Supervision and Enforcement with Respect to Federal Qualified Payment Stablecoin Issuers and Subsidiaries of Insured Depository Institutions
Section 6 · Sec. 6 ·
What this chapter is about
This part says how a federal watchdog keeps an eye on a coin maker. It can ask for reports. It can run checks. It can order a maker to stop a bad act. It can bar a person from the firm. It can charge money penalties by the day.
The document says “shall”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“Each permitted payment stablecoin issuer that is not a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer with a payment stablecoin with a consolidated total outstanding issuance of less than $10,000,000,000 shall be subject to supervision by the appropriate primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator.”
Subsection (a)(1). The rest of the subsection is built on this class of issuer: the reports in paragraph (2), the examinations in paragraph (3) and the efficiency requirements in paragraph (4) all apply to an issuer described in paragraph (1). Section 7 gives State payment stablecoin regulators supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over the State qualified issuers of their State.
What the document actually says
“Each permitted payment stablecoin issuer that is not a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer with a payment stablecoin with a consolidated total outstanding issuance of less than $10,000,000,000 shall be subject to supervision by the appropriate primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator.”
That sentence, in plain words
A federal watchdog keeps an eye on these makers. This covers makers that a state does not oversee.
What this is about
A state maker under ten billion dollars is watched by its state. Part 7 covers those. This part covers the rest.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: permitted payment stablecoin issuersHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“Each permitted payment stablecoin issuer described in paragraph (1) shall, upon request, submit to the appropriate primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator a report on-- (A) the financial condition of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer; (B) the systems of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risks”
Subsection (a)(2). Four subjects are listed: the issuer's financial condition, its systems for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risks, its compliance and that of any subsidiary with the Act, and the compliance of the Federal qualified nonbank payment stablecoin issuer with the Bank Secrecy Act and with the sanctions laws the Secretary of the Treasury implements. The report is owed upon request rather than on a fixed schedule.
What the document actually says
“Each permitted payment stablecoin issuer described in paragraph (1) shall, upon request, submit to the appropriate primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator a report on-- (A) the financial condition of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer; (B) the systems of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risks”
That sentence, in plain words
A maker must send in a report when asked. It covers how the firm stands with money. It also covers how the firm tracks its own risks.
What this is about
Two more subjects go in the report. One is whether the maker follows this law. One is whether it follows the rules on dirty money.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“The appropriate primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator shall examine a permitted payment stablecoin issuer described in paragraph (1) in order to assess-- (A) the nature of the operations and financial condition of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer”
Subsection (a)(3). The examination assesses the nature of the issuer's operations and financial condition, the financial, operational, technological and other risks within the issuer that may threaten its own safety and soundness or the stability of the financial system of the United States, and the issuer's systems for monitoring and controlling those risks.
What the document actually says
“The appropriate primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator shall examine a permitted payment stablecoin issuer described in paragraph (1) in order to assess-- (A) the nature of the operations and financial condition of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer”
That sentence, in plain words
The watchdog must check the maker itself. It looks at what the firm does. It looks at how the firm stands with money.
What this is about
It also looks for risks in the firm. Some risks could sink the firm. Some could hurt the wider system. It checks how the firm tracks them.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“In supervising and examining a permitted payment stablecoin issuer under this subsection, a primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator shall, to the fullest extent possible, use existing reports and other supervisory information.”
Subsection (a)(4). Three requirements run together: use existing reports and other supervisory information to the fullest extent possible, avoid duplication of examination activities, reporting requirements and requests for information to the fullest extent possible, and request examinations and reports only at a cadence and in a format similar to that required for similarly situated entities the regulator already regulates.
What the document actually says
“In supervising and examining a permitted payment stablecoin issuer under this subsection, a primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator shall, to the fullest extent possible, use existing reports and other supervisory information.”
That sentence, in plain words
The watchdog must lean on reports it already has. It must do so as far as it can.
