of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901).
Section 1522.2(b) provides the following definitions of terms used
throughout part 1522.
Act or GENIUS Act. The Committee defines ``Act'' or ``GENIUS Act''
to mean the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S.
Stablecoins Act (12 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.).
Material change. Section 4(c)(5)(B) of the Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)(5)(B)) provides that the Committee shall only deny a
recertification if (i) the State-level regulatory regime has materially
\11\ changed from the prior certification or there has been a
significant change in circumstances, and (ii) the material change or
significant change in circumstances is such that the State-level
regulatory regime will not promote the safe and sound operation of
State qualified payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision. To
provide regulatory clarity and to implement these provisions of the
Act, the Committee believes it is beneficial to define the terms
``material change'' and ``significant change in circumstances.''
Without defining these terms, States would lack a clear understanding
of the information the Committee needs to evaluate a recertification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Act uses the terms ``material change'' and ``materially
changed'' interchangeably. See sections 4(c)(5)(B)(i) and (ii) (12
U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(B)(i) and (ii)). For clarity and ease of
reference, this rule defines the term ``material change'' and uses
the defined term throughout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``material change'' should be understood to refer to
changes to the State-level regulatory regime itself, consistent with
section 4(c)(5)(B)(ii) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(B)(ii)).
Specifically, the Committee defines ``material change'' to mean any
legislative, regulatory, supervisory, judicial, or other similar change
in the relevant State that, either individually or together with other
such changes, has, causes, or could reasonably be expected to have or
cause a material effect on the State-level regulatory regime. The
definition further provides that such changes may include, but are not
limited to, changes affecting: (i) the scope of a State payment
stablecoin regulator's regulatory or supervisory authority, including
examination or reporting authorities; (ii) enforcement powers; (iii)
prudential standards, including those relating to reserves, redemption,
liquidity, capital, governance, or risk management; or (iv) the scope
of entities or activities subject to State payment stablecoin
regulation or supervision.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ These examples are illustrative of changes that may
constitute material changes, but a change in one of these categories
is not per se a material change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, if the State-level regulatory regime were to revise
its regulations so that provisions that were previously required at the
time of the initial certification became best practices instead, such a
revision would likely constitute a ``material change.'' Similarly, a
change to the State's capital or reserve asset diversification
requirements to make them less or more stringent would constitute a
``material change.''
Significant change in circumstances. Since the language in the Act
describes a ``material change'' in connection with the State-level
regulatory regime, the Committee defines ``significant change in
circumstances'' as something distinct from a change to the State-level
regulatory regime. Specifically, the Committee defines ``significant
change in circumstances'' to mean a change in circumstances, including
but not limited to, a change in Federal statutes, regulations,
interpretations, or orders; market conditions; issuer behavior; or
risk-related developments, that, either individually or together with
other such changes, significantly affects the operation, effectiveness,
or supervisory outcomes of a State-level regulatory regime or causes
the State-level regulatory regime and the Federal regulatory framework
to significantly diverge.\13\ Such a change would be a significant
change in circumstances even if the State-level regulatory regime
remains unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These examples are illustrative of changes that may
constitute a significant change in circumstances, but a change in
one of these categories is not per se a significant change in
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in accordance with Treasury's proposed part 1521, if
there were substantive changes to Federal law (such as Acts of Congress
or regulations published in the Federal Register) that affect permitted
payment stablecoin issuers, such changes would likely constitute a
significant change in circumstances. For the avoidance of doubt, a
significant change in circumstances does not include a change that
constitutes a material change to the State-level regulatory regime.
Congress used the terms differently, and the definitions give effect to
both terms by providing distinct definitions.
Stablecoin Certification Review Committee or Committee. The
Committee defines the term ``Stablecoin Certification Review
Committee'' or ``Committee'' to have the meaning of the term
``Stablecoin Certification Review Committee'' set forth in section
2(27) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(27)).
State. The Committee defines ``State'' to have the meaning of that
term set forth in section 2(28) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(28)).
State payment stablecoin regulator. The Committee defines the term
``State payment stablecoin regulator'' to have the meaning of that term
set forth in section 2(30) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(30)).
State-level regulatory regime. The Committee defines the term
``State-level regulatory regime,'' with respect to a particular State,
consistent with the meaning of that term in Treasury's proposed 12 CFR
1521.1(c). Under Treasury's proposed definition, a State-level
regulatory regime, with respect to a particular State, would mean: (i)
all statutes enacted by the State regarding payment stablecoins; (ii)
any regulations regarding payment stablecoins or that apply to a State
qualified payment stablecoin issuer issued by a State payment
stablecoin regulator of the State or another regulator of the State;
and (iii) any interpretations or guidance thereunder, only to the
extent they are enforceable against State qualified payment stablecoin
issuers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 91 FR 16844, 16847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State qualified payment stablecoin issuer. The Committee defines
the term ``State qualified payment stablecoin issuer'' to have the
meaning of that term set forth in section 2(31) of the GENIUS Act (12
U.S.C. 5901(31)).
Question 2: Is the distinction between a ``material change'' and a
``significant change in circumstances'' sufficiently clear? If not, how
should the Committee clarify the distinction?
Question 3: Should the Committee make any changes to the definition
of ``material change?'' For example, should the Committee eliminate
legislative, regulatory, supervisory, or judicial changes from the
definition? Conversely, should any types of changes be added to the
definition of ``material change?'' Is it appropriate to consider the
effect of changes both individually and together with other such
changes? Is the standard discussing such changes that ``could
reasonably be expected to have or cause a material effect on the State-
level regulatory regime''
[[Page 61691]]
sufficiently clear or should the Committee provide additional detail?
Are the categories of changes (regulatory or supervisory authority,
enforcement powers, prudential standards, and scope of entities or
activities) appropriate? Are there additional categories that the
Committee should expressly list as material changes?
Question 4: Should the Committee make any changes to the definition
of ``significant change in circumstances?'' Is it clear which changes
to Federal statutes, regulations, interpretations, or orders would
constitute a ``significant change in circumstances?'' Similarly, is it
clear what market conditions would constitute a ``significant change in
circumstances?'' Does the Committee need to provide additional
specificity on a change that ``significantly affects the operation,
effectiveness, or supervisory outcomes'' of a State-level regulatory
regime or causes the State-level regulatory regime and the Federal
regulatory framework to ``significantly diverge?'' Should certain
changes automatically constitute a ``significant change in
circumstances?'' Are there any additional categories of changes that
the Committee should include?
Question 5: Are the other definitions set forth in part 1522
sufficiently clear and appropriate? Are there any additional statutory
terms that should be defined in part 1522? Are there any additional
definitions that the Committee should incorporate from Treasury's
proposed 12 CFR part 1521?
D. Severability
Section 1522.3 provides that the provisions of this part are
separate and severable from one another. If any provision, clause, or
phrase of this part, or the application thereof to any person, entity
or circumstance, is stayed or determined to be invalid, unlawful, or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such determination
shall not affect the validity, lawfulness, or enforceability of the
remaining provisions or applications of this regulation, which shall
remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent permitted by law.
E. Reservation of Authority
Section 1522.4 provides that the Committee may, only to the extent
consistent with the GENIUS Act, waive any of the procedures of part
1522 in exceptional circumstances. For example, if there had been an
event outside of a State payment stablecoin regulator's control (e.g.,
a natural disaster) that led it to file an untimely recertification,
the Committee could determine to waive the timing requirements provided
in Sec. 1522.10(c)(1).
Question 6: Should the Committee define ``exceptional
circumstances'' for purposes of Sec. 1522.4?
F. Certifications Requiring Review by the Committee
Section 1522.10 implements the statutory requirement under section
4(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)) that States seeking to regulate
State qualified payment stablecoin issuers must submit to the Committee
an initial certification that the State-level regulatory regime is
substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework and annual
recertifications thereafter.
Section 1522.10(a) provides that a State payment stablecoin
regulator that seeks approval of an initial certification or an annual
recertification under section 4(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)) must
submit to the Committee a certification, including an attestation in
the form prescribed by the Committee. The State payment stablecoin
regulator must submit the certification, including the attestation and
all required supporting information, electronically to the email
address specified from time to time on Treasury's website.
G. Initial Certification
Deadline to Submit Initial Certification
Section 4(c)(4)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(A)) requires
that a State payment stablecoin regulator shall submit an initial
certification to the Committee ``not later than one year after the
effective date of this Act.'' Various parties, including those who
commented on Treasury's ANPRM, have expressed concern that such a
deadline may be insufficient to allow States adequate time to develop
and implement a State-level regulatory regime that meets the
requirements for Committee approval under section 4(c) of the Act (12
U.S.C. 5903(c)). For example, in a letter to the Secretary of the
Treasury, seven United States Senators, including multiple cosponsors
of the GENIUS Act, argued that procedures under section 4(c) ``should
not operate as a one-time window that effectively bars future
certifications,'' \15\ stating that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Letter from Sens. Cynthia Lummis et al. to Hon. Scott
Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury (June 16, 2026), available at
<a href="https://www.lummis.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/GENIUS-State-Implementation-Letter_-.pdf">https://www.lummis.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/GENIUS-State-Implementation-Letter_-.pdf</a>.
