[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34224-34228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12048]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

31 CFR Part 1010

RIN 1506-AB55


No-Action Letter Process

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FinCEN is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) to solicit public comment on questions relating to the 
implementation of a no-action letter process at FinCEN. Given that the 
addition of a no-action letter process at FinCEN may affect or overlap 
with other forms of regulatory guidance and relief that FinCEN already 
offers, including administrative rulings and exceptive or exemptive 
relief, this ANPRM, among other things, seeks public input on whether a 
no-action letter process should be implemented and, if so, how the no-
action letter process should interact with those other forms of relief.

DATES: Written comments on this ANPRM must be received on or before 
August 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal E-rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Refer to Docket Number 
FINCEN-2022-0007 and RIN 1506-AB55.
     Mail: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Enforcement 
and Compliance Division, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket 
Number FINCEN-2022-0007 and RIN 1506-AB55.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FinCEN Regulatory Support Section 
at 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at https://www.fincen.gov/contact.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scope of ANPRM

    This ANPRM seeks comment on the possibility of FinCEN establishing 
a no-action letter process. Section 6305(a) of the Anti-Money 
Laundering Act of 2020 (the AML Act) \1\ requires the Director of 
FinCEN, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Federal 
functional regulators,\2\ State bank supervisors, State credit union 
supervisors, and other Federal agencies, as appropriate (the 
``Consulting Parties''), to conduct an assessment of whether to 
establish a process for FinCEN to issue no-action letters in response 
to inquiries concerning whether and how anti-money laundering or 
countering the financing of terrorism laws and regulations apply to 
specific conduct (the ``Assessment'').\3\ Section 6305(b) of the AML 
Act requires the Secretary of the Treasury (the ``Secretary''), ``in 
coordination with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 
Federal functional regulators'' (the ``Coordinating Parties''), to 
submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
Representatives a report with findings and determinations from the 
Assessment (the ``Report''), as well as to propose rulemakings, if 
appropriate, to implement the findings and determinations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The AML Act was enacted as Division F, sections 6001-6511, 
of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116-283 (2021).
    \2\ Section 6003(3) of the AML Act provides that the term 
``Federal functional regulator'' (A) ``has the meaning given the 
term in section 509 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6809)'' 
and (B) ``includes any Federal regulator that examines a financial 
institution for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act.'' Under the 
relevant provision of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the term ``Federal 
functional regulator'' refers to ``(A) the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System; (B) the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency; (C) the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation; (D) the Director of the Office of Thrift 
Supervision; (E) the National Credit Union Administration Board; and 
(F) the Securities and Exchange Commission.'' 15 U.S.C. 6809(2).
    \3\ AML Act section 6305(a)(1).
    \4\ Id. section 6305(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2021, FinCEN submitted the Report to Congress. The 
Report concluded that FinCEN should undertake a rulemaking to establish 
a no-action letter process to supplement the existing forms of 
regulatory guidance and relief that third parties may request from 
FinCEN.\5\ Consistent with that conclusion, this ANPRM seeks initial 
public input on the need for a no-action letter process and potential 
procedures and rules regarding its implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See FinCEN, A Report to Congress: Assessment of No-Action 
Letters in Accordance with Section 6305 of the Anti-Money Laundering 
Act of 2020 (June 28, 2021), https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/No-Action%20Letter%20Report%20to%20Congress%20per%20AMLA%20for%20ExecSec%20Clearance%20508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the adoption of a no-action letter process may affect 
existing forms of regulatory guidance and relief offered by FinCEN, 
this ANPRM also seeks public input on how a no-action letter process 
should interact with those mechanisms and whether the addition of a no-
action letter process is appropriate.

