Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-11342

Proposed Rule2026-11342

Bank Secrecy Act and Sanctions Compliance Standards for FDIC-Supervised Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 5, 2026

Issuing agencies

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Abstract

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes to issue regulations pursuant to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) that would implement appropriate Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and sanctions compliance standards applicable to FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 108 (Friday, June 5, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34171-34178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-11342]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2026 / Proposed
Rules

[[Page 34171]]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 350

RIN 3064-AG29

Bank Secrecy Act and Sanctions Compliance Standards for FDIC-
Supervised Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposes to
issue regulations pursuant to the Guiding and Establishing National
Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) that would implement
appropriate Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and sanctions compliance standards
applicable to FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers.

DATES: Comments must be received by the FDIC no later than August 4,
2026.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064-AG29, by any
of the following methods:
<bullet> FDIC Website: <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications">https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications</a>. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the agency
website.
<bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90d3fffdfdf5fee4e3d0f6f4f9f3bef7ffe6">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include RIN 3064-AG29 in the
subject line of the message.
<bullet> Mail: Jennifer M. Jones, Deputy Executive Secretary,
Attention: Comments--RIN 3064-AG29, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
<bullet> Hand Delivery to FDIC: Comments may be hand-delivered to
the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street NW building
(located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
<bullet> Public Inspection: Comments received, including any
personal information provided, may be posted without change to <a href="https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications">https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications</a>. Commenters should submit
only information that the commenter wishes to make available publicly.
The FDIC may review, redact, or refrain from posting all or any portion
of any comment that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication,
such as irrelevant or obscene material. The FDIC may post only a single
representative example of identical or substantially identical
comments, and in such cases will generally identify the number of
identical or substantially identical comments represented by the posted
example. All comments that have been redacted, as well as those that
have not been posted, that contain comments on the merits of the
proposed rule will be retained in the public comment file and will be
considered as required under all applicable laws. All comments may be
accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.
This proposal, all comments received, and a summary of not more
than 100 words of the proposed rule pursuant to the Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023 are available at
<a href="https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications">https://www.fdic.gov/federal-register-publications</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfred L. Seivold, Acting Senior
Deputy Director, (415) 808-8248, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a4b594f435c45464e6a4c4e4349044d455c">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Division of Complex
Institution Supervision and Resolution; Patricia Colohan, Deputy
Director, (202) 898-7283, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7d7c4c8cbc8cfc6c9e7c1c3cec489c0c8d1">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Chase Lubbock, Associate
Director, (703) 254-0802, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#197a756c7b7b767a72597f7d707a377e766f">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Christy Cornell-Pape,
Acting Chief, Financial Crimes, (415) 808-8090, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e485878b968a818888c994859481a482808d87ca838b92">[email&#160;protected]</a>,
Division of Risk Management Supervision; Deborah Tobolowsky, Counsel,
(571) 309-2415, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a1e0e15181516150d0911033a1c1e1319541d150c">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Chantal Hernandez, Counsel, (202)
898-7388, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90f3f8f8f5e2fef1fef4f5ead0f6f4f9f3bef7ffe6">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Legal Division.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Policy Objectives

The FDIC is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (proposed
rule) to implement appropriate BSA and sanctions compliance standards
applicable to FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers
(PPSIs) pursuant to the GENIUS Act (or the Act).\1\ The proposed rule
aims to establish appropriate principles-based BSA and sanctions
compliance requirements and standards that are tailored to the business
model and risk profile of PPSIs and consistent with applicable law,
which includes requirements promulgated by the United States Department
of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The FDIC believes the proposed
rule would establish supervisory expectations for PPSIs, help combat
illicit finance risk, and continue to support the responsible growth
and use of digital assets and related technologies in the banking
sector.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Public Law 119-27, 139 Stat. 419 (codified at 12 U.S.C.
5901-5916).
\2\ See Executive Order 14178, Strengthening American Leadership
in Digital Financial Technology, 90 FR 8647 (Jan. 31, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Authority