Congress's intent in Section 4(c) was to ensure timely
establishment of a viable State pathway so that firms electing State
chartering would not be disadvantaged--not to restrict or limit the
ability of States to regulate payment stablecoin issuers.
Interpreting the certification timeline as a hard cutoff would
likely foreclose future State participation, undermining Congress's
intent and reducing regulatory optionality in a rapidly evolving
market. . . . State legislative processes vary significantly, and in
some cases operate on biennial cycles. A flexible, ongoing
certification framework is necessary to ensure that States can
participate meaningfully over time and that innovation and
competition are not constrained by timing misalignment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
The Committee seeks to implement section 4(c) of the Act in a way
that achieves the intent of Congress to encourage effective
participation by States in the Act's dual Federal-State regulatory
framework, while giving effect to the statutory text in section
4(c)(4)(A) (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(A)). To that end, the Committee
believes that, at a minimum, a State payment stablecoin regulator would
satisfy section 4(c)(4)(A) (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(A)) of the Act by
submitting any form of certification by January 18, 2028,\17\ even if
the certification is conditional on additional planned State
legislative or regulatory work or would otherwise be considered
incomplete under these procedures.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The effective date of the GENIUS Act is expected to be
January 18, 2027 (i.e., the date that is 18 months after the date of
enactment of the GENIUS Act). See section 20.
\18\ Appendix A includes an optional check box for a State
payment stablecoin regulator to indicate that the certification is
conditional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that this approach best harmonizes the clear
congressional intent to create a meaningful role for States in the
regulation of payment stablecoin issuers with Congress's choice to
include a specific date in section 4(c)(4)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)(4)(A)). In effect, this approach gives effect to the statutory
date by requiring States to demonstrate that they are moving
expeditiously, within one year, toward ensuring that their State-level
regulatory regimes meet or exceed the standards and requirements
described in section 4(a) of the Act, while also recognizing, as the
Act does, that more time may be required for a State to achieve this
goal. Indeed, the Act expressly contemplates that additional
legislative or regulatory work may be required following the initial
certification, providing that ``the State payment stablecoin regulator
and State-level regulatory regime [may be required] to make any changes
necessary to meet or exceed the standards and requirements described in
subsection (a)'' (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(A)(ii)).
[[Page 61692]]
Finally, section 4(c)(4)(B) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(B)),
expressly authorizes the Committee to prescribe the form of the initial
attestation. Therefore, the Committee believes it has discretion to
determine that the initial attestation may take a conditional and
flexible form for purposes of the one-year statutory timeline, while
requiring the attestation to be unconditional and in the form
prescribed by these procedures for purposes of substantive Committee
review and approval. Under this bifurcated approach, the certification
would be considered submitted for purposes of section 4(c)(4)(A) of the
Act and could be amended by the State payment stablecoin regulator at
any time, but would not be considered to be formally submitted for
purposes of Committee review until it has been amended to meet the
requirements set out in Sec. 1522.10(d)(1)(i), as described further
below.
The Committee requests comment on the effect of this approach, the
one-year statutory timeframe generally, and any alternative approaches.
Question 7: Which States would seek to submit certifications and
how many would be able to submit complete and unconditional
certifications by January 18, 2028? Is the one-year requirement an
appropriate amount of time for States to submit initial certifications?
What would be the practical effects and limitations if the Committee
did not consider any certifications submitted later than one year after
the effective date of the Act?
Question 8: Is the approach above, where incomplete or conditional
certifications satisfy the statutory timeframe under section 4(c)(4)(A)
of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(A)), even if not sufficient for
substantive Committee review and approval, appropriate? Should the
Committee prescribe a particular form for incomplete or conditional
certifications? For example, should the certifications be required to
be substantially complete or should they contain at a minimum specific
projected actions and timelines to complete the certification? Should a
form that merely demonstrates the State's intent to submit an initial
certification be sufficient? Should the form be signed or unsigned, and
what attestations should it include? Should a representative of each
State payment stablecoin regulator be required to submit separate
conditional certifications, or should joint letters submitted by a
mutual agent or organization representing various States be permitted?
If so, which organizations or agents should be permitted? Should the
Committee require that any incomplete or conditional certifications
must be amended within some period of time (e.g., six months, one year,
two years) or should the Committee permit a State payment stablecoin
regulator to amend and complete a conditional or incomplete
certification at any time? To effectuate that timeline, should the
Committee formally issue a denial within the meaning of section
4(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(A)(ii)) and provide a
fixed period for resubmission?
Question 9: Should the Committee instead adopt any alternative
approaches? For example, should the Committee consider a certification
that was first filed after January 18, 2028, under certain conditions?
If so, under which conditions? Should the same procedures, and
timeframes apply to such late-filed certifications, including with
respect to timeline, resubmission, and appeals? Are there other
situations that would allow the Committee to deem a later-filed
certification as submitted prior to the one-year deadline? Should there
be a process whereby States could request an extension of the one-year
deadline? If so, what factors should the Committee consider to evaluate
such an extension request?
Certification and Attestation Form
Section 4(c)(4)(B) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(B)) provides
that the initial certification ``shall contain, in a form prescribed by
the [Committee], an attestation that the State-level regulatory regime
meets the criteria for substantial similarity.'' By providing that the
certification shall ``contain'' an attestation, rather than simply
providing for submission of an attestation, the text of the Act
contemplates that the certification is broader than the attestation
alone. The structure of the Act further demonstrates that additional
information must be submitted in the certification to facilitate the
Committee's review. The Committee is required to reach its own
determination of whether the State-level regulatory regime meets or
exceeds the standards and requirements described in section 4(a) of the
Act, which would necessarily require information beyond the required
attestation.
Section 1522.10(b) sets out the required contents of the initial
certification, including: (i) an attestation in the form of Appendix A
to Part 1522 signed by an authorized representative of the State
payment stablecoin regulator attesting that the State-level regulatory
regime in its State meets each of the criteria for substantial
similarity set forth in part 1521; (ii) a detailed narrative describing
how the State-level regulatory regime meets each of the criteria for
substantial similarity set forth in part 1521; (iii) any supporting
information and documentation, including, but not limited to, citations
to relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance applicable to payment
stablecoin issuers, and where necessary, copies of such statutes,
regulations, and guidance; and (iv) such information as the Committee
may deem necessary for it to render a decision on whether the State-
level regulatory regime satisfies the criteria for approval in section
4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)). The attestation form in
Appendix A includes a mapping of materials provided in the
certification designed to assist both State payment stablecoin
regulators in organizing the information in their certification and to
ensure no information is omitted, as well as the Committee in reviewing
the information provided.
The Committee is incorporating the definition of State-level
regulatory regime from Treasury's proposed part 1521, under which
guidance is included only to the extent it is enforceable against State
qualified payment stablecoin issuers.\19\ For each guidance document
that is submitted, the State payment stablecoin regulator must include
a discussion of whether the guidance is binding on State qualified
payment stablecoin issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 91 FR 16844, 16864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 10: Is the form in Appendix A sufficiently clear? Should
any additional requirements or clarifications be added to the form?
Should any other changes be made?
Question 11: Should the Committee provide additional detail on what
it expects to be included in the detailed narrative required under
Sec. 1522.10(b)(2)?
Question 12: Should the Committee provide additional guidance or
requirements on the scope of authorized representatives permitted to
sign the attestation? For example, should the attestation be required
to be signed by the top official at the State payment stablecoin
regulator or should delegation of signatory authority to lower
officials be permitted?
Question 13: Is the Committee's approach to requiring such
information the Committee may deem necessary for it to render a
decision on whether the State-level regulatory regime satisfies the
criteria for approval the correct approach? If not, how should the
Committee request additional information that may be necessary for it
to make its statutory determination
[[Page 61693]]
under section 4(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c))? Should the Committee
retain discretion to deem an application not to have been submitted if
it does not contain all information necessary for the Committee to make
a decision?
Question 14: To what extent should the narrative, attestations, or
other portions of the certification cover sections of the Act beyond
section 4(a)? For example, should State payment stablecoin regulators
be required to submit a list of persons engaged in the business of
providing custodial or safekeeping services and subject to the
supervision of the State payment stablecoin regulator or other
information about payment stablecoin custody?
Question 15: To what extent does the Committee retain authority to
reject a certification if the facts demonstrate that it is objectively
incomplete or inaccurate? For example, if the State certifies to
substantial similarity with the Federal custody regime under part 1521,
but the State factually lacks any custody regime whatsoever, should the
Committee reject the certification or deem a certification to not have
been submitted within the meaning of the Act?
Question 16: Is there any other supporting information that State
payment stablecoin regulators should be expressly required to submit
under Sec. 1522.10(b)?
