NPRM: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Programs (all FIs, incl. MSBs) (91 FR 18704) (Part 4 of 5)
Document text
Research, not advice. Part of the Bitcoin research archive (October 2026). Claims labelled unverified, contested or fringe are reported, not endorsed; statuses of bills and rules are as of the date checked. Government, court and patent records are public domain; the research notes are CC BY 4.0.
219 See infra section X.F #7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules 18739
institutions, regulators and other are truer to the nature of their business regulatory, and civil investigations;
compliance examiners, law enforcement and clientele rather than non- penalties; and actions, where
and national security agencies, and the meaningful metrics that aim to assess, restrictions to engage in mergers and
general public. As discussed in section by proxy, the program-related efforts acquisitions may be applied to certain
X.A.1, these benefits are expected to that cannot be directly observed. covered financial institutions with
flow from the extent to which the new Additionally, by explicitly allowing ineffective AML records. Thus, financial
and amended program requirements are (but not requiring) financial institutions institutions with effective programs
better able to address the fundamental to use technological innovation, could incur tangible benefits in avoiding
economic problems that might financial institutions may be better litigation costs, investigation costs, and
otherwise limit current AML program positioned to incur benefits from being monetary penalties associated with
and regime effectiveness. encouraged to use newer methods to ineffective AML/CFT programs.
identify and thwart illicit finance Further, as a result of the collective
a. Regulated Financial Institutions activity risks with a broader view to enhancements to a covered financial
As discussed above in section X.A.1, value of doing so. institution’s AMF/CFT program, the
this proposed rule, among other things, The proposed rule may result in institution itself, or the group of
aims to reduce distortions due to benefits to certain regulated financial financial institutions to which it
information asymmetries by providing institutions individually. In other belongs, may also experience
regulated financial institutions and their instances, groups of regulated financial reputational benefit if they come to be
regulators with clarity about the institutions may benefit collectively. viewed as better insulated from such
requirements that would need to be met The proposed program establishment disruptions and/or potentially become
in order to have an effective AML/CFT requirement would require every generally perceived as more reliable or
program. By emphasizing that an regulated financial institution to transparent in their financial services or
effective program is one that mitigates a develop risk-based internal policies, activities.
regulated financial institution’s ML/TF procedures, and controls that are
risks by directing more attention and reasonably designed to identify, assess, b. Regulators and Other Compliance
resources toward higher-risk customers and document ML/TF risk through risk Examiners.
and activities rather than toward lower- assessment processes and mitigate those By encouraging regulators and other
risk ones, regulated financial risks consistent with the risk assessment compliance examiners to focus their
institutions may choose to reallocate processes, including by allocating more efforts on addressing significant or
their resources in a way that better attention and resources toward higher systemic failures to implement an
aligns the program requirements and the risks. While some financial institutions effective AML/CFT program, rather than
elements of a regulated financial already engage in such practices, the addressing isolated, technical, or
institution’s compliance burden that are proposed rule would require every immaterial implementation issues, these
unobservable. This reallocation of financial institution covered under the regulators and examiners may have
resources could decrease the cost per BSA to undertake such a process. This fewer non-substantive issues to
unit of effectiveness. That is, it could could enable each affected covered adjudicate with regulated entities,
reduce the expense of time and money financial institution to better which could potentially relieve the
on activities that do not create value, understand its own ML/TF risks and demand for, and the less productive use
while improving the effectiveness of help it detect threat patterns or trends of, time and other limited resources.
their AML/CFT programs by better that could then be incorporated into its This, in turn, may enable examinations
preventing money laundering and risk assessment processes. and other supervisory activities to be
financing of terrorism with risk-based The proposed changes in AML/CFT more productive by better aligning
improvements to detecting, preventing, program requirements may also reduce outcomes with AML/CFT Priorities and
and identifying illicit financial activity. the distortion in incentives of certain objectives.220
Further, by having FinCEN and the covered financial institutions that
Federal regulators focus on addressing currently benefit disproportionately c. Law Enforcement and National
significant or systemic failures to from the positive externalities of other Security Agencies
implement an effective program rather institutions by more explicitly limiting The proposed rule may also benefit
than addressing isolated, technical, or their ability to underinvest in their own U.S. law enforcement and national
immaterial implementation issues, efforts by requiring them to direct more security efforts against ML/TF risks by
FinCEN expects that in aggregate, attention and resources toward higher- rendering AML/CFT programs more risk
financial institutions would have to risk customers. While this would result based through proposed requirements
respond to fewer such enforcement or in an incremental change in such as incorporating risk assessment
supervisory actions and may save expenditures to the affected covered processes into internal policies,
personnel time that would otherwise be financial institutions, both peer procedures, and controls and ensuring
allocated to unproductive supervisory institutions and the affected financial that AML/CFT programs focus attention
inquiries. institution may benefit from the change. and resources on high-risk customers
Specifically for banks, giving FinCEN FinCEN anticipates that financial and activities. These proposed changes
a greater role in the supervisory process institutions would also incur benefits would increase the likelihood that the
could reduce the possibility for from being better positioned to identify, information provided to law
differences between how FinCEN and deter, and detect illicit financial activity enforcement and national security
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
the compliance examiners might assess because financial crime not only agencies from AML/CFT programs
the quality of a bank’s program. This impacts the public at large, but can also would be highly useful.
would help ensure that bank regulators disrupt financial institutions directly Moreover, under the proposed rule,
are focused on assessing banks’ AML/ impacted by financial crime or that are covered financial institutions would be
CFT programs for effectiveness rather used as conduits to facilitate such required to promptly re-establish their
than mere technical compliance. Doing crimes. Moreover, financial institutions AML/CFT program any time they face a
so would allow banks to focus their with ineffective AML/CFT programs are
attention and resources on activities that exposed to the risks of criminal, 220 See infra section X.F #6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
18740 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules
significant change in their ML/TF risk. a better-calibrated regime to reduce described in section X.A.2.i.d above
This, along with ensuring they focus certain low-value activities and who reported being the victim of
attention and resources toward higher- unintended social costs.222 The financial fraud or a scam involving their
risk customers and activities, would proposed rule is expected to enhance money, but not a credit card, only
allow AML/CFT programs to respond to the deterrent effect of AML/CFT recovered $21 billion from $84 billion
evolving risks that the financial programs and the utility of information in identified losses, meaning $63 billion
institutions may face. FinCEN such programs provide to law was lost to fraud and scams. If this were
anticipates that this risk-focused posture enforcement and national security the exclusive category of losses that the
of AML/CFT programs would lead to agencies, and through these proposed rule’s effectiveness addressed,
better information that would enhance mechanisms, contribute to reduced rates then enhanced AML/CFT programs
U.S. agencies’ ability to investigate, of crime and enhanced national would only need to reduce—whether by
prosecute, and disrupt financing of security, respectively. greater deterrence and/or an increase in
terrorism, other transnational security While FinCEN expects the proposed recovery—losses by a mere two-tenths
threats, and domestic and transnational rule to enhance the deterrent effect of (0.2) of a percent to generate an
illicit financial activity. current AML/CFT programs at covered economic impact large enough for the
The proposed rule would also require financial institutions and facilitate law proposed rule to be deemed a significant
covered financial institutions to review enforcement and national security regulatory action.225
and, as appropriate, incorporate the agencies in identifying and disrupting Thus despite an inability to precisely
AML/CFT Priorities into their AML/CFT or otherwise bringing actions against quantify the magnitude of anticipated
programs. Incorporating the priorities, illicit activities, it is difficult to estimate aggregate economic benefit of the
which have been issued in consultation how much additional economic loss the proposed rule to the general public,
with various U.S. and State government proposed requirements would prevent. FinCEN anticipates that by reducing
agencies,221 would further equip AML/ FinCEN lacks data that would be ML/TF risks, and by extension
CFT programs to produce information necessary to quantify how much money associated illicit activities, the related
that is highly useful to law enforcement, laundering and the financing of economic effects could reasonably be
particularly with respect to identified terrorism could be reduced as a result of expected to be meaningfully large even
threats to U.S. financial system and the proposed rule or how much other if the subset of harms that are
national security deemed government- illegal activity would be curbed by this quantifiable are only reduced by very
wide priorities. Thus, law enforcement reduction in money laundering and small proportions.
