12 CFR Part 1090
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking information to assist it in considering whether to propose a rule to amend the test to define larger participants in the international money transfer market established by the Bureau’s Defining Larger Participants of the International Money Transfer Market Final Rule published on September 9, 2014.
Comments must be received by September 22, 2025. The ANPR can be found here.
Summary
Section 1024 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 provides the Bureau with supervisory authority over “larger participants of a market for other consumer financial products/services as defined by the rules.” To date, the Bureau has issued six rules defining larger participants of markets for consumer financial products and services for purposes of CFPA section 1024(a)(1)(B).
The Bureau is seeking information to consider whether to propose a rule to amend the test which defines larger participants in the international money transfer market. Currently, a nonbank covered person is a larger participant of the international money transfer market if the nonbank covered person has at least one million aggregate annual international money transfers. The Bureau is concerned that the benefits of the current threshold may not justify the compliance burdens for many of the entities that are currently considered larger participants in this market and that the current threshold may be diverting limited Bureau resources.
Therefore, the Bureau seeks comment on the questions listed below:
- What additional sources of data, if any, are available that can reliably inform estimates of the current size of the international money transfer market, the participation in the market by nonbanks, banks, and credit unions, and the number of institutions that qualify as larger participants?
- Should the Bureau consider defining larger participants in the international money transfer market in relation to the Small Business Administration’s size standards? If so, how?
- Should the Bureau reconsider the 1,000,000 annual aggregate money transfer threshold for qualifying as a larger participant in the international money transfer market? If so, what threshold and number of participants would allow the Bureau to effectively focus on the largest participants and efficiently use its resources?
- Would an increase in the threshold have a potential disproportionate impact on any geographic corridors, and if so, how?
- Is annual aggregate international money transfer an appropriate criterion for determining which entities should be considered larger participants in the international money transfer market? If not, what alternative criteria (e.g., dollar value of international money transfers) and what threshold would be more appropriate and why?
- How would consumers be impacted by a potential increase in the threshold? Submissions of data related to the benefits or costs of consumers of the current rule and any particular change to the threshold are encouraged.
- How would changing the current threshold for larger participants alter the behavior of participants in the international money transfer market? How would these changes benefit or harm consumers and participants?
- How would changing the current threshold for larger participants affect the Bureau’s ability to address potential market failures in the international money transfer market and related areas?
- What are the costs to covered entities that are specific to the Bureau’s supervisory authority for larger participants in the international money transfer market? Specific figures as to staffing, staff time, and other resources are encouraged. How often are these costs incurred for larger participants under the current rule who are close to the current threshold for being larger participants?
- What are the costs to covered persons that are not specific to the Bureau’s supervisory authority, but are specific to being a larger participant in the international money transfer market? For instance, are there costs of monitoring status as a large participant or costs related to complying with relevant Federal statutes and regulations beyond what the firm would find reasonable, absent the possibility of supervision?
- Are there costs to covered persons from the current larger participant rule that specifically apply to firms who transfer fewer international money transfers than the threshold, but are close to the threshold?
- Are there costs/benefits to consumers, including rural consumers, servicemembers, and veterans, of raising the larger participant threshold?
- Do small business concerns, as defined by the Small Business Administration, or other smaller -or mid-size entities quality as larger participants under the current threshold? Do these entities incur costs of compliance with their larger participant status that are not in proportion to their size relative to other larger participants in the international money transfer market?
- Are there significant recordkeeping requirements that would be reduced by raising the larger participant threshold?
- What other specific costs or benefits, not mentioned above, would a change in the larger participant threshold have for consumers and covered persons?