H. Recertification
Section 4(c)(4)(C) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(C)) requires
that not later than a date to be determined annually by the Secretary
of the Treasury each year, a State payment stablecoin regulator shall
submit to the Committee an additional certification (i.e., a
recertification) that confirms the accuracy of the initial
certification submitted. Section 1522.10(c)(1) provides the timeframes
for when such recertifications must be submitted. Specifically, the
rule provides that recertifications shall be submitted to the Committee
during the calendar quarter in which the anniversary of the Committee's
approval of the State payment stablecoin regulator's initial
certification occurs. For example, if the initial certification was
approved in February, the annual recertification would be required to
be submitted between January 1 and March 31 of each subsequent year.
The Committee believes that this approach avoids States needing to re-
certify less than a year after their initial certification and also
enables timely processing of recertifications by potentially spreading
them out over the year rather than receiving all submissions on one
fixed date.
Question 17: Is the timeframe for submitting recertifications
appropriate? Should the Committee instead adopt a uniform annual
deadline for all States? Should the Committee adopt semiannual
submission windows instead of quarterly submission windows? Should the
Committee assign a submission window to each State to avoid the issue
of receiving all of the States' recertifications at one time? Are there
any other alternative timing scenarios that the Committee should
consider?
Section 1522.10(c)(2) sets forth the contents of a recertification.
Specifically, a recertification is required to contain an attestation
in the form of Appendix B to Part 1522 signed by an authorized
representative of the State payment stablecoin regulator that confirms
the accuracy of the initial certification. Additionally, a
recertification must contain a detailed narrative describing (A) each
change to the State-level regulatory regime since the prior
certification that could potentially be considered to be a material
change, excluding changes that are purely nonsubstantive changes in
form or procedure,\20\ (B) whether such change is a material change in
the opinion of the State payment stablecoin regulator, and (C) whether,
in the opinion of the State payment stablecoin regulator, the change
will not promote the safe and sound operation of State qualified
payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision. The rule provides
that the States must submit all changes in the State-level regulatory
regime that could potentially be considered material because it is
possible that a State payment stablecoin regulator's assessment of what
constitutes a material change may differ from that of the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 91 FR 16844, 16851 (``except as provided in the Act, a
State-level regulatory regime may deviate from the Federal
regulatory framework with respect to nonsubstantive matters of form
or procedure while remaining substantially similar to the Federal
regulatory framework.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recertification must also contain a detailed narrative describing
(A) each change in circumstances that could potentially be considered
to be a significant change in circumstances, (B) whether such change is
a significant change in circumstances, in the opinion of the State
payment stablecoin regulator, and (C) whether, in the opinion of the
State payment stablecoin regulator, the change will not promote the
safe and sound operation of State qualified payment stablecoin issuers
under its supervision.
The rule provides that, for both material changes and significant
changes in circumstances, the State payment stablecoin regulator must
opine on whether such changes will not promote the safe and sound
operation of State qualified payment stablecoin issuers because this
will assist the Committee in making a determination of whether the
changes are such that the State-level regulatory regime will not
promote the safe and sound operation of State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers under its supervision.\21\ However, the Act commits
to the Committee's independent judgment whether the changes will not
promote the safe and sound operation of State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers. Moreover, in evaluating a material change or
significant change in circumstances, the Committee may consider, in
addition to information provided by the State payment stablecoin
regulator, any information made available to it from public or
nonpublic sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recertification is also required to contain any relevant
supporting information and documentation, including, but not limited
to, citations to relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance
applicable to payment stablecoin issuers, and where necessary, copies
of such statutes, regulations, and guidance. State payment stablecoin
regulators are not expected to resubmit documentation provided in the
initial certification for which there has been no change since the
initial certification and which is not relevant to assessing any
potential material change or significant change in circumstances. For
each guidance document included, the State payment stablecoin regulator
is required to include a discussion of whether the guidance is binding
on State qualified payment stablecoin issuers. Finally, a
recertification is also required to contain such information as the
Committee may deem necessary for it to render a decision on whether the
State-level regulatory regime satisfies the criteria for approval in
section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)).
Question 18: Is the attestation form provided in Appendix B to Part
1522 sufficiently clear? Is there anything the Committee should change
about the attestation form? Are the individual attestations
appropriate?
Question 19: How should the attestation form provided in Appendix B
best operationalize the requirement in section 4(c)(4)(C) of the Act
(12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(C)) that the State payment stablecoin regulator
shall submit an
[[Page 61694]]
annual recertification that ``confirms the accuracy of the initial
certification''? For example, should the State payment stablecoin
regulator be required to attest that the State-level regulatory regime
continues to ``meet[ ] the criteria for substantial similarity
established [under Treasury's broad-based principles]'' (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)(4)(A))? Should the State payment stablecoin regulator be
required to attest that the State-level regulatory regime continues to
meet or exceed the standards and requirements described in section 4(a)
of the Act?
Question 20: Under Sec. 1522.10(c)(2)(ii), should State payment
stablecoin regulators be required to describe whether material changes
will not promote the safe and sound operation of State qualified
payment stablecoin issuers?
Question 21: Should the State payment stablecoin regulator be
required to describe only changes that it considers to be material
changes?
Question 22: Under Sec. 1522.10(c)(2)(iii), should State payment
stablecoin regulators be required to describe whether significant
changes in circumstances will not promote the safe and sound operation
of State qualified payment stablecoin issuers?
Question 23: Are there any other categories of documentation that
should be explicitly required under Sec. 1522.10(c)(2)(iv)?
The Act contemplates that certification and recertification are
prerequisites to State qualified payment stablecoin issuers operating
under a State-level regulatory regime but does not expressly address
the consequences if a recertification is not submitted in a timely
manner. A lack of any consequences for failing to submit a
recertification would render the requirement to submit an annual
recertification a nullity. Such an interpretation would frustrate the
statutory requirement that the Committee conduct annual reviews with
the ability to deny recertifications if there has been a material
change in the State-level regulatory regime such that it raises safety
and soundness concerns.\22\ Section 1522.10(c)(3) provides that if a
State payment stablecoin regulator does not submit a recertification by
the deadlines specified in Sec. 1522.10(c)(1), the certification
approval shall be deemed to be suspended. The Committee recognizes that
a failure of a State payment stablecoin regulator to submit a
recertification in a timely manner may have significant consequences
for State qualified payment stablecoin issuers operating in the
affected State as well as for market participants that rely on those
issuers, including that the State payment stablecoin regulator may not
be permitted to issue new licenses and that existing State qualified
payment stablecoin issuers may be required to transition to another
State or Federal license. Therefore, the Committee invites comment on
the appropriate scope and effects of such a suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 24: What should the consequences be of a State payment
stablecoin regulator failing to timely submit an annual
recertification? Should the Committee's approval of the State's
certification be suspended? Are there any additional alternatives
regarding how the Committee should interpret and apply the suspension
of a certification in Sec. 1522.10(c)(3)? For example, should the
Committee adopt a grace period before the suspension takes place (e.g.,
30 or 60 days), and if so, how long should the grace period be? Should
the Committee be required to send a notice of deficiency before a
suspension goes into effect? Should the Committee not suspend
certifications but use another mechanism to ensure submission of
recertifications? If so, what other mechanisms should the Committee
consider? How long should the Committee provide the States to cure the
failure to submit a timely recertification?
Question 25: If the Committee's approval of a State's certification
is suspended pending submission of a timely recertification, should the
State be prohibited from licensing new State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers until the suspension is lifted? Should there be any
effect on the operations of currently licensed State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers? For example, should there be a suspension of the
ability of State qualified payment stablecoin issuers to issue new
payment stablecoins during the period of suspension? To the extent the
Committee prohibits existing State qualified payment stablecoin issuers
from issuing new payment stablecoins following a suspension, are there
any exceptions the Committee should make (e.g., allowing issuance if
necessary to facilitate a transfer of payment stablecoins across
different blockchains)? Should continued issuance depend on whether the
State is actively working to cure the deficiency? Should there be
limitations on the offer and sale of affected payment stablecoins?
Should the Committee give State qualified payment stablecoin issuers in
an affected State a grace period to seek licensure in a State with an
approved certification or at the Federal level, and if so, how long
should they be given to do so? Should the Committee or Treasury grant
case-by-case waivers on any of the above limitations and if so, when?
I. Submission of Initial Certifications and Recertifications
Section 1522.10(d)(1) describes when initial certifications and
recertifications will be considered to be submitted. An initial
certification has not been submitted until all materials required under
Sec. 1522.10(b) have been submitted. Similarly, a recertification has
not been submitted until all materials required under Sec.
1522.10(c)(2) have been submitted.
In both cases, the referenced list of materials includes such
information as the Committee may deem necessary for it to render a
decision on whether the State-level regulatory regime satisfies the
criteria for approval or denial in section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12
U.S.C. 5903(c)).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The Committee endeavors to process certifications promptly
and endeavors that this process not result in unnecessary delay. The
Committee expects to work cooperatively with State payment
stablecoin regulators to identify any information that is unclear in
any material respect or any deficiencies so that the Committee can
complete its review of an initial certification or recertification.