II. Background

A. The Bank Secrecy Act

    Enacted in 1970 and amended most recently by the AML Act, the Bank 
Secrecy Act (BSA) aids in the prevention of money laundering, terrorism 
financing, and other illicit financial activity.\6\ One stated purpose 
of the BSA is to ``require certain reports or records that are highly 
useful in--(A) criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations, risk 
assessments, or proceedings; or (B) intelligence or counterintelligence 
activities, including analysis, to protect against terrorism.'' Another 
purpose of the BSA is to ``establish appropriate frameworks for 
information sharing'' among financial institutions and government 
authorities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 6003(1) of the AML Act defines the Bank Secrecy Act 
as comprising Section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
U.S.C. 1829b), Chapter 2 of Title I of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 
1951 et seq.), and Subchapter II of Chapter 53 of Title 31 of the 
United States Code.
    \7\ 31 U.S.C. 5311(1), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has authorized the Secretary to administer the BSA. The 
Secretary has delegated to the Director of FinCEN (the ``Director'') 
the authority to implement, administer, and enforce compliance with the 
BSA and associated regulations.\8\ FinCEN is authorized to require 
financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or businesses to maintain 
procedures to ensure compliance with the BSA and

[[Page 34225]]

the regulations promulgated thereunder and also to guard against money 
laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other forms of illicit 
finance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Treasury Order 180-01 (Jan. 14, 2020).
    \9\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Compliance and Enforcement Authority

    FinCEN has overall authority for evaluating compliance with the 
BSA, including the coordination and direction of procedures and 
activities of all other agencies exercising delegated authority.\10\ 
Generally, FinCEN has delegated its authority to examine covered 
financial institutions for BSA compliance to the appropriate Federal 
functional regulators.\11\ In instances in which a covered institution 
does not have a Federal functional regulator (for example, money 
services businesses), examination authority is delegated to the 
IRS.\12\ However, FinCEN can and does conduct its own risk-based 
examinations when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 31 CFR 1010.810(a).
    \11\ 31 CFR 1010.810(b).
    \12\ Id; Memorandum of Understanding and Delegation of Authority 
to Examine Nonfinancial Trades and Businesses (April 21, 2015), 
available at https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-001, Ex. 
4.26.1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN also has authority to enforce the BSA and its implementing 
regulations, including the imposition of civil money penalties on 
financial institutions, nonfinancial trades or businesses, and other 
persons that violate the BSA.\13\ Generally, the authority to impose 
such penalties has not been delegated.\14\ Certain enforcement 
authorities have been delegated to the IRS, including the authority to 
enforce BSA provisions regarding records and reports of foreign 
financial agency transactions and to investigate criminal violations of 
certain reporting requirements.\15\ Appropriate law enforcement 
agencies, including the Department of Justice, may also investigate 
and/or prosecute criminal violations of the BSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 31 U.S.C. 5321.
    \14\ See 31 CFR 1010.810(d). But see 31 CFR 1010.810(g) 
(regarding the delegation of authority by FinCEN to IRS to assess 
and collect civil monetary penalties for violations of 31 CFR 
1010.350 and 1010.420).
    \15\ 31 CFR 1010.810(c)(2); 31 CFR 1010(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the authority that FinCEN has delegated to the 
regulatory and supervisory agencies under the BSA, some agencies have 
their own independent authority to examine the institutions they 
supervise for BSA compliance and to take enforcement actions for 
noncompliance. For example, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1818(i) and 1786(k), 
and 31 U.S.C. 5321, the Federal banking agencies and FinCEN, 
respectively, can bring civil money penalty actions for violations of 
the BSA. Furthermore, some agencies may impose and enforce regulations 
regarding anti-money laundering or countering the financing of 
terrorism under their own separate authorities.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.17a-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Administrative Rulings, Exceptive or Exemptive Relief, and No-Action 
Letters