What this is about
It must not ask twice for the same thing. It must keep to the pace it sets for like firms. The same goes for the form it asks for.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “can”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“may prohibit the permitted payment stablecoin issuer from issuing payment stablecoins, if the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator determines that such permitted payment stablecoin issuer, or an institution-affiliated party of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer is willfully or recklessly violating or has willfully or recklessly violated-- (A) this Act or any regulation or order issued under this Act”
Subsection (b)(1). The second ground is a violation of any condition imposed in writing by the regulator in connection with a written agreement between it and the issuer. Institution-affiliated party is defined in section 2(13) as any director, officer, employee or controlling stockholder of a permitted payment stablecoin issuer. Under paragraph (6), the whole enforcement subsection does not apply to a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer.
What the document actually says
“may prohibit the permitted payment stablecoin issuer from issuing payment stablecoins, if the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator determines that such permitted payment stablecoin issuer, or an institution-affiliated party of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer is willfully or recklessly violating or has willfully or recklessly violated-- (A) this Act or any regulation or order issued under this Act”
That sentence, in plain words
The watchdog can stop a maker from putting out new coins. It must find the maker broke this law on purpose. A reckless breach counts too.
What this is about
The breach can be by the firm or by one of its people. That covers officers, staff and big owners. A broken written deal is a second ground.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “can”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator may, by provisions that are mandatory or otherwise, order the permitted payment stablecoin issuer or institution-affiliated party of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer to-- (A) cease and desist from such violation or practice; or (B) take affirmative action to correct the conditions resulting from any such violation or practice.”
Subsection (b)(2). The power turns on reasonable cause to believe that the issuer or an institution-affiliated party is violating, has violated, or is attempting to violate the Act, a regulation or order issued under it, a written agreement with the regulator, or a condition imposed in writing in connection with an application or other request.
What the document actually says
“the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator may, by provisions that are mandatory or otherwise, order the permitted payment stablecoin issuer or institution-affiliated party of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer to-- (A) cease and desist from such violation or practice; or (B) take affirmative action to correct the conditions resulting from any such violation or practice.”
That sentence, in plain words
The watchdog can order a firm to stop. It can also order the firm to put things right. The order can bind the firm or one of its people.
What this is about
The watchdog needs fair cause to believe a rule was broken. A try counts as well as a breach. So does breaking a written deal.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “can”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“may remove an institution-affiliated party of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer from the position or office of that institution-affiliated party or prohibit further participation in the affairs of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer or of all such permitted payment stablecoin issuers by that institution-affiliated party”
Subsection (b)(3). Two grounds are named: that the party knowingly committed a violation or attempted violation of the Act or of a regulation or order issued under it, or that the party knowingly committed a violation of any provision of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, which section 2(2) names as part of the Bank Secrecy Act.
What the document actually says
“may remove an institution-affiliated party of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer from the position or office of that institution-affiliated party or prohibit further participation in the affairs of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer or of all such permitted payment stablecoin issuers by that institution-affiliated party”
That sentence, in plain words
The watchdog can take a person out of their job at the firm. It can also bar them from the firm's work. The bar can reach every maker of this kind.
What this is about
The person must have broken a rule on purpose. The rule can be in this law. It can also be in the law on dirty money.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator shall comply with the procedures set forth in subsections (b) and (e) of section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818) or subsections (e) and (g) of section 206 the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1786(e) and (g)), as applicable.”
Subsection (b)(4). A person aggrieved by a final action may obtain judicial review exclusively as provided in section 8(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 206(j) of the Federal Credit Union Act. The regulator may follow the judicial enforcement procedures in section 8(i)(1) or section 206(k)(1), and where a violation is likely to cause insolvency, significant dissipation of assets or earnings, weaken the issuer or prejudice customers before proceedings finish, it may follow section 8(c) or section 206(f) to issue a temporary cease and desist order. What those older provisions require is not recorded here, because neither Act is indexed on this site.
What the document actually says
“the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator shall comply with the procedures set forth in subsections (b) and (e) of section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818) or subsections (e) and (g) of section 206 the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1786(e) and (g)), as applicable.”
That sentence, in plain words
The watchdog must follow set steps to act. Those steps sit in two older banking laws. Which one it uses depends on the firm.