efforts with respect to these AML/CFT terrorist financing.223 Money laundering
and other illicit financing is related to ii. Expected Costs
Priorities, such as investigations and
prosecutions, data analytics, and policy a wide array of activities including a. Regulated Financial Institutions
analysis and decision making, would human trafficking, drug trafficking, Given the magnitude of expenses
benefit. terrorism, public corruption, the incurred annually by financial
There is also a corollary benefit from proliferation of weapons of mass institutions in efforts to satisfy existing
the proposed rule in reducing BSA destruction, fraud, and other crimes and program obligations, FinCEN estimates
records and reporting that are not highly illicit activities that cause substantial that a change in expenditures of as little
useful, since such ‘‘not highly useful’’ monetary and nonmonetary damages, as one percent would already be
records and reports degrade the ability but costs to the public attributable to economically significant.
of law enforcement and national each typology are not always FinCEN currently lacks the data
security to efficiently and effectively measurable, able to be separately necessary to estimate the proportion of
identify illicit finance activity relevant estimated, or quantified over the same covered financial institutions that
to their investigations, prosecutions, period of time due to the variation in would establish and maintain their
and risk assessments. lags between when illicit activity occurs AML/CFT programs differently as a
Additionally, the proposed rule and when it is detected or related result of the proposed rule, the manner
would provide financial institutions financial activity occurs.224 in which they would do so, and whether
with the flexibility to innovate Nevertheless, certain subcategories of such changes were technically
responsibly. In doing so, law illicit financial activity that frequently necessary for reasons uniquely
enforcement and national security have a nexus with ML/TF that are better attributable to the regulatory changes
efforts may reap the benefits of financial identified and studied can help proposed.226 Additionally, given (1) the
institutions’ use of technological contextualize the significance of its differences in baselines between
innovation to detect and disrupt illicit economic effects. For example, the eight covered financial institution types; (2)
financial activity. percent of 2024 SHED participants the differences in scope that must be
covered by each of the covered financial
d. General Public 222 Further discussion of these changes to costs
are covered in section X.A.4.ii.c. The discussion in institution type’s AML/CFT
The proposed rule is additionally this section considers more exclusively the programs; 227 and (3) the extent to which
expected to benefit the public. FinCEN expected benefits to the general public that would compliance costs can vary within a
anticipates that the public benefit would flow from successful implementation of the covered financial institution type based
result from both the potential for a more proposed rule.
223 See infra section X.F #8 for a request for
on, for example, a financial institution’s
effective AML/CFT regime to better comment about the availability of such data.
deter illicit activity and the potential for 224 For further discussion of the harms and risks 225 As defined by E.O. 12866 under section 3(f)(1)
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
associated with money laundering, see U.S. as an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
221 In this context, the phrase ‘‘U.S. and State Department of the Treasury, 2024 National Strategy or more. See supra note 111.
226 FinCEN requests comment on whether there
government agencies’’ is meant to include for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing
Treasury’s Offices of Terrorist Financing and (May 2024), https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/ are any categories of burden to covered financial
Financial Crimes, Foreign Assets Control, and 136/2024-Illicit-Finance-Strategy.pdf; see also U.S. institutions that should be articulated and
Intelligence and Analysis, as well as the Attorney Department of the Treasury, National Money quantified in this subsection and requests data that
General, FFRs, relevant State financial regulators, Laundering Risk Assessment (2024), https:// would support such burden estimation. See infra
and relevant law enforcement and national security home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/2024-National- section X.F #9.
agencies. Money-Laundering-Risk-Assessment.pdf. 227 See supra section X.A.2.ii.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules 18741
size and the level of program the average subsequent year. These about both (1) the risk of increased
sophistication, it is not clear that the estimates include anticipated expenses inequities in access to financial services
aggregate net costs incurred by all related to stakeholder outreach and (or other consequences of overbroad de-
affected financial institutions as a result informational support, compliance risking strategies), which, if not
of this proposed rule would be monitoring, and potential enforcement prohibitive, can make it more expensive
distinguishable from zero.228 activities as well as certain incremental and less efficient for affected persons to
On the one hand, FinCEN cannot increases to pre-existing administrative conduct financial transactions, and (2)
definitively conclude that the aggregate and logistic expenses. the potential for inequalities in report
annual expenditure level across all FinCEN acknowledges that this filing on the basis of characteristics
categories of affected financial treatment of cost estimates implicitly unrelated (or insufficiently related) to
institutions would be expected to assumes that increased resources
decrease, particularly in the short run. the underlying nature of risk reported,
commensurate with any novel operating which may impose other types of
At the same time, FinCEN does not have costs would exist. If this assumption
a reasonable basis to expect that the indirect costs.
does not hold, then operating costs
proposed rule would necessitate an associated with a rule may impose FinCEN’s general expectation is that
increase in aggregate costs because of certain economic costs on the public in the advancements in this proposed rule
the flexibility in risk-based resource the form of opportunity costs from the toward more effective programs would
allocation that it is intended to promote. agency’s forgone alternative activities generally reduce, not increase, such
Furthermore, there are a number of and those activities’ attendant benefits. burdens and costs to otherwise affected
scenarios in which the proposed rule Putting that into the context of this persons and reduce the likelihood that
could achieve its intended deregulatory proposed rule, and benchmarking they may continue to face unduly
effects while facially appearing to against FinCEN’s actual appropriated limited—or a complete absence of—
increase the burden of program budget for fiscal year 2025 access to the services of various
compliance. For example, at the ($190,193,000),230 the corresponding financial institutions. This is because
institutional level, a certain financial opportunity cost could resemble
institution may be able to reduce per- FinCEN expects that, in complying with
forgoing up to 3.2 percent (4.0 percent) changes in the proposed rule, if
unit compliance costs, while of current activities annually in the first
simultaneously increasing compliance- adopted, financial institutions would be
year (each subsequent year) in which a more empowered to provide services in
related expenditures due to technology- final rule was effective. However, to the
enabled expansion into new products, a manner that is more appropriately
extent that activities FinCEN would tailored to their respective risk profiles
markets, or lines of business activities. undertake as a function of the proposed
While projecting or demonstrating the (as identified by their risk assessment
rule would functionally substitute for or
successful deregulatory outcomes of the processes) and would be required to
otherwise replace forgone activities,
proposed rule may prove challenging, if direct more attention and resources
such an estimate likely overstates the
even possible, using traditional toward higher-risk customers and
potential economic costs to FinCEN
accounting metrics, FinCEN expects activities rather than lower-risk ones,
and, consequently, the public.
that, to the extent that financial including via the adoption of
FinCEN notes that these estimates do
institutions make use of the technological innovations that could
not include the potential costs borne by
opportunities afforded by the new improve the calibration of reporting
other regulators or entities engaged in
effectiveness framework embedded in processes. Thus, by reducing those
informational outreach, examinations
the rule, they should unequivocally institutions’ prior disincentives to
(such as those by SROs), or related
incur the same or lower costs per unit provide underserved communities with
enforcement activities as a consequence
of effective compliance. Expending more efficient levels of services and
of the proposed rule. These estimates
greater financial outlays per unit of access to the U.S. financial system,
also do not include considered costs to
effective compliance would be FinCEN expects that the proposed rule
the Agencies that may accrue in
fundamentally at odds with the
connection with the proposed new may reduce the costs of previously
proposed requirement for risk
consultation requirements. FinCEN forgone economic activity as well as
assessment processes to inform the
acknowledges that, as such, the cost additional indirect costs persons might
development of internal policies,
estimates here would understate the have incurred from previously
procedures and controls that mitigate
burden of activities required to promote calibrated reporting mechanisms.
risk by directing attention and resources
compliance with the rules, as proposed,
toward higher-risk customers and 5. Consideration of Policy Alternatives
and the full scope of government costs.