    FinCEN currently provides the following forms of regulatory 
guidance or relief: (1) administrative rulings and (2) exceptive or 
exemptive relief. An administrative ruling is a written ruling that 
interprets the relationship between Chapter X of Title 31 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (``Chapter X'')--which contains FinCEN's 
regulations implementing the BSA--and each situation for which such a 
ruling has been requested in conformity with specified 
requirements.\17\ Under FinCEN's regulations, an administrative ruling 
binds FinCEN if it describes a specifically identified actual 
situation. In addition, it can have precedential value (meaning it 
``may be relied upon by others similarly situated'') if FinCEN makes it 
available to the public through publication on FinCEN's website or 
another appropriate forum.\18\ However, if FinCEN does not publish the 
administrative ruling, it may not be relied upon by others similarly 
situated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 31 CFR 1010.715.
    \18\ Id. Administrative rulings may be modified or rescinded 
under appropriate circumstances, which affects the extent to which 
they are binding and have precedential value. 31 CFR 1010.716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN may also grant exceptive or exemptive relief--that is, an 
exception to or exemption from the BSA or the regulatory requirements 
of Chapter X.\19\ These exceptions or exemptions may be conditional or 
unconditional, may apply to particular persons or classes of persons, 
and may apply to particular transactions or classes of transactions. 
But they are applicable only as expressly stated in the order of 
authorization, and they are revocable in the sole discretion of the 
Secretary.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7); 31 CFR 1010.970.
    \20\ 31 CFR 1010.970(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast with these existing forms of relief, a ``no-action 
letter'' as used by other agencies is typically an exercise of 
enforcement discretion wherein the staff of an agency or the staff of a 
division of the agency issues a letter indicating its intention not to 
take or recommend enforcement action against the submitting party for 
the specific conduct presented in the submitting party's request.\21\ 
Generally, such letters address only prospective activity not yet 
undertaken by the submitting party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Cf., e.g., 17 CFR 140.99 (describing a Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission no-action letter as ``a written statement issued 
by the staff of a Division of the Commission or of the Office of the 
General Counsel that it will not recommend enforcement action to the 
Commission for failure to comply with a specific provision of the 
Act or of a Commission rule, regulation or order if a proposed 
transaction is completed or a proposed activity is conducted by the 
Beneficiary,'' and also noting that a no-action letter ``represents 
the position only of the Division that issued it, or the Office of 
the General Counsel if issued thereby,'' ``binds only the issuing 
Division or the Office of the General Counsel, as applicable, and 
not the Commission or other Commission staff,'' and may be relied 
upon by ``[o]nly the Beneficiary''); 17 CFR 200.81(a) (describing a 
Securities and Exchange Commission no-action letter as a ``letter or 
other written communication . . . requesting a statement that, on 
the basis of the facts stated in such letter or other communication, 
the staff would not recommend that the Commission take any 
enforcement action . . . ''); 84 FR 48229, 48244 (Sept. 13, 2019) 
(describing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau no-action letter 
as including a statement that ``the Bureau will not make supervisory 
findings or bring a supervisory or enforcement action against the 
recipient predicated on the recipient's offering or providing the 
described aspects of the product or service under (a) its authority 
to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices; or (b) 
any other described statutory or regulatory authority within the 
Bureau's jurisdiction'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The AML Act and the No-Action Letter Report

    Section 6305(a) of the AML Act requires the Director, in 
consultation with the Consulting Parties, to undertake an Assessment of 
whether FinCEN should establish a process for issuing no-action 
letters, in response to inquiries concerning the application of the 
Bank Secrecy Act, the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56; 115 Stat. 272), 
section 8(s) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(s)), 
or any other anti-money laundering or countering the financing of 
terrorism law (including regulations) to specific conduct, including a 
request for a statement whether FinCEN or any relevant Federal 
functional regulator intends to take an enforcement action regarding 
such conduct against the person making the request.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ AML Act section 6305(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the AML Act, the Assessment included an analysis of:

    (A) a timeline for the process used to reach a final 
determination by FinCEN, in consultation with the relevant Federal 
functional regulators, in response to a request by a person for a 
no-action letter;
    (B) whether improvements in current processes are necessary; 
[and]
    (C) whether a formal no-action letter process would help to 
mitigate or accentuate illicit finance risks in the United States . 
. . .\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. section 6305(a)(2).