The GENIUS Act requires the FDIC, along with the other primary
Federal payment stablecoin regulators \3\ and the Department of
Treasury, to implement regulations to carry out the Act's requirements
in establishing a Federal payment stablecoin regulatory framework for
supervised entities.\4\ The FDIC is the primary Federal payment
stablecoin regulator of PPSIs that are subsidiaries of insured State
nonmember banks and State savings associations that have been approved
by the FDIC to issue payment stablecoins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators are the
FDIC, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), and the National
Credit Union Administration (NCUA). See 12 U.S.C. 5901(25).
\4\ See 12 U.S.C. 5913. In developing this proposed rule, the
FDIC, as required by section 13 of the GENIUS Act, 12 U.S.C. 5913,
coordinated with fellow regulators, as appropriate. The GENIUS Act
will become effective on January 18, 2027, or 120 days after the
date on which the primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators
issue any final regulations implementing the Act, if earlier. See 12
U.S.C. 5901 note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 10, 2026, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
that would, among other things, establish a prudential framework
pursuant to the GENIUS Act for FDIC-supervised PPSIs, including
requirements related to reserve assets, redemption, capital, and risk
management standards.\5\ This

[[Page 34172]]

proposed rule would implement additional GENIUS Act requirements for
PPSIs, specifically BSA and sanctions compliance standards, as well as
supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI anti-money laundering/
countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 91 FR 18534 (Apr. 10, 2026). In December 2025, the FDIC
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking under section 5 of the GENIUS
Act that would establish application procedures for insured State
nonmember banks and State savings associations to request approval
to issue payment stablecoins through a subsidiary. 90 FR 59409 (Dec.
19, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposed Rule

To implement the BSA and sanctions compliance standards required by
the GENIUS Act, the proposed rule would amend part 350 of the FDIC
Rules and Regulations.\6\ First, the proposed rule would amend subpart
A of part 350 to add a provision to address PPSI BSA and sanctions
compliance standards. Second, the proposed rule would establish subpart
C of part 350 to add supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI
AML/CFT programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ This proposed rule would supplement the requirements
included in the FDIC's proposed rulemaking to implement requirements
for PPSIs under the GENIUS Act. See 91 FR 91 FR 18534 (Apr. 10,
2026) (proposing to amend part 350 of the FDIC's Rules and
Regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. PPSI BSA and Economic Sanctions Compliance Standards

Section 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C.
5903(a)(4)(A)(iv)) provides that the FDIC must issue regulations
implementing appropriate operational, compliance, and information
technology risk management principles-based requirements and standards,
including BSA and sanctions compliance standards, that are tailored to
the business model and risk profile of PPSIs and consistent with
applicable law.
Proposed Sec. 350.6(d) would address compliance with BSA and
sanctions standards, such that each PPSI would be required to comply
with applicable regulations at 31 CFR Chapter V and 31 CFR Chapter X,
including any AML/CFT program, economic sanctions program, and
reporting requirements. On April 10, 2026, FinCEN and OFAC issued a
separate proposed rule that would implement the GENIUS Act's directive
to treat PPSIs as financial institutions under the BSA, as well as
impose several obligations specifically required by the GENIUS Act.\7\
The FinCEN and OFAC proposed rule would also implement the GENIUS Act's
directive to require PPSIs to maintain effective economic sanctions
compliance programs. FinCEN and the primary Federal payment stablecoin
regulators are also issuing a joint notice of proposed rulemaking that
would require PPSIs to maintain an effective customer identification
program (CIP) as required by the GENIUS Act. Proposed Sec. 350.6(d)
would require a PPSI to comply with such CIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 91 FR 18582 (Apr. 10, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC requests comment on the requirements contained in proposed
Sec. 350.6(d).