What this is about
One law covers banks. One covers credit unions. Neither is part of this site. So the steps themselves are not recorded here.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“Any person that issues a United States dollar-denominated payment stablecoin in violation of section 3, and any institution-affiliated party of such a person who knowingly participates in issuing such a payment stablecoin, shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $100,000 for each day during which such payment stablecoins are issued.”
Subsection (b)(5). Three tiers are set. The first covers issuing a dollar-denominated stablecoin in violation of section 3. The second covers a material violation of the Act, a regulation or order, or a written condition, at up to $100,000 for each day the violation continues. The third adds up to a further $100,000 a day where a person knowingly participates in a violation. Penalties are assessed and collected under section 8(i)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 206(k)(2) of the Federal Credit Union Act.
What the document actually says
“Any person that issues a United States dollar-denominated payment stablecoin in violation of section 3, and any institution-affiliated party of such a person who knowingly participates in issuing such a payment stablecoin, shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $100,000 for each day during which such payment stablecoins are issued.”
That sentence, in plain words
Making a dollar coin against part three brings a penalty. It can reach a hundred thousand dollars a day. Someone at the firm who helps can be charged too.
What this is about
There are three levels of penalty. Each runs by the day. The top level applies when a person knew what they were doing.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: primary Federal payment stablecoin regulatorsHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“separation of an institution-affiliated party (including a separation caused by the closing of a permitted payment stablecoin issuer) shall not affect the jurisdiction and authority of a primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator to issue any notice or order and proceed under this subsection against any such party”
Subsection (b)(5)(E). Resignation, termination of employment or participation, and separation all leave the regulator's authority intact, provided the notice or order is served before the end of the six year period beginning on the date the party ceased to be an institution-affiliated party of that issuer.
What the document actually says
“separation of an institution-affiliated party (including a separation caused by the closing of a permitted payment stablecoin issuer) shall not affect the jurisdiction and authority of a primary Federal payment stablecoin regulator to issue any notice or order and proceed under this subsection against any such party”
That sentence, in plain words
A person can quit or be let go. The firm can even shut down. The watchdog can still act against that person.
What this is about
It has six years from the day they left. After that the door closes. The clock starts when they stop being tied to the firm.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 6 in the PDF
What the document says
“Notwithstanding anything in this subsection to the contrary, this subsection shall not apply to a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer.”
Subsection (b)(6). The whole of the enforcement subsection is switched off for State qualified payment stablecoin issuers. Section 7 sets out who supervises and enforces against them, and when the Federal Reserve Board or the Comptroller may act in unusual and exigent circumstances. Subsection (c) adds that nothing in the Act may be construed to modify any right or remedy under Federal consumer financial law.
What the document actually says
“Notwithstanding anything in this subsection to the contrary, this subsection shall not apply to a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer.”
That sentence, in plain words
None of this part reaches a state maker. The whole set of powers is switched off for them.
What this is about
Part 7 covers those makers instead. A state watchdog acts there. Two federal bodies may step in only in a crisis.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, Public Law 119-27, sec. 6, 139 Stat. 443 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ27/html/PLAW-119publ27.htm
This page
“Supervision and Enforcement with Respect to Federal Qualified Payment Stablecoin Issuers and Subsidiaries of Insured Depository Institutions,” Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, section 6. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/guiding-establishing-national-innovation-u-s/section-6/ (retrieved August 26, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Each distinct thing the section provides: the duty of supervision, the reports a regulator may request, the examination and what it must assess, the three efficiency requirements, the power to prohibit issuance, the cease-and-desist power, the removal and prohibition power, the procedures and judicial review that apply, the three tiers of civil money penalty, the six year reach after an officer leaves, and the exclusion of State qualified issuers from the enforcement subsection.
The injunction and temporary cease-and-desist procedures in subsection (b)(4) are recorded in the summary of the procedures proposal rather than as separate entries, because each of them does no more than point at a procedure in an older statute.
The enforcement procedures work by pointing to section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818) and section 206 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1786). Neither is indexed on this site, so what those procedures require is not recorded here.