activities.229
c. Clients or Customers of Covered FinCEN has considered several
b. Government Costs
Financial Institutions alternatives, in part or whole, to the
To implement the proposed rule, currently proposed version of the rule,
FinCEN is mindful of concerns certain
FinCEN expects to incur certain but is limiting the presentation here to
parties have long expressed regarding
operating costs that would include considerations where public response
the potential for unintended effects, or
approximately $2.8 million prior to the may be most useful. The alternatives
other indirect costs, that can accompany
final rule’s effective date, $6.2 million described below are scenarios that may
an AML/CFT program inappropriately
in the first effective year of the final have resulted in reduced burdens for
tailored to a financial institution’s true
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
rule, and approximately $7.5 million in certain affected financial institutions
risk profile and that are borne by its
228 FinCEN requests data on whether this current and potential clients or but would do so at the expense of
expectation is reasonably accurate. See infra section customers. These include concerns forgone benefits or efficiency gains. For
X.F #10. the reasons described below, FinCEN
229 FinCEN requests comment on whether its 230 See FinCEN, Congressional Budget
decided not to propose any of these
assessment that the proposed changes would have Justification FY 2026, available at https://
a deregulatory impact is appropriate. See infra home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/11.-FinCEN-FY-
alternatives. FinCEN invites comment
section X.F #13. 2026-CJ.pdf. on these alternatives, and on any other
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
18742 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules
alternatives that were not considered financial institution’s size, activities, or iii. Alternatives Delaying the Effective
here.231 other characteristics. Another concern Date
was that, while engendering some As set forth in section VI, FinCEN is
i. Alternatives Proposing Regulatory
planning and design efficiencies, a more proposing that the rule’s effective date
Definitions
prescriptive definition may exacerbate be 12 months following the publication
The proposed rule reflects FinCEN’s other, and potentially more of the final rule. Because of comments
view that because financial institutions consequential, inefficiencies, costs, and received in response to the 2024
know their customers, businesses, and potential harms related to one-size-fits- Program NPRM, FinCEN considered
risks better than their regulators and the all or ‘‘paper’’ programs. For these whether providing any additional
government, they are best positioned to reasons, among others, FinCEN periods of time to some or all expected
identify and evaluate their ML/TF risks. concluded that the proposed two-prong affected financial institutions would
However, in response to previous framework approach would strike a facilitate a more efficient transition to
rulemaking efforts, comments from the more appropriate balance between practices in conformance with the new
public have indicated that allocating anticipated benefits and costs. requirements.233 While the scope and
resources can be challenging if there is
ii. Adopting the 2024 Program NPRM nature of the anticipated changes to
regulatory ambiguity or if examiner
current practices differs substantially
expectations are unclear or inconsistent. Instead of the proposed rule, FinCEN
between NPRMs, the economic and
One way to alleviate such uncertainties alternatively could have chosen to
practical realities of any financial
and/or ambiguities could have been to promulgate a final rule that in part, or
institution that perceived a need to
promulgate more specific and as a whole, would have adopted the
make non-trivial adjustments to its
prescriptive definitions for certain key requirements proposed in the 2024
current program structure or activities
terms/phrases fundamental to the Program NPRM, described above in
likely do not.
design and operation of highly section II.C.1. For a number of reasons,
productive, value-creating AML/CFT including certain concerns also a. An Additional Delay in Effective Date
programs. FinCEN considered expressed by commenters,232 FinCEN of Six Months for All Financial
alternatives that would have taken that considered that the formulation of Institutions
approach with respect to the various program amendments proposed in this One option FinCEN considered was
phrases discussed in greater detail NPRM is likely to strike a more an additional delay in the effective date
below, but ultimately determined such appropriate balance of benefits to costs. of the final rule by six months for all
approaches were less desirable than In particular, the relationship covered financial institutions. This
those in the proposed rule. FinCEN envisioned between a financial might allow financial institutions
includes the reasoning that informed its institution’s risk assessment process(es) making substantive changes to their
determinations here for review so that and the allocation of attention and AML/CFT programs to better optimize
commenters may respond with resources in this proposed rule is while doing so, if, for instance,
information, data, studies, or other expected to more efficiently connect financing for new investments would
evidence that may have altered business intelligence and program need to be procured or budgets would
FinCEN’s rank ordering of policies by execution. The proposed program need to be redrawn and reapproved. It
perceived optimality. requirements with respect to internal would also ensure a more effective
Instead of proposing a two-prong, policies, procedures, and controls, transition, if, for instance, additional
conceptual framework approach to expressly enable the mechanisms that systems testing before deployment
define an ‘‘effective’’ AML/CFT transform business-operations-specific significantly improved the security or
program, FinCEN could have proposed data into information about a financial quality of a newly established (or re-
a more prescriptive, attribute- or institution’s ML/TF risks to guide the established) AML/CFT program as a
component-based definition. This architecture and resource allocation of whole or one of its internal or risk
approach, by leaving less to the facts that institution’s AML/CFT program. assessment process(es). The relative
and circumstances of a particular This informed tailoring, in turn, is merits of this contemplated delay are
financial institution, would have rewarded (and hence better expected to correlate with the
reduced the uncertainty about incentivized) by the protections a proportion of the population anticipated
regulatory and/or examiner properly established program would to undertake program establishment or
expectations, potentially giving the afford. re-establishment-like actions. That is,
institution greater ability to allocate The proposed rule also improves
this alternative would be considered
resources in a cost-effective manner upon the likelihood of the prior
more valuable if a greater proportion of
given the certainty about what criteria proposal to incentivize dynamic
regulated financial institutions were
the program would need to meet to be program developments that are aligned
expected to make substantive changes
considered operationally effective. with evolving AML/CFT Priorities. This
than the proportion that may simply
While FinCEN considered this is expected to be the case because,
reallocate existing personnel and
potential for enhanced efficiency as a unlike the 2024 Program NPRM, the
allotted budgets.
result of the greater clarity a more proposed rule proffers an evaluative Because FinCEN expects that more
prescriptive, attribute- or component- framework of effectiveness that would financial institutions are likely to
based definition of effective would better insulate a financial institution reallocate existing budgets and
provide, the agency also weighed the from supervisory or enforcements resources than newly undertake
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
potential benefits of this approach actions that may otherwise unduly
against certain concerns. One concern penalize innovation and/or 233 In response to the 2024 Program NPRM,
was that by being more prescriptive, an customization that FinCEN would certain parties asserted a transition period of two
alternative definition of effective may welcome but whose value a supervisory of more years would be necessary to operationalize
leave less flexibility for an AML/CFT evaluator may not be as well-positioned a paradigmatic shift in program practices, pointing
to various logistic issues such as updating processes
program to be tailored based on a to appreciate. and technology, systems testing, and developing
and deploying new training materials, among other
231 See infra section X.F #15. 232 See supra section II.C.2. necessary activities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules 18743
substantive, costly activities in response remaining covered financial Because the proposed rule may have a
to the proposed rule, FinCEN considers institutions. This alternative would significant economic impact on a
the cost of further delays to regulatory allow for an additional 12 months for substantial number of small entities in
implementation insufficiently offset by the small covered financial institutions certain affected industries, FinCEN
the incremental value of an additional and an additional six months for the undertook the following analysis. In the
six months to the relatively smaller remaining covered financial institutions event that FinCEN has potentially
portion of the population that might to transition to compliance with the overestimated the anticipated
benefit from the delay. final rule as adopted than what is being significance of the economic impact of
proposed. the proposed rule, and certification
b. An Additional Delay in Effective Date FinCEN is not proposing to adopt this would instead be more appropriate,
of 12 Months for Small Entities as combined, graduated approach at this comments to this effect—including
Defined by the RFA time for the same reasons that it studies, data, or other evidence—are
Another option FinCEN considered declined to adopt either the general or invited.238
was an additional delay in effective date small entity-specific timing
1. The Proposed Rule: Objectives,
of the final rule by 12 months for only accommodations separately.
Description, and Legal Basis
small entities as defined by the RFA.