B. PPSI AML/CFT Supervision and Enforcement

The FDIC proposes to establish subpart C of part 350 to add
supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI AML/CFT programs. The
provisions complement the FDIC's enforcement authorities under the
GENIUS Act, section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act)
(12 U.S.C. 1818), and other applicable law. The proposed rule defines
key terms, describes the FDIC's enforcement and supervision approach
with respect to AML/CFT program deficiencies, and establishes a
consultation process between FinCEN and the FDIC relating to AML/CFT
enforcement actions or significant AML/CFT supervisory actions.
1. Definitions (Proposed Sec. 350.200)
Proposed Sec. 350.200 would define several terms used throughout
the section. The term ``AML/CFT requirement'' would mean a requirement
of the Bank Secrecy Act (as that term is defined below) or of the
regulations in title 31, chapter X applicable to PPSIs.
The term ``AML/CFT enforcement action'' would mean any formal or
informal action taken by the FDIC under authority of 12 U.S.C. 5905, 12
U.S.C. 1818, or other applicable law that seeks to penalize, remedy,
prevent, or respond to noncompliance with past or ongoing violations
of, or past or ongoing deficiencies relating to, an AML/CFT
requirement. The term includes a cease-and-desist order, written
agreement, consent order, or memorandum of understanding, or the
assessment of a civil money penalty. It does not include criminal
enforcement.
The term ``AML/CFT requirement'' would mean a requirement provided
under (i) the BSA or applicable regulations at 31 CFR chapter X; (ii)
12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(5)(A)(i)-(v), 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(6)(B), or 12 U.S.C.
5903(f)(1); or (iii) 12 U.S.C. 1818(s) or this section.
The term ``Bank Secrecy Act'' would mean (i) section 21 of the FDI
Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b); (ii) Chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91-508
(12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.); and (iii) Subchapter II of chapter 53 of
title 31, United States Code and notes thereto (31 U.S.C. 5311 et
seq.). This definition is consistent with the definition provided in
section 2(2) of the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5901(2)).
The term ``FinCEN'' would mean the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network of the United States Department of the Treasury.
The term ``significant AML/CFT supervisory action'' would mean any
written communication or other formal supervisory determination issued
by the FDIC that identifies one or more alleged deficiencies,
weaknesses, violations of law, or unsafe or unsound practices or
conditions relating to an AML/CFT requirement; communicates supervisory
expectations to a PPSI regarding actions or remedial measures required
to correct the deficiency, weakness, violation, or practice or
condition; and contemplates significant or programmatic actions or
remedial measures to be taken by the PPSI. The term does not include
examiner observations, suggestions, or other informal comments.
2. Enforcement and Supervision Policy (Proposed Sec. 350.201)
The proposed rule would articulate the FDIC's enforcement and
supervision policy as it relates to AML/CFT programs. Except with
respect to a significant or systemic failure to implement an effective
AML/CFT program in accordance with applicable regulations at 31 CFR
Chapter X issued by FinCEN, a PPSI that has established an effective
AML/CFT program would not be subject to an AML/CFT enforcement action
or to a significant AML/CFT supervisory action based on the program
requirements issued by FinCEN. At the same time, the proposed rule
would clarify that nothing would restrict an AML/CFT enforcement action
or a significant AML/CFT supervisory action with respect to a failure
to establish an effective AML/CFT program. The FDIC's proposed
enforcement and supervisory approach is not intended to affect criminal
enforcement liability under the BSA.
3. FinCEN Consultation (Proposed Sec. 350.202)
The proposed rule would establish a notice and consultation
framework applicable when the FDIC intends to initiate an AML/CFT
enforcement action or a significant AML/CFT supervisory action, as
those terms are defined in the proposed rule. Under such a consultation
framework, before initiating such actions, the FDIC would provide the
Director of FinCEN with an opportunity to review the proposed action
and would consider any input offered by the Director of FinCEN, which
may include any view as to the effectiveness of the PPSI's AML/CFT
program. To facilitate that review, the FDIC would be required to
provide