    Additionally, FinCEN analyzed the potential impact of no-action 
letters on

[[Page 34226]]

other regulators and law enforcement, including specifically 
considering the possible implementation of a cross-regulator no-action 
letter process--that is, a process in which a no-action letter is 
simultaneously sought from multiple regulators regarding the same 
entity.
    Section 6305(b) of the AML Act also requires the Secretary, in 
coordination with the Coordinating Parties, to submit a Report to 
Congress presenting findings and determinations from the Assessment and 
to consider the appropriateness of a proposed rulemaking to implement 
those findings and determinations.
    On June 28, 2021, FinCEN submitted the Report to Congress. FinCEN 
evaluated, among other things, the challenges associated with the 
overlap between FinCEN's enforcement authority and other regulators' 
authorities. In light of the existence of parallel and overlapping 
authorities, FinCEN concluded that, while a cross-regulator no-action 
letter process might have certain benefits, such a process involving 
multiple agencies and their respective authorities would present legal 
and practical challenges. FinCEN also analyzed the potential benefits 
and concerns regarding how a no-action letter process might impact 
illicit finance risks. This analysis included potential procedures or 
requirements to mitigate illicit finance risks.
    FinCEN concluded in the Report that it should undertake a 
rulemaking in order to establish a no-action letter process to 
supplement the existing forms of regulatory guidance and relief that 
FinCEN already provides. The primary benefits of a no-action letter 
process identified in the Report include promoting a robust and 
productive dialogue with the public, spurring innovation among 
financial institutions, and enhancing the culture of compliance and 
transparency in the application and enforcement of the BSA. FinCEN also 
assessed that the rulemaking process should include consultation with 
other agencies as needed and appropriate, given the various areas where 
FinCEN's no-action letters may affect agencies with parallel or 
delegated authority.
    Through this ANPRM, FinCEN seeks public input on whether to 
establish a no-action letter process, what the scope of and limits on 
no-action letters should be, and how best to implement the process. 
FinCEN further seeks comment on how such a process should interact with 
FinCEN's existing forms of regulatory guidance and relief.

III. Questions for Comment

    FinCEN invites comments on all aspects of the implementation of a 
no-action letter process, as well as the ways in which such a process 
may interact with FinCEN's existing forms of regulatory guidance and 
relief. FinCEN also specifically seeks comments on the questions listed 
below. FinCEN encourages commenters to reference specific question 
numbers to facilitate FinCEN's review of the comments.

I. No-Action Letters 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Given the pending determination of whether the no-action 
letters contemplated in this ANPRM will be issued by FinCEN alone, 
or as cross-regulator letters, or both, the term ``no-action 
letter'' in the context of the questions posed in this ANRPM 
presumes any of these proposed combinations, unless otherwise 
specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Considerations Relating to the Report
    (1) FinCEN evaluated several issues in the Report on no-action 
letters, including, among other things, the viability of a cross-
regulator no-action letter process, a timeline for considering and 
issuing no-action letters, and the extent to which no-action letters 
would mitigate or accentuate illicit finance risks. Are there 
additional considerations not identified in the Report that FinCEN 
should weigh in evaluating these issues?
    (2) While FinCEN has no legal authority to prevent another agency, 
including a Federal functional regulator or the Department of Justice, 
from taking an enforcement action under the laws or regulations that it 
administers, are there additional points FinCEN should consider in 
assessing the viability of a cross-regulator no-action letter process? 
What is the value of establishing a FinCEN no-action letter process if 
other regulators with jurisdiction over the same entity do not issue a 
similar no-action letter?
    (3) Would a no-action letter process involving only FinCEN be 
useful? Why or why not?
    (4) Are there additional points FinCEN should consider regarding 
the timeline proposed in the Report?
    (5) Are there additional points FinCEN should consider concerning 
the mitigation or accentuation of illicit finance risks beyond those 
identified in the Report?
    (6) To what extent would an institution be able to rely upon a no-
action letter from FinCEN if the institution is subject to oversight 
and examination for the same or similar matters by another agency?
    (7) What impact would a FinCEN-only no-action letter process or a 
cross-regulator no-action process have on State, local, or Tribal 
regulators?
    (8) Do existing laws and regulations permit the issuance of no-
action letters, or are any additional rules or changes required to 
implement such a process? If so, what additional rules or changes would 
be appropriate?
Contours and Format of a FinCEN No-Action Letter Process
    (9) Should FinCEN establish via regulation any limitations on which 
factual circumstances would be appropriate for a no-action letter? If 
yes, what should those limitations be?
    (10) Should FinCEN limit the scope of no-action letters so that 
such requests may not be submitted during a BSA or BSA-related 
examination--including when the subject of the request is already a 
matter under examination, or when it becomes a matter under examination 
while the no-action letter process is ongoing?
    (11) Would it be valuable for FinCEN provide to information from a 
no-action letter request to agencies with delegated examination 
authority under 31 CFR 1010.810 for the purpose of evaluating specific 
conduct addressed in a no-action letter request, including, among other 
things, to obtain information that may inform FinCEN's response to the 
request?
    (12) In its regulation covering administrative rulings, FinCEN 
requires specific information to be included in the request for a 
ruling.\25\ Should FinCEN require similar elements in no-action letter 
submissions? If so, which? What is the burden on the requester in 
gathering this information?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 31 CFR 1010.711(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (13) Are there additional pieces of information not addressed in 
FinCEN's requirements for administrative rulings \26\ that FinCEN 
should, or should not, request to be included in no-action letter 
submissions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (14) In its regulation covering administrative rulings, FinCEN 
mandates specific procedural and filing requirements for the 
request.\27\ Should FinCEN include similar requirements for no-action 
letter submissions? If so, which? What is the burden on the requester 
in complying with these potential requirements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 31 CFR 1010.711(b)-(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (15) Are there additional procedural or filing requirements not 
addressed in FinCEN's requirements for administrative rulings \28\ that 
FinCEN

