Key Highlights
- The FDIC proposed rules clarifying how host-state laws apply to out-of-state state-chartered banks.
- The framework would generally align state banks with national banks when they provide comparable services across state lines.
- The proposal follows legal uncertainty surrounding Illinois’ payment-card law and federal preemption.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has proposed a rule to clarify when state laws can apply to state-chartered banks operating across state lines.
According to the proposal published on September 17, it addresses Section 24(j) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which establishes a parity framework for determining when host-state laws apply to out-of-state state banks.
The measure is not specific to cryptocurrency or stablecoins. However, it comes as regulators and lawmakers continue debating how banks with digital-asset businesses should operate across different state and federal regulatory regimes.
FDIC seeks clarity on interstate banking
The proposed rule focuses on situations where a state-chartered bank provides services in another state without necessarily maintaining a physical branch there.
Under the framework, when a host state’s law does not apply to an out-of-state national bank providing comparable services, that law generally would not apply to an out-of-state state bank either.
The FDIC said the approach is intended to maintain parity between state and national bank charters within the U.S. dual banking system.
The agency counted 3,449 state banks at the end of 2025.
Illinois law prompted review
The proposal follows legal questions surrounding Illinois’ Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA).
The law restricts interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of certain payment-card transactions and limits the use of certain transaction data.
The FDIC said litigation over the Illinois law created uncertainty about whether similar requirements could apply to out-of-state banks providing services to customers in Illinois without maintaining a physical branch there.
The agency cited a June federal court decision that blocked portions of the law from being enforced against certain national banks, federal savings associations, payment networks and qualifying out-of-state state banks.
The proposed rule would clarify how the federal parity provision applies to state-chartered banks in comparable circumstances.
Proposal does not create crypto rules
The FDIC’s proposal does not authorize cryptocurrency, stablecoin, or other digital-asset activities.
Instead, it addresses a banking-law question: when a state-chartered bank operating across state lines is subject to the laws of the state where its customers or activities are located.
The FDIC also said the rule would not independently determine whether a particular state law is federally preempted. It would instead clarify when Section 24(j) affects whether that state law applies to an out-of-state state bank.
That distinction is important for the crypto industry because banks involved in digital assets can operate across multiple jurisdictions while facing different state-level requirements.
Lummis has pushed for clearer digital-asset banking rules
Separately, Senator Cynthia Lummis has pushed for clearer federal banking rules for digital assets.
In June, Lummis and other senators urged federal banking regulators to develop capital standards for banks engaged in digital-asset activities. They specifically raised the treatment of assets including bitcoin and tokenized securities.
Lummis also chairs the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Digital Assets, which has jurisdiction over digital-asset intermediaries and the regulatory activities of federal banking agencies, including the FDIC.
The FDIC parity proposal is separate from those efforts and does not itself establish a framework for crypto banking.
FDIC estimates lower compliance costs
The FDIC estimates that the proposed rule could reduce compliance costs associated with the Illinois payment-card law by approximately $308 million in one-time costs and $6.7 million annually.
Those estimates primarily concern payment-card compliance rather than digital-asset activity.
The agency noted that the estimates are subject to uncertainty because the eventual impact will depend on future state laws and regulatory actions.
Public comment will follow
The proposal will be open for public comment following publication in the Federal Register.
The FDIC is also seeking feedback on alternative approaches that could maintain parity between state and national banks while avoiding unintended effects on state law enforcement.
The rule therefore remains a proposal and could change before the agency adopts any final version.
For the digital-asset sector, its relevance will depend largely on how the final framework interacts with state banking laws and the rules governing banks that provide crypto-related services.
For now, the FDIC proposal is primarily an interstate banking measure, while the crypto connection comes from the wider debate over how state-chartered banks can operate digital-asset businesses across state lines.
Also Read: WisdomTree, MoonPay Expand Push Into Tokenized Fund Market
