June 1, 2026
Scott Bessent
Secretary of the Treasury
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220
Via: Federal eRulemaking Portal – www.regulations.gov
Re: GENIUS Act Broad-Based Principles for Determining whether a State-Level Regulatory Regime is Substantially Similar to the Federal Regulatory Framework [Docket ID TREAS-DO-2026-0232: RIN 1505-AC90]
Dear Secretary Bessent:
The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) regarding broad-based principles for determining whether a State-level regulatory regime is substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act).[1] The Act anticipates that stablecoin issuers that are not subsidiaries of depository institutions with consolidated outstanding payment stablecoins of less than $10 billion “may opt for State regulation so long as the State-level regulatory regime is substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework and the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (Committee) has approved the State-level regime upon determining that it meets or exceeds the standards and requirements described in section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act[.]”[2]
NCRC is a network of more than 700 community-based organizations dedicated to creating a nation that not only promises but delivers opportunities for all Americans to build wealth and attain a high quality of life. We work with community leaders and policymakers to advance solutions and build the will to solve America’s persistent racial and socio-economic wealth, income, and opportunity divides, and to make a Just Economy a national priority and a local reality.
NCRC urges Treasury to clearly establish that the Federal regulatory framework is a floor, not a ceiling for State-level regulatory regimes and allow states to meaningfully exceed the Federal standards. Further, NCRC urges that Treasury automatically update the definition of the Federal regulatory framework to include subsequent regulatory and legislative requirements and require states to incorporate them into their frameworks.
1. The Federal framework must be a floor not a ceiling for State-level regulatory regimes
The Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM interprets the Act’s requirement that State regimes be substantially similar to the Federal regime as creating a ceiling over any state effort to exceed Federal requirements—potentially preventing more protective state frameworks. If states impose additional requirements or restrictions, Section 1521.6 of the NPRM allows States to impose them so long as they do not conflict with any provision of the GENIUS Act and they “do not modify the State-level regulatory regime such that it can no longer be reasonably viewed as substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework.”[3] This provision has the potential to swallow the rule– and effectively prohibit states from creating more protective frameworks. Essentially, the Committee could view any State requirement that is more restrictive or protective as deviating too far from the Federal regulatory framework and rendering it no longer substantially similar. For example, if a State-level regime’s redemption requirements exceed the Federal regulatory framework by requiring stablecoin issuers to redeem stablecoins within one business day of a holder’s request[4] and cap the types of fees issuers can charge at redemption,[5] Treasury should not treat these stronger protections as insufficiently similar to the Federal framework.
The NPRM clearly states that State-level regimes “must not materially narrow, condition, or limit the scope” of certain “uniform” requirements of the Federal framework.[6] Any final rule should clarify that the Federal framework acts as a floor and allows states to exceed or narrow the requirements, as they deem necessary to protect their consumers and financial stability.
2. Treasury’s final rule should automatically incorporate future Federal statutory and regulatory changes and require states to update accordingly
The legislative and regulatory landscape regarding digital market structure and stablecoins is in flux. The Treasury NPRM defines Federal regulatory framework as including the GENIUS Act,[7] Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) interpretations or regulations published in the Federal Register, Treasury anti-money laundering and sanction requirements, and the Federal Reserve “anti-tying” requirements.[8] However, the definition does not include the digital market structure bill currently under consideration by Congress and although the Treasury NPRM states that the OCC’s “interpretations and regulations…should be the baseline for comparison” for the federal regulatory framework,[9] that baseline is not yet finalized. The comment period for the OCC’s NPRM implementing the GENIUS Act just closed amid these same legislative uncertainties. Any final rule must include a mechanism for automatically incorporating changes to the Federal statutory and regulatory framework.[10]
In addition, State-level regimes should be required to update their frameworks, as well. Under the NPRM, the Committee’s determination of substantial similarity will be at a single point in time. The proposal does not address how State-level frameworks will be required to continue to be aligned with the Federal framework as it evolves and the role of the Committee with respect to ongoing evaluation. Any final rule must require states to address updates to the Federal regulatory framework.[11]
For example, if through additional OCC guidance or regulations or other means, the Federal regulatory framework was to include new protections for consumers, it is not clear if State-level frameworks would be required to incorporate those new standards. Or if not, how and if the Committee or Treasury would deem State-level frameworks that do not incorporate those changes insufficiently similar to the Federal regulatory framework. Stablecoin issuers should not be allowed to operate in a State-level framework that is not substantially like the Federal regulatory framework. But, unless the final rule addresses the need for periodic reassessment, such State licensed issuers will be allowed to operate in potentially wildly dissimilar frameworks. And it may incentivize issuers to seek State-level licenses to avoid subsequent more stringent Federal requirements.
Conclusion
NCRC urges Treasury to:
- Clarify that the Federal regulatory framework acts as a true floor that allows states to impose stricter requirements on the stablecoin issuers they license;
- Establish a mechanism for the Federal regulatory framework to be automatically updated to incorporate relevant legislative and regulatory changes; and
- Require States to continuously update their frameworks to reflect changes to the Federal regulatory framework.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer our input on the Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM. If you have any questions, please contact me at jvantol@ncrc.org, or Tara Flynn at tflynn@ncrc.org.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jesse Van Tol
NCRC President and CEO
[1] Department of the Treasury, GENIUS Act Broad-Based Principles for Determining whether a State-Level Regulatory Regime is Substantially Similar to the Federal Regulatory Framework, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 91 F.R. 16,844 (Apr. 3, 2026) [hereinafter Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM].
[2] Id.
[3] Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM § 1521.6 (emphasis added).
[4] The OCC’s GENIUS Act NPRM proposes that timely redemption means not to exceed two business days following a requested redemption. See Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM, Question 31, at 36. Question 31 asks whether States should be required to incorporate the OCC’s interpretation.
[5] All that is currently required is disclosure of fees. See Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM, at 29.
[6] Treasury GENIUS NPRM, at 29.
[7] 12 U.S.C § 5903.
[8] GENIUS Act § 4(a)(8) (prohibiting a permitted payment stablecoin issuer from conditioning the provision of a stablecoin or related service on obtaining another product or service and designates the Federal Reserve to issue related rules).
[9] Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM, at 8.
[10] Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM, Questions 8-9 (seeking comment on what additional laws should apply in assessing substantial similarity).
[11] See Treasury GENIUS Act NPRM Question 24 (seeking comment on licensing timelines and whether states must follow the Committee’s procedures and interpretations).