The Committee expects to only request such information when
reasonably necessary to evaluate whether the State-level regulatory
regime satisfies the criteria for approval under section 4(c) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee considered whether a certification should be
considered to have been submitted at the time a State payment
stablecoin regulator submits any package of materials to the Committee,
regardless of whether those materials are complete and contain
sufficient information for the Committee to render a decision. Doing so
would potentially start the 30-day clock for a Committee decision under
section 4(c)(5)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(A)) earlier, which
could provide greater certainty to a State payment stablecoin regulator
on the timeline for a decision on its certification. However, it would
also likely increase the number of formal denials that would be issued
by the Committee, given the 30-day requirement for approval or denial,
such as denials of incomplete certifications that could easily be
corrected. The State payment stablecoin regulator would then be
required to resubmit the certification within a certain period without
having the benefit of detailed reasoning from the Committee regarding
its substance and any substantive changes that would need to be made
[[Page 61695]]
before approval, increasing the odds of a second denial.
Instead, the Committee believes that it would be more efficient and
in the best interest of State payment stablecoin regulators that the
Committee refrain from making an official approval or denial of a
certification until such time as the State payment stablecoin regulator
can prepare a complete package of materials that would allow the
Committee sufficient information to make its determination. This
process will generally be consistent with longstanding practices by
Federal regulatory agencies. To the extent that States seek
clarification as to whether their certification or recertification
submissions are complete, States are welcome to seek feedback from the
Committee after submission. However, the Committee requests comment on
potential alternatives to this approach.
Accordingly, Sec. 1522.10(d)(2) provides that neither an initial
certification nor a recertification has been submitted within the
meaning of Sec. 1522.10(d)(1) if the State payment stablecoin
regulator has omitted any information necessary for the Committee to
evaluate whether the State-level regulatory regime satisfies the
criteria for approval in section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)). A certification is not considered submitted if the
information provided was unclear in any material respect or there are
deficiencies that must be resolved, including through the submission of
additional information.
Section 1522.10(d)(3) provides that the Committee may request, at
any time, additional information that it deems necessary, in its sole
discretion, to complete its review under section 4(c) of the Act.
Section 1522.10(d)(4) provides that the Committee will notify a State
payment stablecoin regulator once the Committee determines that such
regulator has submitted an initial certification or recertification.
Question 26: Should the Committee, instead of determining whether a
certification or recertification is ``submitted'' under Sec.
1522.10(d), deny any initial certification or recertification within 30
days of submission if it is incomplete or deficient, and provide the
State an opportunity to cure and resubmit? Are there concerns with the
Committee not evaluating an initial certification or recertification,
and the relevant time period beginning to run, until it has been deemed
to be submitted? Should the Committee institute a deadline for when it
must consider an initial certification or recertification to be
submitted (e.g., a deadline based on the time elapsed since the receipt
of the initial materials)?
Question 27: Is Sec. 1522.10(d)(2) sufficiently clear? Should the
Committee notify a State payment stablecoin regulator within a certain
period if its submission is incomplete or otherwise not considered to
be a valid submission of a certification under part 1522?
Question 28: Should these procedures provide a standard timeframe
that will be given to a State payment stablecoin regulator to respond
to any Committee requests for additional information?
Question 29: When reviewing materials for completeness, to what
extent, if at all, should the Committee consider materials submitted
that may be relevant to Treasury's principles under part 1521 other
than the principles for section 4(a)? Are there any circumstances in
which the Committee should determine that a certification was not
submitted within the meaning of part 1522 based on factors outside of
section 4(a)? For example, if the State payment stablecoin regulator
certifies that its application framework is substantially similar in
accordance with Treasury's principles, but it is apparent that the
State has no application framework, should the Committee reject the
certification as invalid?
Question 30: Should the Committee add a timing component to Sec.
1522.10(d)(4) that requires the Committee to notify the State payment
stablecoin regulator within a certain amount of time? If so, what is
the appropriate timeline for notification?
J. Committee Determinations
Section 1522.10(e)(1) provides that not later than 30 days after
the date on which a State payment stablecoin regulator submits an
initial certification or recertification in accordance with this
section, the Committee will approve or deny such certification.
Section 1522.10(e)(2) provides that the Committee shall approve an
initial certification submitted under paragraph (b) if the Committee
unanimously determines that the State-level regulatory regime meets or
exceeds the standards and requirements described in section 4(a) of the
Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)).
Section 1522.10(e)(3) provides that the Committee shall only deny
an annual recertification if the Committee determines that (i) there
has been a material change in the State-level regulatory regime or
there has been a significant change in circumstances since the prior
certification; and (ii) the material change or significant change in
circumstances identified is such that the State-level regulatory regime
will not promote the safe and sound operation of State qualified
payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision.
Section 4(c)(7) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(7)) provides that the
Committee shall take all necessary steps to endeavor that, with respect
to a State that, within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act
(on or before January 14, 2026), has in effect a prudential regulatory
regime (including regulations and guidance) for the supervision of
digital assets or payment stablecoins, the certification process with
respect to that regime occurs on an expedited timeline after the
effective date of the Act. Consistent with this statutory provision,
Sec. 1522.10(e)(4) provides that the Committee will endeavor to
process initial certifications on an expedited timeline after the
effective date of the GENIUS Act with respect to a State that, within
180 days of the date of enactment of the GENIUS Act, had in effect a
prudential regulatory regime (including regulations and guidance) for
the supervision of digital assets or payment stablecoins. If a State
believes it is entitled to expedited processing under this provision,
the State payment stablecoin regulator should select the relevant check
box on the attestation in the form of Appendix A to Part 1522 and
should include a statement in the narrative required under Sec.
1522.10(b) and attach any supporting documentation, as appropriate.
Question 31: Should this part provide additional clarification on
the standard for meeting or exceeding the standards and requirements
described in section 4(a) of the Act, such as by cross-referencing to
part 1521?
Question 32: In considering whether a State-level regulatory regime
meets or exceeds the standards and requirements described in section
4(a), to what extent should the Committee consider other aspects of the
State-level regulatory regime that may indirectly bear on the
substantive prudential requirements set out in section 4(a) of the Act?
For example, should the Committee consider a State's supervisory
framework applicable to a prudential requirement under section 4(a) in
considering whether the State-level regulatory regime actually meets or
exceeds the standards and requirements described in section 4(a) of the
Act? If a State has no operational supervisory framework to monitor
compliance with reserve requirements under section 4(a), can the State-
level regulatory regime nonetheless meet or exceed the standards and
requirements described under section 4(a), or should the Committee
conclude that the State-level
[[Page 61696]]
regulatory regime does not have any meaningful reserve requirements
within the meaning of section 4(a) because the reserve requirements
exist only on paper and not in practice?
Question 33: To what extent, if at all, should the Committee's
review of recertifications consider the ``accuracy of the initial
certification'' submitted by the State payment stablecoin regulator or
the State payment stablecoin regulator's certification that ``confirms
the accuracy of the initial certification'' under section 4(c)(4)(C) of
the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(C))?
Question 34: What necessary steps should the Committee take to
endeavor that the certification process with respect to the regimes set
forth in section 4(c)(7) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(7)) occur on an
expedited timeline? Should the Committee provide for an interim
approval for some period of time after such States' certifications are
submitted or other similar approach? Should evaluation of such States'
certifications be prioritized over other States' certifications? Should
this expedited timeline apply to just initial certifications, or also
recertifications? What should the Committee consider when determining
whether the State has a prudential regulatory regime for the
supervision of digital assets or payment stablecoins in effect? Should
the Committee consider the regime only in the form that was effective
as of January 14, 2026, or also consider changes to the State-level
regulatory regime that occur after the 180-day period (i.e., changes to
the regime made after January 14, 2026), including changes made in
response to the GENIUS Act and Federal regulations thereunder?
Question 35: Should the Committee evaluate initial certifications
and recertifications against the standards and requirements described
in section 4(a) of the Act in effect at the time the Committee
considers the certification to be submitted under Sec. 1522.10(d) or
the standards and requirements in effect at the time of the Committee's
review? For example, if Congress amends the GENIUS Act following a
State's submission of a certification or recertification, should the
Committee take such an amendment into consideration? Are there other
timing considerations the Committee should address?
K. Opportunity To Cure and Appeal
Section 1522.10(f) outlines the Committee's procedures related to
denial, resubmission, and appeal of initial certifications and
recertifications. Consistent with section 4(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act (12
U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(A)(ii)), Sec. 1522.10(f)(1) provides that if the
Committee denies an initial certification or annual recertification, it
will provide the State payment stablecoin regulator with a written
explanation of the denial, describing the reasoned basis for the denial
with sufficient detail to enable the State to make any changes
necessary for the State-level regulatory regime to meet or exceed the
standards and requirements described in section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act
(12 U.S.C. 5903(a)). Additionally, consistent with section 4(c)(5)(C)
of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(5)(C)), Sec. 1522.10(f)(2) provides that
for denials under Sec. 1522.10(f)(1), the Committee shall provide the
State payment stablecoin regulator with not less than 180 days from the
date on which the State payment stablecoin regulator is notified of
such denial to--(i) make such changes as may be necessary to ensure the
State-level regulatory regime meets or exceeds the standards described
in section 4(a) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)) and (ii) resubmit the
initial certification or recertification.