[[Page 34227]]

should, or should not, require for no-action letter submissions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (16) Understanding that typically FinCEN will rely on the facts and 
circumstances contained in the request, if FinCEN issues a no-action 
letter to a parent corporation, under what circumstances should the 
letter apply to some or all subsidiaries, or vice versa? Should the 
requester specify the entities in the corporate structure to which the 
no-action letter request applies?
    (17) Should FinCEN limit consideration of no-action letter requests 
to written materials? For example, should FinCEN require that the 
content of any oral communication between FinCEN and the requester 
intended to inform FinCEN's response be submitted in writing to receive 
official consideration? What is the burden on the requester in 
complying with this potential requirement?
FinCEN Jurisdiction and No-Action Letters
    It is possible that FinCEN may not be able to immediately or 
definitively establish whether FinCEN has jurisdiction (i.e., 
regulatory authority) over the entity submitting a no-action letter 
request. This could be a result of, among other things, facts and 
circumstances relating to geographic location, the product or service 
involved, or the business model of the requesting entity.
    (18) Should FinCEN determine that it has jurisdiction prior to the 
issuance of no-action letters?
    (19) Should FinCEN issue no-action letters where the request is for 
a ruling on whether FinCEN has jurisdiction over the submitting party? 
Is this more appropriate for a FinCEN administrative ruling request?
    (20) How should the no-action letter process apply to agents, third 
parties, domestic affiliates, and foreign affiliates that may be 
conducting anti-money laundering or BSA functions on behalf of a 
financial institution either inside or outside the United States?
Changed Circumstances
    (21) Should a change in the overall business organization, such as 
when two entities merge or one entity acquires another, cause a no-
action letter to lose its effect? If so, under what circumstances? If 
not, how would such a no-action letter continue to apply?
    (22) Should there be any limitations on FinCEN's ability to change 
the positions reflected in prior no-action letters? If so, under what 
circumstances?
    (23) What are the potential impacts on the submitting party if, 
after FinCEN's response, the relevant law or regulation changes?
Revocation
    (24) Should FinCEN publicize standards governing the revocation of 
no-action letters, or should revocation be determined on a case-by-case 
basis?
    (25) Under what circumstances should no-action letters be 
automatically revoked? (Triggering events could include, for example, 
changes to law or regulation, provision of false or incomplete 
information, failure to provide requested additional information, or 
violation of potential specified procedural requirements.)
    (26) Should no-action letters have expiration dates? If so, under 
what circumstances would an expiration date be appropriate?
    (27) If a no-action letter is revoked, how should FinCEN handle 
conduct that occurred while the no-action letter was active? In 
particular, would a rescission result in potential enforcement actions 
only for conduct after the rescission date, or would an entity also 
potentially be subject to liability for conduct that occurred while the 
now-revoked letter was active? Would the answer depend on the basis for 
the revocation?
    (28) What other rules should govern the revocation of no-action 
letters?
No-Action Letter Denials and Withdrawals
    (29) Should FinCEN create an appeals or reconsideration process for 
no-action letter denials? What factors and procedures should this 
process involve?
    (30) Should FinCEN publish denials on its website? If so, what 
level of detail and type of information should be included? For 
example, should denials be anonymized?
    (31) Should FinCEN allow submitting entities to withdraw their 
requests for no-action letters? If so, under what circumstances and at 
what point in the process should withdrawals be allowed? What should 
the process be for withdrawing a request for a no-action letter?
Confidentiality
    (32) Should the no-action letter process be confidential during 
FinCEN's adjudication of a request?
    (33) Should FinCEN maintain the confidentiality of no-action 
letters for a period of time, or indefinitely, after granting them? 
Under what circumstances should FinCEN maintain confidentiality?
    (34) Should no-action letters be used as published precedents? If 
so, under what circumstances and conditions should they be 
precedential? Should no-action letters be applicable beyond the 
requesting institutions, and under what circumstances and conditions?
    (35) How should FinCEN notify State, local, or Tribal regulators of 
confidential requests for cross-regulator no-action letters or, if 
appropriate, confidentially issued cross-regulator no-action letters?
    (36) How should FinCEN notify Federal, State, local, or Tribal 
regulators of confidential requests for FinCEN-only no-action letters 
or, if appropriate, confidentially issued FinCEN-only no-action 
letters?
    (37) If no-action letters and their underlying requests are made 
public, how should FinCEN handle content that is confidential or 
sensitive, such as triggering mechanisms for suspicious activity report 
(SAR) reviews?
Consultation
    (38) What procedures should be put in place for FinCEN to consult 
with other relevant regulators or law enforcement agencies regarding 
no-action letter requests?
    (39) How can FinCEN best balance the need to consult other 
regulators or law enforcement with the desires of submitting parties 
for confidentiality and expediency?
    (40) Should FinCEN require a submitting party that is seeking a no-
action letter to identify all of its regulators? Should FinCEN require 
that institution to identify all of the regulators of its parent or 
subsidiary corporations?
    (41) Under what circumstances other than consultation should 
information FinCEN obtains through the no-action letter process be 
shared with other Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, including 
the U.S. Department of Justice?
Other Questions
    (42) What burdens are requesting institutions expected to face in 
connection with the implementation of a no-action letter process? 
Please identify any burdens with specificity, such time spent or salary 
costs, and estimate the dollar costs of these burdens if possible. How 
could FinCEN address any such burdens on regulated parties?
    (43) What topics, issues, transaction types, customer types, 
geographies, products, services, or other matters would be expected to 
be the subject of no-action letter requests to FinCEN?
    (44) Are there any other comments FinCEN should consider in 
crafting rules to implement a no-action letter process?