B. E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 14192 The proposed rule would require
FinCEN considered that this option
might be beneficial to small entities that E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 direct covered financial institutions to
may require more time to effectuate agencies to assess the benefits and costs establish and maintain effective AML/
programmatic updates. Small entities of available regulatory alternatives and, CFT programs, while amending
may rely more than non-small entities if regulation is necessary, to select FinCEN’s regulations that prescribe the
on personnel in-house to conduct regulatory approaches that maximize minimum requirements for AML/CFT
certain activities manually and may net benefits (including potential programs. The proposed rule would also
outsource technology functions and/or economic, environmental, and public provide FinCEN with a greater role in
training to third parties more frequently health and safety effects; distributive the bank supervisory process by
or pervasively than non-small entities. impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 requiring that the Agencies, when acting
Thus, they may need to take more steps emphasizes the importance of under supervisory authority delegated
to modify their AML/CFT programs, quantifying both benefits and costs, by FinCEN, consult with FinCEN prior
including, for example, renegotiating reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and to taking a significant AML/CFT
certain third-party services in light of promoting flexibility. E.O. 13563 also supervisory action.
the need for programs to be recognizes that some benefits are By explicitly defining the
demonstrably tailored to the unique difficult to quantify and provides that, requirements for an institution to
ML/TF risks of a given financial where appropriate and permitted by establish and maintain an effective
institution. At the same time, the law, agencies may consider and discuss AML/CFT program and by
proposed rule would allow for AML/ qualitatively values that are difficult or standardizing the AML/CFT supervision
CFT programs to be better tailored to the impossible to quantify.235 and enforcement process for banks and
characteristics of the financial This proposed rule was deemed their Federal banking regulators, the
institution, including size. In practice, ‘‘Economically Significant’’ by the proposed rule is expected to better
this may imply that many smaller Office of Information and Regulatory achieve the purposes of the BSA and
entities would not need to undertake Affairs under E.O. 12866, section 3(f)(1). improve outcomes for financial
significant or costly changes and may Per E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(C), if a institutions and law enforcement and
even be able to reduce certain regulatory action is expected to result in national security agencies.
expenditures of resources in connection a rule that would have an annual effect The legal basis for the proposed rule
with ML/TF risks that are less relevant on the economy equal to or greater than is the AML Act. The purposes of the
or germane to the small business’s $100 million,236 an RIA is required. AML Act, among others, include to
operations. On balance, it was not clear Accordingly, the foregoing analysis was ‘‘modernize anti-money laundering and
to FinCEN which effect would conducted because it is expected to counter the financing of terrorism laws
dominate—the potentially greater costs result in effects beyond this threshold. to adapt the government and private
to a small entity of regulatory transition, When final, however, this action is sector response to new and emerging
which would weigh in favor of a not expected to be an E.O. 14192 threats;’’ ‘‘to encourage technological
delayed effective date, versus the regulatory action because the net change innovation and the adoption of new
potential for the transition to relieve in aggregate costs attributable to the technology by financial institutions to
burden and reduce costs, which would proposed rule is not expected to be more effectively counter money
weigh against any delay—therefore easily distinguishable from zero. laundering and the financing of
FinCEN did not opt to pursue a small terrorism;’’ and ‘‘to reinforce that the
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
entity-specific timing accommodation. anti-money laundering and countering
When an agency issues a rulemaking the financing of terrorism policies,
c. A Hybrid Delay of 12 Months for proposal, the RFA requires the agency to procedures, and controls of financial
Small Entities and Six Months for All either provide an IRFA or certify that institutions shall be risk-based’’ 239 as
Other Covered Financial Institutions the proposed rule would not have a part of the broader initiative to
As a third option, FinCEN considered significant economic impact on a ‘‘strengthen, modernize, and improve’’
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
proposing an alternative effective date substantial number of small entities.237 the U.S. AML/CFT regime.
of 24 months following the adoption of Specifically, section 6101(b)(2)(B)(ii)
235 Supra note 112, E.O. 13563 at section 1(c)
the final rule for small covered financial of the AML Act amended the BSA to
(‘‘Where appropriate and permitted by law, each
institutions 234 and 18 months for the agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively)
require Treasury, when prescribing
values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, minimum standards for AML/CFT
234 See 13 CFR 121.201 for the size standards including [. . .] distributive impacts.’’).
236 58 FR 51740–41; 76 FR 3821–22. 238 See infra section X.F #16.
applied to small financial institutions as defined by
the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). 237 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 239 AML Act, section 6002(2)–(4) (Purposes).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
18744 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules
programs, to take into account that Priorities. FinCEN published the first of Terrorism National Priorities issued
AML/CFT programs should be AML/CFT Priorities on June 30, 2021, as pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(4).
‘‘reasonably designed to assure and required under 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(4)(A).
monitor compliance with the BSA and 2. The Expected Impact on Small
In the proposed rule, FinCEN is
its implementing regulations and be risk Entities
proposing to add a new definition of
based.’’ 240 FinCEN intends for this ‘‘AML/CFT priorities’’ at 31 CFR FinCEN estimates that 98 percent of
proposed rule to meet these objectives 1010.100(nnn) to support the the financial institutions that would be
by clarifying that covered financial promulgation of regulations pursuant to subject to the proposed rule meet the
institutions would need to establish and 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(4)(D). According to
maintain effective AML/CFT programs RFA’s definitional criteria for a ‘‘small
the proposed definition, ‘‘AML/CFT entity’’ in their respective industry.241
such that they yield useful outcomes
priorities’’ would refer to the most Table 7 presents the relative size
that support the purposes of the BSA.
In addition, with this proposed rule, recent statement of Anti-Money distribution by category of financial
FinCEN is addressing its first AML/CFT Laundering and Counting the Financing institution.242
TABLE 7—ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF SMALL ENTITIES BY COVERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TYPE
Estimated
Number of percentage
Financial institution type financial of small
institutions a entities (%)
Banks with an FFR:
FDIC ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,738 b 75.4
FRB ................................................................................................................................................................... 703 c 62.6
NCUA ................................................................................................................................................................ 4,287 d 58.6
OCC .................................................................................................................................................................. 895 e 68.0
Banks without an FFR ............................................................................................................................................. 365 f 99.7
Casinos .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,299 g 68.5
Principal MSBs ........................................................................................................................................................ 24,856 h 95.0
Agent MSBs ............................................................................................................................................................. 307,212 i 100.0
Broker-Dealers ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,278 j 38.9
Mutual Funds ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,355 k 94.0
Insurance Companies .............................................................................................................................................. 717 l 81.2
FCMs and IBCs ....................................................................................................................................................... 954 m 93.7
DPMSJs ................................................................................................................................................................... 6,742 n 99.8
Operators of Credit Card Systems .......................................................................................................................... 4 °0
Loan or Finance Companies ................................................................................................................................... 13,342 p 93.5
Housing GSEs ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 q0
Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 368,760 97.9
aSee supra table 1.
b Based on consultation with FDIC staff, using FFIEC Reports on Condition and Income (Call Reports) data as of September 30, 2025.
FinCEN estimated the percentage of small entities by dividing FDIC’s estimated number of small entities (2,064) by the estimated number of
FDIC-regulated banks (2,738).
c Based on consultation with FRB staff. FinCEN estimated the percentage of small entities by dividing FRB’s estimated number of small enti-
ties (440) by the estimated number of FRB-regulated banks (703).
d Based on consultation with NCUA staff. The NCUA estimated that 2,514 of 4,287 federally insured credit unions met their operational defini-
tion of small, which requires that a credit union have less than $100 million in assets.
e Based on consultation with OCC staff. The OCC estimates the number of small entities based on the SBA’s size thresholds for commercial
banks and savings institutions, and trust companies, which are $850 million and $47 million, respectively. Consistent with the General Principles
of Affiliation at 13 CFR 121.103(a), the OCC counted the assets of affiliated financial institutions when determining if it should classify an OCC-
supervised institution as a small entity. The OCC used data as of December 31, 2024, to determine size because a ‘‘financial institution’s assets
are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year.’’ See footnote 8 of the SBA,
Table of Small Business Size Standards (Mar. 17, 2023), https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. FinCEN estimated the per-
centage of small entities by dividing the OCC’s estimated number of small entities (609) by the estimated number of OCC-regulated banks (895).
f To FinCEN’s knowledge, only one bank without an FFR exceeds the $850 million threshold criteria for small.
g The SBA thresholds for a small business in this category (NAICS codes 713210 and 713290) are $34 million and $40 million, respectively.
The 2022 SUSB data on the number of firms by receipts size indicate that 97 out of the 198 firms that received over $1 million in annual receipts
in NAICS code 713210 received between $1 million and $35 million in annual receipts, and 674 out of the 766 firms that received over $1 million
in annual receipts in NAICS code 713290 received between $1 million and $40 million in annual receipts. This results in an average of 68.5 per-
cent.
h The SBA thresholds for a small business in this category (NAICS codes 522320 and 522390) are $47 million and $28.5 million, respectively.
The 2022 SUSB data indicate that 3,357 out of 3,532 firms in NAICS code 522320 received under $50 million in annual receipts and 2,844 out
of 2,977 firms in NAICS code 522390 received under $30 million in annual receipts. This results in an average of 95.0 percent. This estimate dif-
fers from alternatively using the current SEC small entity standards in rulemakings involving mutual funds. See 17 CFR 270.0–10. The SEC has
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
proposed to amend this standard. See SEC, ‘‘Small Business’’ and ‘‘Small Organization’’ Definitions for Investment Companies and Investment
Advisers for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 91 FR 1107 (Jan. 12, 2026).
i This estimate is based on the assumption that all agent MSBs are small entities.