In contrast to a failure to timely recertify, as described above,
the initial denial of a recertification would not have the effect of
suspending the State's certification or any collateral impacts on the
ability of the State payment stablecoin regulator to license State
qualified payment stablecoin issuers or of those issuers to issue new
payment stablecoins. The Committee reads the Act's provision of an
``opportunity to cure'' as providing States with a chance to remediate
any errors before the consequences of a denial take effect. This is
consistent with the structure of the Act, which provides for judicial
appeals only after the State payment stablecoin regulator has been
provided an opportunity to cure.
However, the Act does not expressly address the situation where a
State payment stablecoin regulator fails to resubmit the initial
certification or recertification in a timely manner. Logically, in that
circumstance, the State payment stablecoin regulator has either not
cured the deficiencies in its initial certification or recertification,
or at least has failed to provide the Committee with the information
necessary to evaluate whether it has done so. Therefore, the Committee
would expect to formalize its denial under Sec. 1522.10(f)(4) if the
cure period has elapsed without resubmission by the State payment
stablecoin regulator.
The Committee understands that there may be some significant
changes in circumstances that would necessitate a relatively longer
cure period for State payment stablecoin regulators. Specifically, for
Acts of Congress that pertain to permitted payment stablecoin issuers
or changes to the relevant regulations, interpretations, or orders as
provided for in Treasury's proposed 12 CFR part 1521, States may
require additional time to incorporate these changes into their State-
level regulatory regime. Accordingly, Sec. 1522.10(f)(3) provides that
if a denial under Sec. 1522.10(f)(1) is based on a change resulting
from an Act of Congress or a change in a relevant Federal regulation,
interpretation, or order in accordance with part 1521, the 180-day
period in Sec. 1522.10(f)(2) shall instead be the later of: (i) the
180-day period or (ii) two years from the date of enactment of an Act
of Congress or two years from the date of publication of the
interpretation, regulation, or order. Because an initial denial of a
recertification would not result in a suspension of the State's
certification, this longer cure period would, in effect, provide States
with a transition period to appropriately reflect any changes in
Federal statutes or regulations, taking into account, for example, the
biennial legislative sessions of certain States.
In accordance with section 4(c)(5)(C)(ii) of the Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)(5)(C)(ii)), Sec. 1522.10(f)(4) provides that if, after a State
payment stablecoin regulator resubmits an initial certification or
annual recertification under Sec. 1522.10(f)(2)(ii), and the Committee
denies the initial certification or recertification, the Committee
shall, not later than 30 days after such determination, provide the
State payment stablecoin regulator with a written explanation for the
determination. Consistent with section 4(c)(5)(D) of the Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)(5)(D)), Sec. 1522.10(f)(5) provides that a State payment
stablecoin regulator in receipt of a denial under Sec. 1522.10(f)(4)
may appeal the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.
Finally, Sec. 1522.10(f)(6) provides that a State payment
stablecoin regulator in receipt of a denial under Sec. 1522.10(f) may
resubmit a new certification under part 1522.
The Committee recognizes that the denial of an annual
recertification may have significant consequences for State qualified
payment stablecoin issuers operating in the affected State as well as
for market participants that rely on those issuers, including that the
State payment stablecoin regulator may not be permitted to issue new
licenses and that existing State qualified payment stablecoin issuers
may be required to transition to another State or Federal
[[Page 61697]]
license. Therefore, the Committee invites comment on the approach.
Question 36: Is the extension of time described in Sec.
1522.10(f)(3) appropriate? Should the Committee instead not allow for
such an extension? Is the two-year extension following an Act of
Congress appropriate? Instead, should it be one year or another time
period? Is the two-year extension following the publication of a
Federal interpretation, regulation, or order appropriate? Instead,
should it be one year or another time period? Should the extension only
apply to interpretations, regulations, or orders that are published in
the Federal Register? Is it sufficiently clear what two years from the
date of publication means? Should the two-year period provided under
Sec. 1522.10(f)(3) begin on the date the Committee notifies the State
payment stablecoin regulator of the denial of the certification or
recertification, rather than on the date of enactment of the relevant
Act of Congress or publication of the relevant Federal regulation,
interpretation, or order? Rather than setting a fixed time period of
two years as in Sec. 1522.10(f)(3), should the Committee evaluate the
specific change that led to the denial and make a facts and
circumstances determination regarding how long the State should have to
modify its State-level regulatory regime to make the relevant change?
Question 37: Should the State's certification be considered
suspended until it submits a new certification that is approved? Should
the State payment stablecoin regulator be prohibited from licensing any
new State qualified payment stablecoin issuers? What is the appropriate
timeline, including any grace period, for these consequences, and
should the effect of the denial be stayed pending any appeal? Should
the Committee formally notify the State payment stablecoin regulator or
the public once such a suspension is in effect?
III. Regulatory Matters
A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The Committee views this rule as a rule of organization, procedure,
or practice within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and, to the
extent that this rule interprets the Act or provides a statement of
Committee policy, an interpretative rule or general statement of
policy, respectively, within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Accordingly, notice and comment are not required under the APA.\24\
Nonetheless, the Committee values public input in refining the form and
procedures for submission and review of State payment stablecoin
regulator certifications and recertifications. As noted earlier, the
Committee has carefully considered views from various stakeholders
expressed through comments submitted to other notices, including the
ANPRM issued by Treasury in September 2025. The Committee further
requests public comment on these interim procedures. The Committee
intends to revise these procedures, as appropriate, following full
consideration of comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ In the alternative, the Committee for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure and a delay prior to the effectiveness
of this procedural rule are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). In
particular, the GENIUS Act takes effect on January 18, 2027, at
which time it will generally be unlawful for persons to issue
payment stablecoins in the United States unless they are licensed or
approved as permitted payment stablecoin issuers. Many current
payment stablecoin issuers are licensed and regulated at the State
level. Therefore, failing to have procedures in place to process
State certifications by the effective date of the GENIUS Act could
impede the ability of issuers to continue normal issuance operations
or create significant market uncertainty, potentially causing
dislocation in the multi-billion-dollar stablecoin market in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In connection with certain proposed rules, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the rule on small
entities, unless there is an appropriate certification that the
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities published along with a statement
providing the factual basis for such certification in the Federal
Register.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This interim final rule governs submission of certifications and
recertifications by State payment stablecoin regulators. The Committee
views the rule as exempt from notice and comment under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A), and therefore an IRFA is not required.\26\ However, the
Committee invites comment on any effects on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Committee has analyzed the rule under the factors in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).\27\ Under this analysis,
the Committee considered whether the rule includes a Federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation).
Pursuant to section 202 of the UMRA,\28\ if a rule meets this UMRA
threshold, the Committee would need to prepare a written statement that
includes, among other things, a cost-benefit analysis. This requirement
does not apply to regulations to the extent they incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
\28\ 2 U.S.C. 1532.
\29\ 2 U.S.C. 1532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has determined that the rule would not result in a
covered unfunded mandate within the meaning of UMRA, including because
States are not mandated to take any actions under the rule. Instead,
the rule provides for procedures that States may use if they choose to
regulate payment stablecoins under a substantially similar State-level
regulatory regime. To the extent that this rule imposes costs, such
costs are generally attributable to the Act itself, which sets out the
certification process. The incremental costs resulting from the
specific procedures set out in this part 1522 are expected to be below
the UMRA threshold.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) states
that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required
to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. This rule contains information collections
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Treasury, on behalf
of the Committee, is seeking a new control number for these information
collection requirements and will submit them to OMB for review and
approval. Treasury will issue a notice on its website once
certifications will begin to be accepted.
Information Collection
Title: Forms for Review of State Certifications by the Stablecoin
Certification Review Committee.
OMB Control No.: 1505-NEW.
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: State governments.
Description: Twelve CFR part 1522 sets forth the Committee's
procedural regulations and forms to implement its responsibilities
under section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act. The regulations set out a process
to facilitate the Committee's approval or denial of certifications
submitted by State payment stablecoin regulators under section 4(c)(4)
of the GENIUS Act, and prescribe the form of such certifications.
[[Page 61698]]
The information collection requirements in the rule are as follows:
Reporting Requirements
Section 1522.10(b) sets forth the form of an initial certification
that a State payment stablecoin regulator shall submit to the
Committee. Section 1522.10(b)(1) provides that the initial
certification must include an attestation in the form of Appendix A to
Part 1522 signed by an authorized representative of the State payment
stablecoin regulator attesting that the State-level regulatory regime
of its State meets the criteria for substantial similarity set forth in
12 CFR part 1521. Section 1522.10(b)(2) provides that the initial
certification must also include a detailed narrative describing how the
State-level regulatory regime meets each of the criteria for
substantial similarity set forth in part 1521. Additionally, pursuant
to Sec. 1522.10(b)(3), the initial certification is required to
include any supporting information and documentation, including, but
not limited to, citations to relevant statutes, regulations, and
guidance applicable to payment stablecoin issuers, and where necessary,
copies of such statutes, regulations, and guidance. For each guidance
document that is submitted, the narrative should include a discussion
of whether the guidance is binding on State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers. Moreover, Sec. 1522.10(b)(4) requires that the
initial certification must include information the Committee may deem
necessary for it to render a decision as to whether the State-level
regulatory regime satisfies the criteria for approval in section 4(c)
of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)).
