On April 1, the Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Rep. French Hill (R-AR) released nine letters they sent to the heads of the FDIC, the OCC, the Fed, the CFPB, the SEC, and the Federal Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) requesting the agencies rescind or modify certain final and proposed rules, advisory opinions, and policy statements. The letters highlighted rulemakings during the previous administration on (i) financial institutions, (ii) capital markets (not included), (iii) digital assets and financial technology, and (iv) the FSOC.

For a full list of the CFPB’s rules, compliance dates, and statuses — including ongoing litigation — check out Orrick’s CFPB Rulemaking Tracker.

Financial Institutions

The Committee members urged federal prudential regulators to rescind or modify several rules to cut regulatory burdens that would “reduce competition and innovation.” They criticized the CRA final rule for potentially hindering lending to low and moderate-income communities. The joint notice of proposed rulemaking, issued by the federal banking agencies to revise the Basel III Endgame capital requirements, was criticized as significantly increasing capital requirements for large banks, despite assertions from the federal banking agencies that U.S. banks were well-capitalized. The Committee members also stated that the long-term debt requirements for bank holding companies may homogenize prudential requirements.

The Committee members’ letter to CFPB Director Russell Vought criticized several prior actions taken by the CFPB. In particular, the CFPB’s amendment to Regulation V, which would ban medical debt on credit reports (covered by InfoBytes here), raised concerns about consumer debt affordability and the financial health of medical providers. Similarly, the rule on PACE financing (also covered here) was criticized as potentially impeding access to disaster protection funding. The CFPB’s rule on overdraft services (covered here) was also criticized for imposing complicated disclosure requirements that may confuse consumers and limiting service availability. The rule capping credit card late fees at $8 (covered here) was viewed as reducing credit access to certain consumers and encouraging punitive actions by credit card issuers, such as raising interest rates, closing accounts, or not issuing credit cards to certain consumers. Finally, implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires extensive data reporting by lenders (covered here), was criticized for potentially increasing compliance costs.

The Committee members’ letters to the OCC and FDIC raised concerns about policies issued by these prudential banking regulators. The Committee recommended the OCC rescind its policy statement on bank merger transactions (covered here) due to increased uncertainty in the merger process. The Committee members criticized the FDIC’s rule reinstating a 2012 resolution plan (covered here), requiring insured depository institutions with $100 billion or more in assets to submit certain periodic filings, for its lack of cost justification and onerous information collection demands. Additionally, the FDIC letter stated that the agency’s recordkeeping standards for nonbank third-party deposits (here) and proposed amendments for industrial banks (here) were overly broad and misguided, and asserted that several proposals and guidance documents should be withdrawn or revised.

Digital Assets and Financial Technology

The letter on digital assets and financial technology to the CFPB asked the agency to modify or rescind several rules and policies. The letter specifically identified the final rule supervising larger nonbank companies offering digital payment applications (covered here), which the Committee members argued could stifle innovation and increase costs, as well as the interpretive rule applying Regulation Z to BNPL products (covered here), which could limit consumer access and create compliance challenges. Additionally, the rule requiring nonbank financial institutions to register certain agency and court orders (covered here) was criticized as redundant and costly, while updates to the nonbank supervision designation process raised concerns about statutory coordination and transparency.

The Committee members also suggested that certain proposed rules be withdrawn or reopened for comment, including (i) the rule to extend Regulation E protections to emerging payment technologies (covered here), (ii) the proposed rule to expand the FCRA to cover data brokers (covered here), and (iii) the proposed regulation of earned wage access EWA products (covered here).

The Committee members cited several advisory opinions and policy statements that they recommended be withdrawn, including (i) the January 2025 opinion on earned wage products which the members urged could restrict access to credit (here), and (ii) the CFPB’s policy statement on no-action letters, which was criticized for its effectiveness and potential to discourage firm participation.

Financial Stability Oversight Council

In a letter to FSOC, the Committee expressed concerns on the purported unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed by the previous administration’s actions. The Committee questioned how the FSOC’s November 3, 2023, vote to update guidance on the nonbank designation process and risk framework may lack a cost-benefit analysis and potentially created “wild regulatory swings.” The Committee discussed how institutions must be given clear expectations and rules that reflect their complexity and risks.

---

Visit our resource center, CFPB Pause: Where From Here?, to stay on top of the latest and what it may mean for the federal and state regulatory and enforcement landscape.