[[Page 34228]]

II. The Proposed No-Action Letter and Existing Processes

    FinCEN currently provides the following forms of regulatory 
guidance or relief: (1) administrative rulings and (2) exceptive or 
exemptive relief, as described in Section II.B above. FinCEN is seeking 
comment on how the potential no-action letter process may complement 
existing processes.
    (45) What criteria should distinguish a no-action letter request 
from an administrative ruling, or from exceptive or exemptive relief?
    (46) What value or benefit does a no-action letter bring that is 
distinct from an administrative ruling, or from exceptive or exemptive 
relief?
    (47) Are there improvements that could be made to FinCEN's existing 
processes for issuing administrative rulings or exceptive or exemptive 
relief?
    (48) What sort of guidance would be helpful from FinCEN concerning 
administrative rulings or exceptive or exemptive relief?

IV. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This ANPRM is not a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget.

V. Conclusion

    With this ANPRM, FinCEN requests input on whether FinCEN should 
implement a no-action letter process and, if so, how such a process 
should interact with existing forms of regulatory guidance and relief. 
FinCEN seeks input from the public on the questions set forth above, 
including from regulated parties; State, local, and Tribal governments; 
law enforcement; regulators; and any other interested parties.

    By the Department of the Treasury.
Himamauli Das,
Acting Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 2022-12048 Filed 6-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P