[[Page 34173]]

written notice to the FinCEN Director of the FDIC's intent to take the
action at least 30 days in advance of the proposed action, unless a
shorter period is necessary, at the sole discretion of the FDIC, to
remedy, prevent, or respond to an unsafe or unsound practice or
condition.
Such a notice would be accompanied by the relevant AML/CFT
information underlying the proposed action. Relevant AML/CFT
information may include, but is not limited to, relevant portions of a
draft report of examination; relevant portions of a draft enforcement
action; examination workpapers supporting the proposed action; and the
relevant AML/CFT information submitted by the PPSI to the FDIC. The
FDIC would not be obligated to provide information over which the PPSI
may claim privilege under Federal or State law. The FDIC would also
respond, to the extent reasonably practicable, to requests for
additional AML/CFT information from the FinCEN Director regarding the
proposed action. The FDIC seeks comments on such a proposed
consultation framework.
4. Disclosure of Supervisory Information (Proposed Sec. 350.203)
The FDIC has issued regulations that generally prohibit the
disclosure of the FDIC's non-public information, except as provided
under such regulations.\8\ This prohibition generally applies to
disclosure of any portion of a report of examination, supervisory
correspondence, and any representations concerning such reports or
supervisory correspondence, or their findings, including conclusions
regarding compliance with AML/CFT compliance program requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 12 CFR 309.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the proposed rule's objective of enhancing FinCEN's
role in the AML/CFT enforcement and supervisory process, the proposed
rule would clarify that PPSIs may share any information with the FinCEN
Director that relates to an existing or potential AML/CFT enforcement
action or significant AML/CFT supervisory action. This proposed rule
specifically provides that this authorization to share information
includes information that would ordinarily be considered non-public
information under the FDIC's rules. To qualify for this information
sharing, the information at issue must have an appropriate nexus to an
existing or potential AML/CFT enforcement action or significant AML/CFT
supervisory action. The FDIC is proposing this clarification to ensure
that PPSIs can share appropriate information with the FinCEN Director,
including in the context of actions subject to the proposed
consultation requirement. Otherwise, PPSIs may be unable to provide
thorough information to the FinCEN Director, whether proactively or in
response to the Director's requests. Given that under the proposed rule
the FDIC would provide the relevant AML/CFT information directly to
FinCEN, the FDIC proposes to continue to apply its current regulations
and information-sharing agreements with FinCEN that govern the
disclosure of non-public information as it has done in the past.
While the proposed rule intends to permit such sharing, the FDIC is
proposing two alternative methods for permitting such information
sharing with the FinCEN Director. Under the first approach, referred to
as Option 1 in the proposed Sec. 350.203, the FDIC would authorize the
disclosure of covered information on the FDIC's behalf to the FinCEN
Director and separately permit the FinCEN Director to use such
information. This phrasing is intended to mirror the permissible scope
of information sharing by the FDIC under 12 U.S.C. 1821(t), which
provides that a ``covered agency, in any capacity, shall not be deemed
to have waived any privilege applicable to any information by
transferring that information to or permitting that information to be
used by'' another Federal agency.
Under the alternative approach, referred to as Option 2 in proposed
Sec. 350.203, the FDIC would similarly authorize the disclosure of
covered information on the FDIC's behalf, as well as similarly
authorize the use of such information by the FinCEN Director. The FDIC,
however, would expressly require that any such information shared on
the FDIC's behalf be contemporaneously disclosed by the PPSI to the
FDIC. While the FDIC will necessarily already have access to its own
non-public information, this additional requirement is potentially more
consistent with the retention of privilege contemplated under 12 U.S.C.
1821(t) and, therefore, potentially provides a greater safeguard
against the unintended destruction of privilege. The FDIC also
recognizes that PPSIs' willingness to share timely, thorough
information with the FinCEN Director is essential to the success of the
consultation framework; and requiring PPSIs to contemporaneously
disclose to the FDIC the same non-public information they provide to
FinCEN may discourage proactive reporting and thereby undermine the
proposed rule's objective of enhancing FinCEN's role.
Importantly, both options outlined above permit only the FinCEN
Director to use the FDIC's non-public information. This authorization
to use the information does not include an authorization by the FDIC to
further disclose the received non-public information. Any dissemination
by a PPSI to a party other than the FinCEN Director or by the FinCEN
Director to any party would be subject to the FDIC's rules governing
disclosure of non-public information.
Regardless, the proposed rule would include additional clarifying
text intended to preserve all applicable privileges. The destruction of
privilege over non-public supervisory information could prove harmful
both to the FDIC and the PPSI, so the additional language is intended
to prevent such consequences.
The FDIC invites comment on these options for permitting greater
information sharing with the FinCEN Director regarding existing or
potential AML/CFT enforcement actions or significant AML/CFT
supervisory actions, including possible alternative methods of
accomplishing the proposed rule's objectives without unintentionally
impeding applicable privileges.
5. Severability (Proposed Sec. 350.204)
The FDIC is proposing to include a severability clause in proposed
Sec. 350.204, which would provide that the provisions of proposed part
350, subpart C are separate and severable from one another. In the
event a court stays a particular provision of this rule or determines
any provision is invalid, the FDIC intends that the remaining
provisions shall continue in effect.
Questions on PPSI AML/CFT Supervision and Enforcement
The FDIC requests comment on the requirements contained in proposed
part 350, subpart C, including the following:
Question 1: Should the FDIC further refine or clarify any of the
concepts or definitions outlined in the proposed supervision and
enforcement provisions?
Question 2: Do any aspects of the GENIUS Act framework with regards
to supervision, examination, and enforcement need to be better
accounted for with the inclusion of a consultation process when the
FDIC intends to take an AML/CFT enforcement action or significant AML/
CFT supervisory action? For example, should the definition of AML/CFT
enforcement action and this framework account for suspension or
revocation under section