240 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(2)(B)(9)(iv)(II), as amended 241 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 242 FinCEN requests comment on the accuracy of
by section 6101 of the AML Act. these baseline estimates. See infra section X.F #17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules 18745
j The SEC defines a small entity as a broker-dealer that had total capital of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which
its audited financial statements were prepared or, if not required to file such statements, a broker-dealer that has total capital of less than
$500,000 on the last business day of the preceding fiscal year. 12 CFR 240.0–10(c). FinCEN estimated the percentage of small entities by divid-
ing the SEC’s estimated number of small entities (1,275), which was submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on January 23,
2026 as part of SEC’s PRA information collection for the renewal of 17 CFR 240.15b1–1 (Rule 15b1–1) by the estimated number of broker-deal-
ers (3,278). See SEC, Application for Registration of Brokers or Dealers, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=202509-3235-
012&icID=193354.
k The SBA threshold for a small business in this category (NAICS code 525910) is $40 million in annual receipts. According to the 2022 SUSB
data, 313 out of 333 firms received under $50 million in annual receipts. This estimate differs from alternatively using the current SEC small enti-
ty standards in rulemakings involving mutual funds. See 17 CFR 270.0–10. The SEC has proposed to amend this standard. See SEC, ‘‘Small
Business’’ and ‘‘Small Organization’’ Definitions for Investment Companies and Investment Advisers for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 91 FR 1107 (Jan. 12, 2026).
l The SBA threshold for a small business in this category (NAICS code 524113) is $47 million in annual receipts. According to the 2022 SUSB
data, 739 out of 910 firms received under $50 million in annual receipts.
m The SBA threshold for small businesses in this category (NAICS codes 523130 and 523140) is $47 million. According to the 2022 SUSB
data, 565 out of 614 firms in NAICS 523130 and 699 out of 733 firms in NAICS 523140 received under $50 million in annual receipts. This re-
sults in an average of 93.7 percent.
n The SBA threshold for a small business in this category (NAICS code 423940) is 125 employees. According to the 2022 SUSB data, 6,726
out of 6,742 firms had fewer than 500 employees.
o This estimate is based on FinCEN’s assessment that no entities in this category would qualify as a small entity.
p The SBA thresholds for a small business in this category (NAICS codes 522292 and 522310) are $47 million and $15 million, respectively.
According to the 2022 SUSB data, 3,307 out of 3,711 firms in NAICS code 522292 received under $50 million in annual receipts and 9,428 out
of 9,631 in NAICS code 522310 received under $15 million in annual receipts. This results in an average of 93.5 percent.
q This estimate is based on FinCEN’s assessment that no entities in this category would qualify as a small entity.
FinCEN anticipates that the proposed the entity believed the benefits of doing that the delay is necessary given the
rule may have a significant economic so would outweigh the upfront costs. nature of the changes proposed. Small
impact on a substantial number of Additionally, FinCEN expects that entities are invited to provide comment,
certain types of affected small entities. small entities would benefit over the including quantitative or qualitative
The proposed changes to the program long term.244 Small entities would be evidence about the cost impact of the
rules would require small entities to able to avoid expenditures on low- rule and the benefit they anticipate from
more effectively tailor their program to impact activities and redirect those a size-based delay to the effective date
their risk profiles. However, as a resources toward activities that yield of a final rule.246
threshold matter, the proposed rule is greater returns in terms of program
effectiveness. Small entities would D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
not expected to have the effect of
imposing substantial, new requirements further benefit from having a more Section 202 of the UMRA requires
on small entities that currently maintain effective program, for example, by that an agency prepare a budgetary
effective AML/CFT programs. Some reducing the likelihood of costly impact statement before promulgating a
small entities may initially expend time negative consequences that could stem rule that may result in expenditures by
or other resources to familiarize from having an ineffective program (e.g., State, local, and Tribal governments, in
themselves with the rule’s requirements, AML/CFT supervisory and enforcement the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
make a determination about whether actions and litigation and investigation $193 million or more in any one year
any programmatic changes are necessary costs), while strengthening their overall ($100 million in 1995, adjusted for
for their respective institutions, and reputation. In addition, individual small inflation).247 248 If a budgetary impact
make any needed changes. FinCEN entities would benefit from the positive statement is required, section 202 of the
acknowledges some uncertainty externalities created when other covered UMRA also requires an agency to
regarding costs to small entities and financial institutions concurrently identify and consider a reasonable
requests comment on the share of small establish and maintain more effective number of regulatory alternatives before
entities that would incur costs as a AML/CFT programs, for example, by promulgating a rule.
result of the proposed changes and being able to better understand their As discussed in section X.A.4,
information on the magnitude of own ML/TF risks and detect threat FinCEN does not anticipate that the
expected costs.243 patterns or trends. proposed rule would result in novel
In the agency’s experience, a number 3. Other Matters: Duplicate, incremental aggregate expenditures by
of industry trade groups often prepare Overlapping, Conflicting, and State, local, and Tribal governments, or
and disseminate informational materials Alternative Requirements by the private sector of $193 million or
to their members to promote and FinCEN is unaware of any existing 246 See infra section X.F #18.
facilitate best practices in regulatory Federal regulations that would overlap 247 2 U.S.C. 1532.
compliance, and FinCEN itself both (1) or conflict with the proposed rule.245 248 The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports
has routinely publishes substantial As discussed in greater detail in the annual value of the gross domestic product
amounts of supporting informational section X.A.5, FinCEN considered implicit price deflator for calendar year 1995 (the
materials in connection with its proposing a delayed effective date for year UMRA was enacted) as 66.939, and as 128.974
rulemakings and (2) responds to public for calendar year 2025 (the most recent available).
smaller entities that would provide an Thus, the inflation-adjusted estimate for $100
inquiries and informational requests additional 12 months to come into million is 128.974 ÷ 66.939 × $100 million, or
submitted online. To the extent that a compliance with the final rule. FinCEN $192.7 million. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
small entity would voluntarily retain Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
is not proposing to this additional time
the services of an external consultant or Domestic Product, https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/
accommodation because it is unclear ?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=
newly decide to implement costly 13#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDM
changes to its current AML/CFT 244 See supra section X.A.4.i.a. sM10sImRhdGEiOltbIk5JUEFfVG
program, FinCEN anticipates that these 245 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5) (requiring initial regulatory FibGVfTGlzdCIsIjEzIl0sWyJDYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwi
activities would be undertaken because flexibility analysis to identify, to the extent U3VydmV5Il0sWyJGaXJzdF9ZZWF
practicable, all relevant Federal rules which may yIiwiMTk5NSJdLFsiTGFz
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed dF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyNSJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCIwIl0sW
243 See infra section X.F #4, 5, 9, and 16. rule). yJTZXJpZXMiLCJBIl1dfQ==.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
18746 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules
more in any one year. Accordingly, recommendations for the proposed OMB control numbers for the program
FinCEN does not believe a budgetary information collection can be submitted rule requirements for banks,253 broker-
impact statement or a consideration of by visiting https://www.reginfo.gov/ dealers, FCMs or IBCs,254 or housing
regulatory alternatives would be public/do/PRAMain. Find this GSEs.255
required for UMRA purposes. particular document by selecting This scoping of the population for
Nevertheless, were these items to be ‘‘Currently Under Review—Open for purposes of PRA estimates avoids
required, FinCEN believes the section X Public Comments’’ or by using the double counting the recordkeeping
analysis in its totality, including the search function. Comments are welcome burdens of the proposed rule for entities
consideration of alternatives presented and must be received by June 9, 2026. regulated by the Agencies. The
in section X.A.5, would satisfy the In accordance with requirements of accounting of burden estimates for OMB
analytical requirements by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), and its purposes, when aggregated across the
incorporation as permitted by UMRA.249 implementing regulations, 5 CFR part relevant control numbers, should be
Members of the public who have 1320, the following information generally comparable for the common
reason to believe FinCEN has erred in concerns the collection of information program-related components considered
its UMRA analysis, such as the as it relates to the amendments to in both this and the Agencies’ respective
possession of facts, data, studies, or covered financial institutions’ AML/ exercises to the extent that the same
anecdotal or other qualitative CFT program regulations. assumptions about incremental burden