State payment stablecoin regulators must also submit an annual
recertification to the Committee during the calendar quarter in which
the anniversary of the Committee's approval of the State payment
stablecoin regulator's initial certification occurs.\30\ Pursuant to
Sec. 1522.10(c)(2)(i), a recertification is required to contain an
attestation in the form of Appendix B to Part 1522 signed by an
authorized representative of the State payment stablecoin regulator
that confirms the accuracy of the initial certification. Additionally,
pursuant to Sec. 1522.10(c)(2)(ii), each recertification is required
to contain: (A) a detailed narrative describing each change to the
State-level regulatory regime since the prior certification that could
potentially be considered to be a material change, excluding changes
that are purely nonsubstantive in form or procedure; (B) whether, in
the opinion of the State payment stablecoin regulator, such a change is
a material change, and (C) whether, in the opinion of the State payment
stablecoin regulator, the change will not promote the safe and sound
operation of State qualified payment stablecoin issuers under its
supervision. Moreover, Sec. 1522.10(c)(2)(iii) requires that the
recertification contain a detailed narrative describing (A) each change
in circumstances that could potentially be considered to be a
significant change in circumstances, (B) whether, in the opinion of the
State payment stablecoin regulator, such change is a significant change
in circumstances, and (C) whether, in the opinion of the State payment
stablecoin regulator, the change will not promote the safe and sound
operation of State qualified payment stablecoin issuers under its
supervision. Section 1522.10(c)(2)(iv) requires that the
recertification also include any supporting information and
documentation, including, but not limited to, citations to relevant
statutes, regulations, and guidance applicable to payment stablecoin
issuers, and where necessary, copies of such statutes, regulations, and
guidance. For each guidance document submitted pursuant to Sec. Sec.
1522.10(c)(2)(ii) or (iii), the corresponding narrative is required to
include a discussion of whether the guidance is binding on State
qualified payment stablecoin issuers. Additionally, Sec.
1522.10(c)(2)(v) provides that the recertification must include such
information as the Committee may deem necessary for it to render a
decision on whether the State-level regulatory regime satisfies the
criteria for approval in section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1522.10(d)(3) provides that the Committee may request, at
any time, additional information as it deems necessary, in its sole
discretion, to complete its review under section 4(c) of the Act (12
U.S.C. 5903(c)). The Committee expects that the estimated average hours
per response for Sec. 1522.10(b) and (c) include the estimated burden
associated with responding to requests for additional information under
Sec. 1522.10(d)(3).
Section 1522.10(f)(2) provides that if the Committee denies an
initial certification or annual recertification, the Committee shall
provide the State payment stablecoin regulator with not less than 180
days from the date on which the State payment stablecoin regulator is
notified of such denial to make such changes as may be necessary to
ensure the State-level regulatory regime meets or exceeds the standards
described in section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)) as well
as to resubmit the initial certification or recertification. The
Committee expects that any associated burden with resubmitting an
initial certification or recertification is captured in the burden
estimates below for Sec. Sec. 1522.10(b) and (c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Estimated number Estimated frequency of average hours Estimated annual
of respondents response per response burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Burden:
Section 1522.10(b)....... \31\ 56 One-time................ 480 26,880
Section 1522.10(c)....... 56 Once Annually........... 40 2,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Reporting ................. ........................ ................. 29,120
Burden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These collections of information will be submitted to OMB for
review in accordance with the PRA. Commenters are strongly encouraged
to submit public comments electronically. Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent
to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a> by October 30, 2026, with copies
to Treasury as provided in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
Review--Open for Public Comments,'' then by
[[Page 61699]]
using the search function. Comments are invited on:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The definition of ``State'' in the GENIUS Act includes each
of the several states of the United States, the District of
Columbia, and each territory of the United States. See section 2(28)
of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(28)). The Committee conservatively
assumes, for purposes of this Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, that
all eligible States will submit certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Committee, including whether
the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Committee's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology.
E. Regulatory Planning and Review
OIRA has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is subject to review
under Executive Order 12866. The Committee's analysis conducted in
connection with Executive Order 12866 is set forth below. This rule is
not considered an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it
imposes no more than de minimis costs.
Given the relative novelty of the payment stablecoin ecosystem, it
is challenging to precisely quantify the costs and benefits of this
rule. In addition, the Committee's rule seeks to apply the best
interpretations of the statutory text, which limits the range of
potential implementing approaches. The Committee believes that the
costs of the rule are generally limited to the PRA burden set forth
above and are outweighed by the benefits, including clarity and
efficiency benefits to States and regulated entities around the process
for SCRC review, but invites comments that would help quantitatively or
qualitatively analyze costs and benefits of the rule, as well as any
alternatives and their associated costs and benefits.
1. Affected Parties
Parties directly affected by this rule are States seeking to
regulate State qualified payment stablecoin issuers under State-level
regulatory regimes. For the limited purpose of this analysis of costs
and benefits, the Committee assumes that all States will seek to
implement State-level regulatory regimes, though some States may choose
not to do so.
This rule does not directly affect entities other than States.
Entities indirectly affected by the application of the Committee's
review of State certifications include State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers, parties that seek to become State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers, and individuals or entities that acquire payment
stablecoins issued by State qualified payment stablecoin issuers. It is
difficult to know at this time how many State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers may be affected. Further, the effects of these
procedures will depend on the details of each State-level regulatory
regime, which may vary widely, given the discretion provided to States
under the Act and this rule.
2. Baseline
The Committee has assessed the benefits and costs of the
regulations relative to a no-action baseline reflecting anticipated
behavior in the absence of the regulations. Once the Act becomes
effective, persons will not be able to issue payment stablecoins in the
United States without becoming permitted payment stablecoin issuers.
The offer and sale of unlicensed stablecoins to persons located in the
United States by digital asset service providers will also be unlawful
starting July 18, 2028. To provide a State-level license and regulation
option for payment stablecoin issuers with a consolidated total
outstanding issuance of not more than $10 billion, a State must certify
that its State-level regulatory regime is substantially similar to the
Federal regulatory framework and must be approved by the Stablecoin
Certification Review Committee on the basis that the State's regime
``meets or exceeds the standards and requirements described in [section
4(a) of the Act].''
If a State is unable to certify to substantial similarity, or
unable to achieve Stablecoin Certification Review Committee approval,
the Committee expects that all State qualified payment stablecoin
issuers in the State will be required either to (i) cease issuing
payment stablecoins, or (ii) obtain a Federal license and comply with
regulation and supervision by the primary Federal payment stablecoin
regulators.
In the absence of these procedures, the Committee expects that
States and market participants would face significant uncertainty over
how the Committee would process State certifications. Issuers that
have, or would otherwise desire, a State license may instead expend
considerable resources to obtain a Federal license. The Committee
expects that the attendant uncertainty would likely significantly
stifle payment stablecoin markets and innovation in the States.
3. Costs
The direct costs of complying with the procedures are captured
above in the Paperwork Reduction Act section. While that section
conservatively assumes that all States will provide initial and annual
recertifications, some States may choose not to implement State-level
regulatory regimes, and this rule will not impose any direct costs on
those States.\32\ The Committee believes that only the costs of
preparing the certifications under these procedures should be
considered as direct costs of the rule. While States that choose to
implement State-level regulatory regimes will face implementation costs
including staff time to analyze the Act and regulatory and/or
legislative time to write statutes, regulations, or enforceable
guidance to conform to the Act and part 1521, the Committee believes
such costs are properly attributable to the Act itself and Treasury's
proposed broad-based principles under part 1521, rather than these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Any costs associated with the inability of States to
regulate permitted payment stablecoin issuers if they choose not to
implement a substantially similar State-level regulatory regime are
generally attributable to the Act and the State's choice not to
implement a State-level regulatory regime, rather than to these
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Benefits
A key benefit of this rule is the transparency it provides
regarding the Committee's procedures for reviewing State certifications
and its expectations for what would be submitted by State payment
stablecoin regulators. The Committee expects that this will reduce
potential frictions and concerns that could otherwise impede market
activity by payment stablecoin issuers and third parties offering
services to payment stablecoin providers. Therefore, the Committee
expects that the procedures will create a more favorable environment
for digital asset innovation in many States, with potential economic
benefits from increased innovation and payment stablecoin commercial
activity. Consumers and institutions engaging with payment stablecoins
may view State qualified payment stablecoin issuers operating under a
State-level regulatory regime more favorably than the status quo. In
turn, those States may attract payment stablecoin issuers, which may
contribute to more investment, jobs, and innovation. While these
benefits are difficult to quantify, the Committee preliminarily
believes that they are likely to exceed the costs described above.
5. Discretion and Alternatives
Because section 4(c) of the Act outlines the core requirements and
procedures relating to State
[[Page 61700]]
certifications, the Committee's discretion to adopt alternative
approaches is relatively limited. In certain limited areas, the
Committee has exercised its discretion, such as in setting the form of
attestations in appendices A and B to part 1522. The Committee has not
identified any reasonable alternatives that it believes would
materially alter the benefits and costs of this rule, but requests
comment on any potential alternatives that could materially alter
benefits or costs.