[[Page 34174]]

6(b) of the GENIUS Act, (12 U.S.C. 5905(b)), based in whole or in part
on AML/CFT deficiencies?
Question 3: Should the proposed consultation process include an
asset threshold--e.g., consultation is required for any significant
AML/CFT supervisory actions involving PPSIs with $10 billion or more in
outstanding issuance value? In addition, or as an alternative, should
the proposed rule not require but instead provide the option for PPSIs
to request that the FDIC consult with FinCEN prior to initiating a
significant AML/CFT supervisory action, if the PPSI is aware of a
potential enforcement action?
Question 4: Notwithstanding the benefits of the proposed
consultation described above, the proposal may result in additional
review during an examination. How can the consultation process be
streamlined and prevent logistical burdens for PPSIs or delays in exam
report issuance?
Question 5: The FDIC invites comment on the two options for
permitting greater information sharing with the FinCEN Director
regarding AML/CFT enforcement actions or significant AML/CFT
supervisory actions. In particular, would the disclosure of
confidential supervisory information to FinCEN compromise attorney-
client privilege, other applicable privileges, or otherwise undermine
the preservation of privilege in 12 U.S.C. 1821(t)?

IV. Expected Effects

The proposed rule would implement BSA and sanctions compliance
standards as required by the GENIUS Act, as well as establish
supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI AML/CFT programs. In
accordance with OMB Circular A-4,\9\ the FDIC estimates the economic
impact of the proposed rule by comparing expected outcomes under the
proposed rule to expected outcomes under a baseline absent the proposed
rule. Under the baseline, it is assumed that all other rulemakings
implementing the GENIUS Act with respect to FDIC-supervised PPSIs are
enacted,\10\ allowing the analysis to focus on the effects that would
be specific to the proposed rule. For its analysis, the FDIC utilizes
all other relevant laws and regulations in effect, as well as the
financial and economic conditions of FDIC-supervised entities,\11\ as
of September 30, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See OMB Circular A-4 at <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/E.O./fedRegReview/CircularA4.pdf">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/E.O./fedRegReview/CircularA4.pdf</a>.
\10\ These include Approval Requirements for Issuance of Payment
Stablecoins by Subsidiaries of FDIC-Supervised Insured Depository
Institutions, 90 FR 59409 (December 19, 2025), GENIUS Act
Requirements and Standards for FDIC-Supervised Permitted Payment
Stablecoin Issuers and Insured Depository Institutions, 91 FR 18534
(April 10, 2026), Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer Anti-Money
Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and
Sanctions Compliance Program Requirements, 91 FR 18582 (April 10,
2026).), Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of
Terrorism Programs, 91 FR 18704 (April 10, 2026), and Anti-Money
Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Programs 91 FR
18304 (April 10, 2026). While the last two proposed rulemakings
would not directly regulate FDIC-supervised PPSIs, the proposed
requirements on the parent IDIs would likely change the expected
baseline practices of FDIC-supervised PPSIs.
\11\ Including insured State nonmember banks, insured State-
licensed branches of foreign banks, and insured State savings
associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, the proposed rule is expected to enhance the
effectiveness, consistency, and supervisory clarity of BSA and
sanctions compliance for PPSIs supervised by the FDIC, relative to the
baseline. Given that all FDIC-supervised PPSIs would be subsidiaries of
FDIC-supervised institutions, the proposed rule would not impose
significant incremental regulatory burden beyond what parent
institutions already incur.

