CRL's comment argues against the proposed rule to limit the Bureau’s supervisory jurisdiction over non-depository institutions by interpreting the phrase “risk to consumers” in the Consumer Financial Protection Act to mean “a high likelihood of significant harm.”
In the comment, CRL argues that the Bureau’s proposed interpretation conflicts with the plain meaning of the statute’s words, the statutory context provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Act's surrounding provisions, and the legislative history of the law’s enactment as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Because existing law makes clear that the ability to interpret is not a license to rewrite language enacted by Congress, CRL recommends that the Bureau either: (1) withdraw the proposed rule or, (2) issue a final rule adopting the plain language meaning of the statute’s terms—which would allow the Bureau to exercise jurisdiction over nonbanks whenever it has reasonable cause to believe that there exists a “possibility” or “chance” that "something bad" will happen to consumers.