information that would cause FinCEN to
1. Description of Affected Financial apply.
reconsider its analytical conclusions,
are invited to provide comment.250 Institutions and OMB Control Numbers Table 8 presents the same population
OMB Control Number(s): 1506–0020, estimates from the baseline analysis but
E. Paperwork Reduction Act 1506–0030, 1506–0035, and 1506–0051. appends the respective agency’s OMB
The recordkeeping requirements in FinCEN has historically accounted for control numbers to illustrate the
the proposed rule, which qualify as the existing reporting and recordkeeping differences in aggregate estimates that
‘‘collections of information’’ under the burdens associated with the program are attributable to the inclusion or
PRA, will be submitted to OMB for rules using the following OMB control exclusion of covered financial
review in accordance with the PRA.251 numbers: 1506–0020 (MSBs, mutual institutions accounted for under another
Under the PRA, an agency may not funds, and operators of credit card agency’s control numbers or unassigned
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not systems); 1506–0030 (DPMSJs); 1506– to a control number. This is followed by
required to respond to, a collection of 0035 (insurance companies, loan or table 9, which includes only the covered
information unless it displays a valid finance companies, and banks lacking financial institutions whose burdens are
control number assigned by OMB.252 an FFR); and 1506–0051 (casinos). included in this PRA analysis, grouped
Written comments and FinCEN does not maintain existing by their respective control numbers.
TABLE 8—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF COVERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BY AGENCY OMB CONTROL NUMBER
a Number of financial Agency OMB
Covered financial institution type institutions control No.
Banks with an FFR:
FDIC .................................................................................................................................... 2,738 FDIC 3064–0087
FRB ...................................................................................................................................... 703 FRB 7100–0310
NCUA ................................................................................................................................... 4,287 NCUA 3133–0108
OCC ..................................................................................................................................... 895 OCC 1557–0180
Banks without an FFR ................................................................................................................ 365 FinCEN 1506–0035
Casinos ....................................................................................................................................... 1,299 FinCEN 1506–0051
Principal MSBs ............................................................................................................................ 24,856 FinCEN 1506–0020
Agent MSBs ................................................................................................................................ 307,212 FinCEN 1506–0020
Broker-Dealers ............................................................................................................................ 3,278 N/A
Mutual Funds .............................................................................................................................. 1,355 FinCEN 1506–0020
Insurance Companies ................................................................................................................. 717 FinCEN 1506–0035
FCMs and IBCs .......................................................................................................................... 954 N/A
DPMSJs ...................................................................................................................................... 6,742 FinCEN 1506–0030
Operators of Credit Card Systems ............................................................................................. 4 FinCEN 1506–0020
Loan or Finance Companies ...................................................................................................... 13,342 FinCEN 1506–0035
Housing GSEs ............................................................................................................................ 13 N/A
249 2 U.S.C. 1532(c) (‘‘Any agency may prepare 254 See FinCEN, Financial Crimes Enforcement programs. FinCEN recognizes the SEC as the FFR,
any statement required under subsection (a) of this Network; Anti-Money Laundering Programs for and registered national securities exchanges or a
section in conjunction with or as a part of any other Financial Institutions, 67 FR 21110 (Apr. 29, 2002). national securities association, such as FINRA, as
statement or analysis, provided that the statement In the 2002 interim final rule, FinCEN noted it was the SROs for member broker-dealers. Each SRO may
or analysis satisfies the provisions of subsection (a) appropriate to implement section 5318(h)(1) of the have its own AML program requirements. See, e.g.,
of this section.’’). BSA with respect to broker-dealers and FCMs FINRA Rule 3310. The CFTC’s SRO is the National
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
250 See infra section X.F #19. through their respective SROs, because the SEC and Futures Association. The AML program
the CFTC and their SROs significantly accelerated
251 See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). requirements for FCMs and IBCs are set out in NFA
the implementation of AML programs for their
252 See 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3). Rule 2–9(c). The SROs are not required to comply
regulated financial institutions. Accordingly, 31
253 Banks with an FFR have OMB control
CFR 1023.210 and 1026.210provides that broker- with the PRA. Therefore, there are no OMB control
numbers that are maintained by the Agencies, as dealers, and FCMs and IBCs, respectively, would be numbers for the AML/CFT program regulatory
follows: (1) FDIC (OMB Control No. 3064–0087); (2) deemed to be in compliance with the requirements requirements of broker-dealers or FCMs and IBCs.
FRB (OMB Control No. 7100–0310); (3) NCUA 255 The PRA does not apply to the collection of
of section 5318(h)(1) of the BSA if they comply with
(OMB Control No. 3133–0108); and (4) OCC (OMB any applicable regulation of their FFR governing the information by one Federal agency (FinCEN) from
Control No. 1557–0180). establishment and implementation of AML another Federal entity (the housing GSEs).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules 18747
TABLE 8—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF COVERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BY AGENCY OMB CONTROL NUMBER—Continued
a Number of financial Agency OMB
Covered financial institution type institutions control No.
Total ..................................................................................................................................... 368,760
aSee supra table 1.
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF COVERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE PRA ANALYSIS
Affected financial institution types by activity
Number of FinCEN OMB
Covered financial institution type financial 31 CFR Program Control No.
institutions a CDD b approval c
1021.210(2)(b)(vi)
Principal MSBs ................................................................ 24,856 ............................ ........................ ✓ 1506–0020
Agent MSBs d .................................................................. 307,212 ............................ ........................ ........................
Mutual Funds .................................................................. 1,355 ............................ ✓ ........................
Operators of Credit Card Systems ................................. 4 ............................ ........................ ✓
DPMSJs .......................................................................... 6,742 ............................ ........................ ✓ 1506–0030
Banks without an FFR .................................................... 365 ............................ ✓ ........................ 1506–0035
Insurance Companies ..................................................... 717 ............................ ........................ ✓
Loan or Finance Companies ........................................... 13,342 ............................ ........................ ✓
Casinos ........................................................................... 1,299 ✓ ........................ ✓ 1506–0051
Total ......................................................................... 355,892 1,299 1,720 46,960 ........................
a See supra table 1.
b See supra table 3.
c See supra table 4.
d FinCEN assumes that the activities associated with program approval would be operationalized at the principal-MSB level. Therefore, FinCEN
does not estimate PRA burden for the agent MSB population associated with program approval. FinCEN requests comment on whether this is a
reasonable assumption. See infra section X.F #20.
2. Estimated Annual Burden reporting the PRA burdens for eight of However, only certain covered financial
the 11 covered financial institution institution types incur or have
Table 10 presents the burden hours types.257 FinCEN estimated that these previously been assigned pro forma PRA
and labor costs associated with features covered financial institutions incur the costs associated with program
of current market practices pertaining to same per-entity hourly burden for requirements such as obtaining board of
BSA compliance as previously certain program requirements (e.g., director or trustee approval of the AML
published for public comment by maintaining and updating the written program; obtaining, verifying, and
FinCEN,256 which is responsible for AML program, storing the program, or storing cardholder identifying
256 See FinCEN, Supporting Statement to OMB
producing the program upon request). information; and ongoing compliance
Control No. 1506–0035: Anti-Money Laundering with the requirements in 31 CFR
Programs for Insurance Companies, Loan or FinCEN, Supporting Statement to OMB Control No. 1021.210(b)(2)(v) and (vi). Thus, the
Finance Companies, and Banks Lacking a Federal 1506–0030: Anti-Money Laundering Programs for total burden associated with BSA
Functional Regulator (June 27, 2024), https:// Dealers in Precious Metals, Precious Stones, or
Jewels (June 27, 2024), https://www.reginfo.gov/
compliance can vary significantly across
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202406-1506-005; public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202406- covered financial institution types.258
FinCEN, Supporting Statement to OMB Control No. 1506-004; FinCEN, Supporting Statement to OMB
1506–0020: Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Control No. 1506–0051: Anti-Money Laundering 258 FinCEN requests comment on whether it
Money Services Businesses, Mutual Funds, Program Requirements for Casinos (Oct. 28, 2024), should articulate and assign PRA reporting and/or
Operators of Credit Card Systems (June 27, 2024), https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ recordkeeping burden associated with any other
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202410-1506-002. activities required under the program rules. See
PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202406-1506-003; 257 See supra table 8.
infra section X.F #21.