Question 38: What are the potential costs and benefits, if any, of
the implementation of section 4(c) (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)) as in part 1522,
beyond costs and benefits imposed by the Act itself and Treasury's
broad-based principles in part 1521? To what extent does the Committee
have discretion within the boundaries of the Act to further reduce
costs or increase benefits?
Question 39: What are the benefits and costs, including for
implementation, compliance efficiency, and payment stablecoin market
participation, from the regulations providing relatively clear
procedures for the submission and review of State certifications?
F. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 (entitled ``Federalism'') prohibits
publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either
imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State, local, and
Tribal governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State
law, unless the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order are met. This rule does not have federalism
implications within the meaning of the Executive Order, including
because the rule implements statutory requirements and States are not
mandated to take any actions under the rule. Instead, the rule provides
for procedures that States may use if they choose to regulate payment
stablecoins under a substantially similar State-level regulatory
regime. Notwithstanding the above, Treasury, on behalf of the
Committee, has engaged in efforts to consult with affected State
government officials and associations in the process of developing this
rule, including through the ANPRM comment process. Pursuant to the
requirements set forth in section 8(a) of Executive Order 13132,
Treasury, on behalf of the Committee, certifies that it has complied
with the requirements of Executive Order 13132.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1522
Banks, banking, Consumer protection, Digital assets, Non-bank
entity, Payment stablecoins, Permitted payment stablecoin issuer, State
and local governments, State qualified payment stablecoin issuer.
Authority and Issuance
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury,
on behalf of the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee, amends 12
CFR chapter XV by adding subchapter C, consisting of parts 1520 through
1522, to read as follows:
Subchapter C--Regulation of Payment Stablecoins
PART 1520--[RESERVED]
PART 1521--[RESERVED]
PART 1522--STABLECOIN CERTIFICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
1522.1 Scope and applicability.
1522.2 Definitions.
1522.3 Severability.
1522.4 Reservation of authority.
1522.5-1522.9 [Reserved]
Subpart B--State Certifications
1522.10 Certification forms and procedures.
1522.11-1522.19 [Reserved]
Appendix A to Part 1522--Attestation for an Initial Certification
Under Section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act
Appendix B to Part 1522--Attestation for an Annual Recertification
Under Section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 1522.1 Scope and applicability.
(a) Authority and purpose. This part is issued to implement certain
responsibilities of the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee under
the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins
Act (GENIUS Act) (12 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.). The regulations in this part
are of the Committee, published by the agency of its Chair, the
Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the Committee.
(b) Subpart B. Subpart B of this part sets forth procedures related
to the submission to the Committee and the Committee's review of State
payment stablecoin regulators' ``substantial similarity''
certifications and recertifications under section 4(c) of the GENIUS
Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)). Appendices A and B to this part contain forms
for the initial and annual certifications required under section 4(c)
of the Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)).
Sec. 1522.2 Definitions.
(a) To the extent not otherwise defined in this part, the terms
used in this part have the same meaning given to them as in section 2
of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901).
(b) For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) Act or GENIUS Act means the Guiding and Establishing National
Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (12 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.).
(2) Material change means any legislative, regulatory, supervisory,
judicial, or other similar change in the relevant State that, either
individually or together with other such changes, has, causes, or could
reasonably be expected to have or cause a material effect on the State-
level regulatory regime. Material changes may include, but are not
limited to, changes affecting the scope of a State payment stablecoin
regulator's regulatory or supervisory authority, including examination
or reporting authorities; enforcement powers; prudential standards,
including those relating to reserves, redemption, liquidity, capital,
governance, or risk management; and the scope of entities or activities
subject to State payment stablecoin regulation or supervision.
(3) Significant change in circumstances means a change in
circumstances, including, but not limited to, a change in Federal
statutes, regulations, interpretations, or orders; market conditions;
issuer behavior; or risk-related developments, that, either
individually or together with other such changes, significantly affects
the operation, effectiveness, or supervisory outcomes of a State-level
regulatory regime or causes the State-level regulatory regime and the
Federal regulatory framework to significantly diverge; provided, that a
material change itself is not a significant change in circumstances.
(4) Stablecoin Certification Review Committee or Committee means
the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee as defined in section
2(27) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(27)).
(5) State has the meaning set forth in section 2(28) of the GENIUS
Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(28)).
(6) State payment stablecoin regulator has the meaning set forth in
section 2(30) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(30)).
(7) State-level regulatory regime, with respect to a particular
State, means:
(i) All statutes enacted by the State regarding payment
stablecoins;
(ii) Any regulations regarding payment stablecoins or that apply to
a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer issued by a State payment
[[Page 61701]]
stablecoin regulator of the State or another regulator of the State;
and
(iii) Any interpretations or guidance thereunder, only to the
extent they are enforceable against State qualified payment stablecoin
issuers.
(8) State qualified payment stablecoin issuer has the meaning set
forth in section 2(31) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(31)).
Sec. 1522.3 Severability.
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one
another. If any provision, clause or phrase of this part, or the
application thereof to any person, entity or circumstance, is stayed or
determined to be invalid, unlawful, or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect the
validity, lawfulness, or enforceability of the remaining provisions or
applications of this part, which shall remain in full force and effect
to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Sec. 1522.4 Reservation of authority.
The Committee may, to the extent consistent with the GENIUS Act,
waive any of the procedures in this part in exceptional circumstances.
Sec. Sec. 1522.5-1522.9 [Reserved]
Subpart B--State Certifications
Sec. 1522.10 Certification forms and procedures.
(a) Certifications requiring approval of Stablecoin Certification
Review Committee. An initial certification or an annual recertification
under section 4(c)(4) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(c)(4)),
including all supporting information, must be submitted to the
Committee in the form and containing the information set out in this
part. Each certification, including all supporting information, must be
submitted electronically to the email address specified from time to
time on <a href="http://www.Treasury.gov">www.Treasury.gov</a>.
(b) Initial certification. An initial certification must contain--
(1) An attestation in the form of appendix A to this part signed by
an authorized representative of the State payment stablecoin regulator
attesting that the State-level regulatory regime of its State meets the
criteria for substantial similarity set forth in the principles for
substantial similarity established by the Department of the Treasury
pursuant to section 4(c) of the Act;
(2) A detailed narrative describing how the State-level regulatory
regime meets each of the criteria for substantial similarity set forth
in the principles for substantial similarity established by the
Department of the Treasury pursuant to section 4(c) of the Act;
(3) Any supporting information and documentation, including, but
not limited to, citations to relevant statutes, regulations, and
guidance applicable to payment stablecoin issuers, and where necessary,
copies of such statutes, regulations, and guidance. For each guidance
document that is submitted, the corresponding section of the narrative
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section must include a discussion of
whether the guidance is binding on State qualified payment stablecoin
issuers; and
(4) Such information as the Committee may deem necessary for it to
render a decision on whether the State-level regulatory regime
satisfies the criteria for approval in section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act
(12 U.S.C. 5903(c)).
(c) Annual recertification. (1) Each annual recertification shall
be submitted to the Committee during the calendar quarter in which the
anniversary of the Committee's approval of the State payment stablecoin
regulator's initial certification occurs (for example, if the initial
certification was approved in February, the annual recertification must
be submitted between January 1 and March 31 of each subsequent year).
(2) A recertification must contain--
(i) An attestation in the form of appendix B to this part signed by
an authorized representative of the State payment stablecoin regulator
that confirms the accuracy of the initial certification;
(ii) A detailed narrative describing each change to the State-level
regulatory regime since the prior certification that could potentially
be considered to be a material change, excluding changes that are
purely nonsubstantive in form or procedure; whether, in the opinion of
the State payment stablecoin regulator, such change is a material
change; and whether, in the opinion of the State payment stablecoin
regulator, the change will not promote the safe and sound operation of
State qualified payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision;
(iii) A detailed narrative describing:
(A) Each change in circumstances that could potentially be
considered to be a significant change in circumstances;
(B) Whether, in the opinion of the State payment stablecoin
regulator, such change is a significant change in circumstances; and
(C) Whether, in the opinion of the State payment stablecoin
regulator, the change will not promote the safe and sound operation of
State qualified payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision;
(iv) Any supporting information and documentation, including, but
not limited to, citations to relevant statutes, regulations, and
guidance applicable to payment stablecoin issuers, and where necessary,
copies of such statutes, regulations, and guidance. For each guidance
document that is submitted, the corresponding section of the narrative
under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section, as applicable,
must include a discussion of whether the guidance is binding on State
qualified payment stablecoin issuers; and
(v) Such information as the Committee may deem necessary for it to
render a decision on whether the State-level regulatory regime
satisfies the criteria for approval in section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act
(12 U.S.C. 5903(c)).
(3) Failure of a State payment stablecoin regulator to submit an
annual recertification under this section in a timely manner shall be
deemed to constitute a suspension of the certification approval.
