The League has submitted comment letters on the following issues, which were informed by you, our members. Thank you for your participation in this important advocacy work as we make strides to reducing credit union’s regulatory burden. Where possible, we’ve included links and information regarding the current status of each issue. For more information on any of these issue, please contact our compliance department.
2026 | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021
– 2024 –
NCUA: Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism programs
The League’s comments
On Oct. 8, 2024, The League wrote to the NCUA about the agency’s proposal to modernize its requirements for Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) programs – now to be called anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) programs. The NCUA’s proposal was issued concurrently with a similar proposal from FinCEN, which we commented on in September. Our letter to the NCUA largely repeated the points we raised with FinCEN, and we’ve asked both agencies to consider our views as they work together with other banking regulators to update the BSA rules for all financial institutions.
Final rule issued
No
NCUA: Succession planning requirements
The League’s comments
On Sept. 20, 2024, The League filed a comment letter on behalf of Wisconsin’s credit unions, letting the NCUA know that we oppose their plan to require all federally insured credit union’s (FICU’s) boards to adopt detailed, written succession plans. We cited several reasons for our opposition, summarized in this Compliance Courier.
Final rule issued
Yes
NCUA: Incentive-based compensation arrangements
The League’s comments
The League wrote to the NCUA on Sept. 13, 2024, to voice our concerns over proposed rules on incentive-based compensation. We believe that these rules should be issued as guidance, that they’re too vague, that they are overly intrusive, that they would harm credit unions and the communities they serve, and that they fail to address important questions. For a summary of our comments, please see this Compliance Courier.
Final rule issued
No
CFPB: Streamlining mortgage servicing for borrowers experiencing payment difficulties; Reg. X
The League’s comments
The League wrote to the CFPB on Sept. 9, 2024, about proposed updates to their mortgage servicing rules. The changes would not apply to “small servicers.” While some aspects of the proposal seem worthwhile, others would be problematic, we said, stressing two troubling areas:
- The proposal would require servicers to translate some materials into languages other than English and to provide translator services for live discussions. Among other issues, this would lead to inconsistent or inaccurate translations and excessive costs.
- The proposal would dramatically increase compliance burdens by expanding the number of “loss mitigation determination notices” that covered servicers would have to send.
You can read more about our comments in this Compliance Courier.
Final rule issued
No
FinCEN: Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism programs
The League’s comments
On Sept. 3, 2024, The League filed a comment letter with FinCEN on a proposal to modernize the requirements for Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) programs – now to be called anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) programs. See this Compliance Courier for details.
The NCUA and other federal financial regulators issued a similar interagency proposal to update their regulations, so the language of their rules will be consistent and match FinCEN’s requirements. Comments on the NCUA proposal are due in October, and The League will file a similar comment letter with them at that time.
Final rule issued
No
CFPB: Truth in Lending to cover earned wage access apps
The League’s comments
In an Aug. 28, 2024, comment letter, The League expressed its support for a proposed interpretive rule that would subject “earned wage access” (EWA) services to Truth in Lending & Reg. Z. It would treat most EWA fees as “finance charges” that must be disclosed to consumers in advance. Fintech-powered EWA apps give workers early access to a portion of the wages that they have earned before payday. “Many EWA services are no different than other types of predatory payday advance loans,” we wrote, adding that requiring Truth in Lending disclosures for EWA services “will level the playing field between EWA providers and regulated financial institutions, letting workers comparison shop for responsible, low-cost credit when they face unexpected financial shortfalls before payday.” See this Compliance Courier for details.
Final rule issued
No
CFPB: Prohibition on creditors and consumer reporting agencies concerning medical information (Reg. V)
The League’s comments
On Aug. 12, 2024, The League commented on a CFPB proposal that would generally bar creditors from considering consumers’ medical debts when making credit decisions. Instead, we urged the CFPB to address the root causes of high medical debt, such as drafting rules to 1) require that health care providers and insurers adopt more transparent pricing and billing practices; and 2) improve the accuracy and fairness of medical debt reporting by allowing only legitimate and verified debts to be reported. For a recap of the letter, see this Compliance Courier.
Final rule issued
Yes
NCUA: Records preservation program
The League’s comments
The League filed a comment letter on June 23, 2024, offering the NCUA our credit unions’ thoughts on how the agency can improve and update its records preservation program regulation and accompanying guidelines. Thanks to feedback The League received from several Wisconsin credit unions, we were able to share a variety of responses to a list of 20 questions the NCUA had asked. For example, our member credit unions summarized the costs they incur for record retention, they discussed pros and cons of physical vs. electronic storage methods, they explained their views on NCUA requirements to keep certain records permanently, and they offered insights into the use of third-party vendors to assist with record retention.
Final rule issued
No
Federal Reserve: Reduction in cap on debit card interchange fees
The League’s comments
The League filed a comment letter on May 9 with the Federal Reserve Board, voicing our opposition to their plan to significantly lower the cap on debit card interchange fees, which are paid by merchants to debit card issuers each time a customer uses a debit card to make a purchase. Specifically, the Board’s proposal:
- Includes a reduction in base fees from 21 cents to 14.4 cents, a decrease in the ad valorem component from 5 basis points to 4 basis points, and a fraud adjustment increase from 1 cent to 1.3 cents; and
- Would automatically, without notice and comment, update each component of the cap every two years, based on reported issuer costs.
Final rule issued
No
CFPB: Proposal to cap overdraft fees
The League’s comments
The League filed a comment letter on April 1, telling the CFPB that Wisconsin’s credit unions are opposed to the Bureau’s plan to limit the fees that large financial institutions can charge for overdraft protections services. “The Bureau issued this proposal prematurely and without first studying the full scope of its impact on credit unions and consumers,” we wrote, stressing that credit unions of every size would face market pressure to conform their practices to fit the rule and that members tell us they need and want overdraft protection services. “We respectfully ask that the CFPB reconsider this proposal, withdraw it, and go back to the drawing board.”
Final rule issued
No
CFPB: NSF fees for instantaneously declined transactions
The League’s comments
On March 22, The League filed a comment letter on behalf of Wisconsin’s credit unions®, opposing a CFPB proposal that would bar credit unions and other financial institutions from charging nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees when a consumer’s payment transaction is declined instantaneously or near-instantaneously. This rule would apply to transactions involving debit cards, ATMs, or certain person-to-person payment apps, but it would not cover NSF fees charged for check and ACH transactions. We questioned three aspects of this rulemaking process: 1) the proposal’s unwarranted expansion of the CFPB’s interpretation of “abusive” acts under federal law; 2) the CFPB’s mischaracterization of NSF fees as “junk fees” that are imposed on consumers without their knowledge, when in fact, such fees are disclosed up front and agreed upon by consumers; and 3) the lack of a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act review. This Compliance Courier has more details.
Final rule issued
Proposal withdrawn