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
TABLE 10—ESTIMATED BURDEN HOURS AND COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER
FINCEN OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 18748
Total burden hours per program requirement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
F. Ongoing
Number of E. Obtaining, compliance
A. Maintaining D. Board of Directors/
OMB Control No. Covered financial institution type financial B. Storing the C. Producing the verifying, and with the Total
and updating Trustees
institutions written AML AML program storing cardholder requirements in
written AML approval of the
program upon request identifying 31 CFR
program AML program information 1021.210(b) (2)(v)
and (vi)
19:54 Apr 09, 2026
1506–0020 .................. Principal MSBs—Providers and 2,605 2,605 217 217 .................................... 86,667 .............................. 89,706
Sellers of Prepaid Access.
Principal MSBs—Others ................ 24,895 24,895 2,075 2,075 .................................... .................................... .............................. 29,044
Agent MSBs .................................. 229,161 ........................ 19,097 19,097 .................................... .................................... .............................. 38,194
Jkt 268001 Mutual Funds ................................. 1,400 1,400 117 117 1,400 .................................... .............................. 3,033
Operators of Credit Card Systems 4 4 0.3 0.3 .................................... .................................... .............................. 5
1506–0030 .................. DPMSJs ......................................... 6,700 6,700 558 558 .................................... .................................... .............................. 7,817
1506–0035 .................. Banks without an FFR ................... 600 600 50 50 600 .................................... .............................. 1,300
PO 00000 Insurance Companies ................... 4,678 4,678 390 390 .................................... .................................... .............................. 5,458
Loan or Finance Companies ......... 13,000 13,000 1,083 1,083 .................................... .................................... .............................. 15,167
1506–0051 .................. Casinos .......................................... 1,277 1,277 106 106 .................................... .................................... 126,423 127,913
Frm 00046 Total Burden Hours ........................................................ 284,320 55,159 23,693 23,693 2,000 86,667 126,423 317,635
Total Labor Cost .. ........................................................ .................... $5,863,402 $2,518,601 $2,518,601 $212,600 $9,212,667 $13,438,765 $33,764,636
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM
10APP4
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules 18749
As discussed in section X.A.4.ii, Administrative Changes in PRA Administrative Changes in PRA
FinCEN does not expect this proposed Recordkeeping Burden Due to Recordkeeping Burden Associated With
rule to impose any new incremental Reorganizing CDD Requirements Under Proposed Standardization of the
burden on the covered financial Internal Policies, Procedures, and Program Approval Requirement
institutions. Consequently, FinCEN does Controls The proposed rule would also require
not expect that this proposed rule a financial institution’s board of
would result in any new incremental The rule also proposes to make
ongoing CDD obligations part of the directors, equivalent governing body
PRA recordkeeping burden. Still, in this within the financial institution, or
analysis, in response to the proposed requirement that covered financial
appropriate senior management to
removal of the language associated with institutions establish risk-based internal
approve each covered financial
31 CFR 1021.210(b)(2)(vi), which is policies, procedures, and controls that institution’s written AML/CFT program.
unique to the casino AML program are reasonably designed. The As discussed in section V.E.2 and
regulations, FinCEN proposes to remove organizational change more accurately presented in table 4, casinos and MSBs
a de minimis burden that is currently reflects how covered financial do not have explicit requirements to
associated with that activity. In institutions integrate the design and have their programs approved. Still
addition, FinCEN introduces new pro operationalization of ongoing CDD as FinCEN expects that the programs of
forma accounting estimates that reflect part of their overall AML programs. these financial institutions must also be
administrative updates to more As discussed in section V.D.1.iii, approved as a matter of best practice.
accurately represent the activity Other financial institution types,
certain financial institution types are
currently undertaken by covered including insurance companies,
required to conduct ongoing CDD, such
financial institutions to comply with DPMSJs, operators of credit card
as monitoring customer relationships
CDD and program approval systems, loan or finance companies, and
requirements. FinCEN discusses these and maintaining and updating customer
information on a risk basis, though this housing GSEs, must currently obtain
administrative changes to the PRA senior management-level approval for
recordkeeping burdens in more detail burden has never been articulated in
FinCEN’s previous OMB renewals. their programs. For consistency across
below.259 all the covered financial institution
Upon review, FinCEN has determined
Administrative Changes in PRA types, FinCEN will include a one-hour
that this omission was likely due to a
Recordkeeping Burden Due to the pro forma average annual burden for all
clerical oversight at the time that the
Proposed Removal of 31 CFR financial institutions covered under
original CDD rule was finalized in 2016 FinCEN’s OMB control numbers to
1021.210(b)(2)(vi) and in subsequent rulemakings that obtain approval of their program that do
The rule proposes to remove the would apply AML/CFT program not currently have a PRA burden
language in 31 CFR 1021.210(b)(2) (vi), obligations on new categories of associated with program approval.
which requires casinos that have financial institution, has typically Again, these PRA estimates do not
automated data processing systems to proposed to include the program represent, and should not be interpreted
provide for the use of automated elements of ongoing CDD requirements to reflect, novel incremental costs
programs to aid in assuring compliance as an itemized cost.262 Therefore, to attributable to the proposed rule.
in their compliance program.260 In the harmonize PRA accounting practices Estimated Number of Respondents:
most recent renewal, FinCEN has and to more accurately reflect the 48,680 financial institutions.263
estimated that the annual burden per burden associated with including As discussed above, FinCEN would
casino associated with this provision ongoing CDD program obligations as make the following administrative
was de minimis; 261 thus, given the part of a covered financial institution’s changes to the PRA recordkeeping
proposed changes, FinCEN is revising necessary activities to establish risk- burdens in response to the proposed
the associated annual burden for this based internal policies, procedures, and changes: (1) removing the de minimis
component of program requirements per controls that are reasonably designed, burden incurred by casinos associated
casino to 0 hours. FinCEN is incorporating a new pro with the 31 CFR 1021.210(b)(2)(vi)
forma average annual burden of 50 requirement, (2) newly articulating the
259 Please note that FinCEN is estimating only the hours to the existing burden of certain pro forma average annual 50-hour
paperwork burden associated with the specific OMB control numbers covered by the burden that banks without an FFR and
program components discussed above (i.e., the 31 mutual funds already incur associated
CFR 1021.210(b)(2)(vi), CDD, and program approval rulemaking, where applicable. These
requirements) in this PRA analysis, as other burdens and costs reflect administrative with CDD obligations, and (3) newly
components of the full burden associated with updates that are being introduced to articulating a pro forma average annual
existing program rules are accounted for in
more accurately represent the activity one-hour burden associated with
connection with OMB control numbers 1506–0020, program approval for financial
1506–0030, 1506–0035, and 1506–0051. See supra currently undertaken by covered
note 180 for the 60-day notice for OMB Control No. financial institutions to comply with institution types that do not already
1506–0020, 1506–0030, and 1506–0035 and the 60- have PRA burden associated with that
program requirements. These PRA
day notice for OMB Control No. 1506–0051. activity.
260 See supra section V.G.2. This rule also estimates do not represent, and should
As presented in table 11, FinCEN
proposed to remove the language requiring MSBs not be interpreted to reflect, novel
estimates on average, these activities
that have automated data processing systems to incremental costs attributable to the
integrate their compliance procedures with such
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
systems. Since no PRA burden is associated with
proposed rule. 263 FinCEN is adding a pro forma recordkeeping
this requirement, FinCEN is not proposing any burden associated with the CDD requirements for
changes to OMB control number 1506–0020 is 262 See, e.g., FinCEN, Financial Crimes 1,720 covered financial institutions and a pro forma
association with the proposed change. recordkeeping burden associated with the proposed
261 See supra note 180 for FinCEN, Agency Enforcement Network: Anti-Money Laundering/ program approval requirements for 46,960 financial
Information Collection Activities; Proposed Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and institutions, which includes the 1,299 casinos that
Renewal; Comment Request; Renewal Without Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for would be additionally affected by the proposed
Change of Anti-Money Laundering Program Registered Investment Advisers and Exempts removal of 31 CFR 1021.210(b)(2)(vi). This results
Requirements for Casinos. Reporting Advisers, 89 FR 72156 (Sept. 4, 2024). in a total of 48,680 respondents.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
18750 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules
result in an average annual burden of
approximately 132,960 hours.