(d) Submission of initial certifications and recertifications--(1)
Submission. For purposes of this section:
(i) An initial certification has not been submitted until all
materials required under paragraph (b) of this section have been
submitted.
(ii) A recertification has not been submitted until all materials
required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section have been submitted.
(2) Rule of construction. Neither an initial certification nor an
annual recertification shall be deemed to have been submitted within
the meaning of paragraph (d)(1) of this section if the State payment
stablecoin regulator has omitted any information necessary for the
Committee to evaluate whether the State-level regulatory regime
satisfies the criteria for approval in section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act
(12 U.S.C. 5903(c)).
(3) Additional information. The Committee may request, at any time,
additional information as it deems necessary, in its sole discretion,
to complete its review under section 4(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(c)).
(4) Notification of submission. The Committee will notify a State
payment stablecoin regulator when the Committee determines that such
regulator has submitted an initial certification or recertification.
(e) Committee determinations--(1) Timing of decision. Not later
than 30 days after the date on which a State payment stablecoin
regulator submits an initial certification or recertification in
accordance with this section, the
[[Page 61702]]
Committee will approve or deny such certification.
(2) Determinations on initial certifications. The Committee shall
approve an initial certification submitted under paragraph (b) of this
section if the Committee unanimously determines that the State-level
regulatory regime meets or exceeds the standards and requirements
described in section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)).
(3) Determinations on recertifications. The Committee shall only
deny an annual recertification submitted under paragraph (c) of this
section if the Committee determines that:
(i) There has been a material change in the State-level regulatory
regime or a significant change in circumstances since the prior
certification; and
(ii) The material change or significant change in circumstances
identified is such that the State-level regulatory regime will not
promote the safe and sound operation of State qualified payment
stablecoin issuers under its supervision.
(4) Expedited review. With respect to any State that, within 180
days of the date of enactment of the GENIUS Act, had in effect a
prudential regulatory regime (including regulations and guidance) for
the supervision of digital assets or payment stablecoins, the Committee
will endeavor to process initial certifications on an expedited
timeline after the effective date of the GENIUS Act.
(f) Opportunity to cure and appeal. (1) If the Committee denies an
initial certification or an annual recertification, it will provide the
State payment stablecoin regulator with a written explanation of the
denial, describing the reasoned basis for the denial with sufficient
detail to enable the State to make any changes necessary for the State-
level regulatory regime to meet or exceed the standards and
requirements described in section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act.
(2) With respect to a denial described in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, the Committee shall provide the State payment stablecoin
regulator with not less than 180 days from the date on which the State
payment stablecoin regulator is notified of such denial to--
(i) Make such changes as may be necessary to ensure the State-level
regulatory regime meets or exceeds the standards described in section
4(a) of the GENIUS Act; and
(ii) Resubmit the initial certification or recertification.
(3) If a denial described under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is
based on a change resulting from an Act of Congress or a change in a
relevant Federal regulation, interpretation, or order in accordance
with the principles for substantial similarity established by the
Department of the Treasury pursuant to section 4(c) of the Act, the
period provided under paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be the
later of:
(i) 180 days from the date on which the State payment stablecoin
regulator is notified of such denial; or
(ii) 2 years from either the date of enactment of the Act of
Congress or from the date of publication of such Federal regulation,
interpretation, or order.
(4) If, after a State payment stablecoin regulator resubmits an
initial certification or annual recertification under paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this section, the Committee again denies the initial
certification or annual recertification, the Committee shall, not later
than 30 days after such denial, provide the State payment stablecoin
regulator with a written explanation for the denial.
(5) A State payment stablecoin regulator in receipt of a denial
under paragraph (f)(4) of this section may appeal the denial to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(6) A State payment stablecoin regulator in receipt of a denial
under this paragraph (f) may resubmit a new certification under this
part.
Sec. Sec. 1522.11-1522.19 [Reserved]
Appendix A to Part 1522--Attestation for an Initial Certification Under
Section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act
Attestation for an Initial Certification Under Section 4(c) of
the GENIUS Act
State: ___
Name of State payment stablecoin regulator: ___
Date of attestation: ___
[States may include a brief introduction here]
Reference table of requirements, narrative, and supporting
information:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding Corresponding
GENIUS Act section Topic section of supporting
narrative information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4(a)(1)(A), except as noted Reserve assets........................... [Section X]....... [Exhibit A].
below.
4(a)(1)(A)(vii).............. Additional reserve assets................
4(a)(1)(B), except as noted Redemption...............................
below.
4(a)(1)(B)(i)................ Discretionary limitations on timely
redemptions.
4(a)(1)(C)................... Monthly publication of reserves..........
4(a)(2), except as noted Prohibition on rehypothecation of
below. reserves.
4(a)(2)(C)(ii)............... Approval for rehypothecation of reserves.
4(a)(3)(A), (C).............. Independent accountant examination of
reports.
4(a)(3)(B)................... Monthly CEO/CFO certification of accuracy
of reserve report.
4(a)(4)...................... Capital, liquidity, reserve asset
diversification, and risk-management
standards.
4(a)(5)...................... Bank Secrecy Act/sanctions compliance
program requirements.
4(a)(6)(B)................... Technological capability to comply with,
and obligation to comply with, terms of
lawful orders.
4(a)(7)(A)................... Limitation on permitted payment
stablecoin activities.
4(a)(7)(B)................... Additional permitted payment stablecoin
activities.
4(a)(8)...................... Prohibition on tying.....................
4(a)(9)...................... Prohibition on deceptive names...........
4(a)(10)..................... Audits and reports.......................
4(a)(11)..................... Prohibition on paying interest/yield on
stablecoins.
4(a)(12)..................... Limits on non-financial public companies
(and certain foreign companies) issuing
stablecoins.
4(d)......................... Transition to Federal oversight..........
5............................ Application and approval.................
6............................ Supervision and enforcement..............
10........................... Custody..................................
11........................... Insolvency...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61703]]
Primary contacts: [Names, titles, email addresses, and phone
numbers of at least two authorized officials of the State payment
stablecoin regulator]
Certification:
The undersigned hereby certifies and attests that:
1. The information contained in and attached to this attestation
form is true and correct to the best of the undersigned's knowledge;
2. The State-level regulatory regime for the State named above
meets each of the principles for substantial similarity established
by the Department of the Treasury pursuant to section 4(c) of the
Act (as codified at 12 CFR part 1521), including that it:
a. ___ meets or exceeds the standards and requirements under
section 4(a) of the Act in accordance with Treasury's principles;
b. ___ provides for transition to Federal oversight in
accordance with Treasury's principles;
c. ___ provides for application and licensing in accordance with
Treasury's principles;
d. ___ provides for supervision and enforcement in accordance
with Treasury's principles;
e. ___ provides for custody in accordance with Treasury's
principles;
f. ___ provides for the event of insolvency in accordance with
Treasury's principles; and
g. ___ provides additional State requirements only to the extent
permitted by Treasury's principles; and
3. The undersigned has the authority to submit this attestation
and make the representations herein on behalf of the State payment
stablecoin regulator named above.
___ The above certifications and attestations are conditional on
additional actions that are described in the attached narrative, and
the State payment stablecoin regulator intends to amend this
attestation once those actions are completed. The undersigned
acknowledges on behalf of the State payment stablecoin regulator
that the Committee will not process this conditional attestation
unless and until an amended attestation has been submitted in
accordance with 12 CFR 1522.10.
___ The undersigned believes that the State listed above
qualifies for expedited processing under 12 CFR 1522.10(e) and has
included an associated statement in the attached narrative and
attached any supporting documentation, as appropriate.
[Signature, Name, Title]
Attached:
[Narrative]
[Exhibits]
Appendix B to Part 1522--Attestation for an Annual Recertification
Under Section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act
Attestation for an Annual Recertification Under Section 4(c) of the
GENIUS Act
State: ___
Name of State payment stablecoin regulator: ___
Date of attestation: ___
[States may include a brief introduction here]
Reference table of changes:
[List each change to the State-level regulatory regime or any
known significant changes in circumstances in its own row and attach
relevant documentation and additional narrative descriptions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief description of Corresponding section Corresponding
GENIUS Act section change of narrative supporting information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[4(a)(1)(A)]......................... [State regulation [Section X]............ [Exhibit A].
relating to reserve
assets was revised].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary contacts: [Names, titles, email addresses, and phone
numbers of at least two authorized officials of the State payment
stablecoin regulator]
Certification: The undersigned hereby certifies and attests
that:
1. The information contained in and attached to this attestation
form is true and correct to the best of the undersigned's knowledge;
2. [The State payment stablecoin regulator] believes that the
State-level regulatory regime for [State]:
a. __ has not materially changed and there have been no known
significant changes in circumstances; or
b. __ has materially changed or there have been significant
changes in circumstances.
3. [State payment stablecoin regulator] confirms the continuing
accuracy of the initial certification submitted on __; and
4. The undersigned has the authority to submit this attestation
and make representations on behalf of [State payment stablecoin
regulator].
[Signature, Name, Title]
Attached:
[Narrative]
[Exhibits]
Rachel Miller,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-19966 Filed 9-29-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AK-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 September 30, 2026.
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.