TABLE 11—PRA AVERAGE ANNUAL PRO FORMA BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of Hours per Total burden
Activity respondents a respondent hours
Removal of 31 CFR 1021.210(b)(2)(vi) ....................................................................................... 1,299 0 0
CDD—General Program .............................................................................................................. 1,720 50 86,000
Program Approval ........................................................................................................................ 46,960 1 46,960
Total ...................................................................................................................................... 48,680 ........................ 132,960
a See supra table 9.
3. Estimated Annual Cost proposed collection of information; (3) considered or further information about
FinCEN estimates that the 132,960 ways to enhance the quality, utility, and the aspects considered that should be
burden hours associated with these clarity of the information required to be included?
activities would result in an average maintained; (4) ways to minimize the 5. Do the cost estimates presented in
annual pro forma cost adjustment of burden of the collection of information, the RIA baseline reflect a reasonable
approximately $16.6 million.264 including through the use of automated range of the costs that covered financial
collection techniques or other forms of institutions incur to maintain their
4. Summary of Burden and Cost information technology; and (5) AML/CFT programs? Is the assumption
Estimates estimates of capital or start-up costs and that per-entity costs would be lower for
Estimated Number of Respondents: costs of operation, maintenance, and covered non-bank financial institutions
48,680 financial institutions. purchase of services required to report than covered banks of similar sizes a
Estimated Aggregate Pro Forma the information. reasonable one? How much does a
Annual Burden: Approximately 132,960 typical financial institution spend to
F. Additional Requests for Comment
hours. implement their current AML program?
Estimated Aggregate Pro Forma Baseline Estimates How much does a typical small
Annual Cost: Approximately financial institution spend to implement
1. Are FinCEN’s baseline estimates of
$16,564,157.265 their current AML program?
the number of covered financial
5. General Request for Comments under institutions in each industry accurate? 6. Are FinCEN’s expectations about
the Paperwork Reduction Act Are there specific sources of data that the incremental change in burden on
would suggest any of these population regulators and compliance examiners
FinCEN invites comments on: (1)
estimates should be revised? Please described in sections X.A.3.iv, X.A.4.i.b,
whether the collection of information is
provide data, studies, or anecdotal and X.A.4.ii.b due to the proposed
necessary for the proper performance of
evidence that would support any changes reasonable? If not, please
the mission of FinCEN, including
suggested alternatives. provide data, studies, or anecdotal
whether the information would have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 2. Is it appropriate for FinCEN to evidence that would support an
FinCEN’s estimate of the burden of the presume covered financial institutions alternate conclusion.
are generally in full compliance with Potential Efficiencies and Burden
264 The wage rate applied here is a general current rules? If not, please provide
composite hourly wage ($87.61) scaled by a private defensible methods, data, studies, or 7. Because program rules are a
sector benefits factor of 1.42 ($124.58 = $87.61 × anecdotal evidence that FinCEN could minimum standard, FinCEN
1.42). This incorporates Bureau of Labor Statistics preemptively qualified its analysis as
mean wage data associated with six occupational
use to estimate the share of non-
codes (11–1010: Chief Executives; 11–3021: compliant financial institutions and likely to overstate both the benefits and
Computer and Information Systems Managers; 11– identify the areas in which they are not costs of the proposed rule for covered
3031: Financial Managers; 13–1041: Compliance currently compliant in order to revise financial institutions that already strive
Officers; 23–1010: Lawyers and Judicial Law Clerks; for best practices or whose programs
43–3099: Financial Clerks, All Other) for each of the the baseline assessment of current
nine groupings of NAICS industry codes that market practices. already meet or surpass the proposed
FinCEN determined are most directly comparable to 3. To what extent should the requirements, and assumes it should
its 11 categories of potentially affected financial economic impact on additional key, not, in theory, affect an assessment of
institutions as delineated in 31 CFR parts 1020 to the overall net effects, as the differences
1030. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2024— directly affected subpopulations of the
National industry-specific and by ownership, general public be considered in the RIA? in benefits and costs should offset each
https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm. Given that Please provide data, studies, or reports other. Is this expectation reasonable?
many occupations provide benefits beyond wages that would enhance FinCEN’s ability to Please provide data or information, if
(e.g., insurance and paid leave), FinCEN applies the
private sector benefit factor to the unloaded wage identify and quantify such effects. available, that would improve the
rate to reflect the total cost to the employer. The 4. Are FinCEN’s baseline expectations accuracy of FinCEN’s assessment of
benefit factor is the ratio of total compensation about how covered financial institutions impact if this reliance on theory is not
(which includes wages and benefits) to wages. Total appropriate.
lotter on DSK8BHNXB4PROD with PROPOSALS4
currently comply with existing program
compensation = 43.94 and Wages and salaries =
30.90 (1.42 = 43.94 ÷ 30.90) as of June 2024, based rules and the incremental change in 8. Is there any empirical evidence or
on the private industry workers series data burden due to the proposed changes data that would support the
downloaded from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. reasonably accurate? In particular, are quantification of how much money
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for the baseline expectations accurate for laundering and the financial of
Employee Compensation data, https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/archives/ecec_09102024.pdf. small covered financial institutions? Are terrorism could be reduced as a result of
265 132,960 hours multiplied by an average hourly there any other aspects of current the proposed rule or the quantification
wage rate of $124.58 equals $16,564,157. practice that FinCEN should have of how much other illegal activity could
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Apr 09, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10APP4.SGM 10APP4
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2026 / Proposed Rules 18751
be curbed by this reduction in money ALTERNATIVES List of Subjects
laundering and terrorist financing?
9. As described in section X.A.4.ii.a of 15. FinCEN requests comment on the 31 CFR Part 1010
the RIA, FinCEN has not identified any alternative policy options presented in Administrative practice and
unambiguous sources of significant section X.A.5 as well as any other procedure, Aliens, Authority
burden on covered financial institutions alternatives that were not considered delegations (Government agencies),
that would result from the changes and their economic effects. Please Banks, banking, Brokers, Business and
described in the proposed rule. Are provide information, data, studies, or industry, Citizenship and
there categories of burden that FinCEN other evidence that would support any naturalization, Commodity futures,
should articulate and quantify as part of suggested alternatives that FinCEN Crime, Currency, Electronic filing,
its calculated burden estimates? For should consider. Federal savings associations, Federal-
example, costs associated with IRFA State relations, Fiduciaries, Foreign
becoming familiar with the rule, banking, Foreign currencies, Foreign
external consultation costs, costs to 16. Is FinCEN’s expectation that the persons, Gambling, Holding companies,
establish and maintain an AML/CFT proposed rule would have a significant Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal
program, training costs, or other costs economic impact on a significant government, Insurance companies,
associated with ongoing compliance. If number of small entities reasonable? Investigations, Investment companies,
so, what are they, and what are the Are there specific sources of empirical Law enforcement, Penalties, Reporting
estimated one-time and ongoing evidence or data that would suggest this and recordkeeping requirements,
burdens per financial institution? In determination should be revised? Please Savings associations, Securities, Small
particular, what are the estimated one- provide data, studies, or anecdotal business, Terrorism, Time.
time and ongoing burdens per small evidence that would support the
financial institution? suggested alternative determination. 31 CFR Part 1020
10. Is FinCEN’s expectation that, in 17. Are FinCEN’s baseline estimates Administrative practice and
aggregate, the net change in cost of the proportion of each industry type’s procedure, Banks, banking, Brokers,
incurred by covered financial regulated financial institutions that are Citizenship and naturalization,
institutions would not be easily small reasonably accurate? Are there Commodity futures, Currency,
distinguished from zero as a result of specific sources of data that would Electronic filing, Federal savings
the proposed changes reasonably suggest any of these percentages should associations, Federal-State relations,
accurate? be revised? Foreign banking, Foreign currencies,
11. Would implementing any changes 18. Has FinCEN reasonably assessed Foreign persons, Holding companies,
necessary to comply with the proposed Investigations, Penalties, Reporting and
the relative value to affected small
rule be expected to increase or decrease recordkeeping requirements, Securities,
businesses that the alternative 12
current compliance costs and by how Terrorism.
additional months to transition
much? For example, are there any
compliance to the proposed new and 31 CFR Parts 1021, 1024, 1025, and
current compliance costs that would be
amended program requirements would 1028
reduced by the proposed requirement
afford?
that attention and resources be directed Administrative practice and
toward high-risk activities and UMRA procedure, Banks, banking, Brokers,
customers rather than low-risk activities Currency, Foreign banking, Foreign
and customers? What type and share of 19. FinCEN does not anticipate that