A. Scope of Affected Entities

The entities that fall under the direct scope of the proposed rule
are all FDIC-supervised PPSIs. As of the quarter ending September 30,
2025, the FDIC insures 4,388 insured depository institutions (IDIs),
supervises 2,778 of these IDIs,\12\ and supervises zero PPSIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Reports
of Condition and Income (Call Reports), September 30, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC recognizes the significant uncertainty regarding estimates
of the number of FDIC-supervised PPSIs under the proposed rule. Because
the regulations governing the application and approval of FDIC-
supervised PPSIs are currently under development and have not yet been
finalized,\13\ the FDIC lacks data on the number of entities that would
ultimately fall under the scope of the proposed rule. Recognizing this
uncertainty, without predicting the exact population of FDIC-supervised
PPSIs, the FDIC estimates for the purposes of this analysis that
between 5 and 30 FDIC-supervised IDIs would apply for and receive
approval to issue payment stablecoins through FDIC-supervised PPSIs in
the first few years after the effective date of the Act. The population
of FDIC-supervised PPSIs under the proposed rule could be higher or
lower depending on market demand, strategic operational choices of
FDIC-supervised entities, and future developments in the digital asset
landscape, among many other factors. By utilizing this range, the FDIC
aims to establish an estimate that serves as the basis for analyzing
the economic impact of the proposed rule, while acknowledging the
inherent uncertainty resulting from a lack of historical precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The FDIC has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding the application process for FDIC-supervised institutions,
Approval Requirements for Issuance of Payment Stablecoins by
Subsidiaries of FDIC-Supervised Insured Depository Institutions, 90
FR 59409 (Dec. 19, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Expected Benefits

If finalized, the proposed rule is expected to provide several
benefits to FDIC-supervised PPSIs, their customers, and the public. In
particular, compliance with the GENIUS Act's illicit finance
provisions, including those related to the BSA and sanctions compliance
programs, would promote maintaining AML/CFT and sanctions compliance
principles as the financial system integrates new payment technologies
and reduces the frequency and severity of harm caused by sanctioned
entities and criminal activity facilitated through a fragmented digital
asset regulatory framework. Any reduction in money laundering or
terrorist financing is a benefit to society given the nature of the
illegal activities that AML/CFT programs are designed to prevent. While
it is inherently difficult to estimate the annual reduction in crime
generally--or financial crime specifically--that could result from more
effective AML/CFT programs, even a very small percentage decrease could
result in a meaningful benefit to society.
The proposed rule would generate additional qualitative benefits to
FDIC-supervised PPSIs, the industry, and the general public from
increased clarity and supervisory coherence, relative to the baseline.
Importantly, the proposed rule would reduce regulatory fragmentation by
harmonizing the BSA and sanctions requirements for FDIC-supervised
PPSIs with the requirements for other FDIC-supervised institutions and
other Federally regulated PPSIs. This harmony would facilitate group-
wide compliance systems and improve examination efficiency.
Additionally, the proposed rule would provide clarity regarding the
FDIC's supervisory expectations and enforcement approaches with respect
to AML/CFT program implementation deficiencies.
Overall, the proposed rule would reinforce the GENIUS Act's
expectation that payment stablecoin issuance occur only under robust
Federal oversight, and supports Treasury's parallel regulations
establishing BSA, economic

[[Page 34175]]

sanctions compliance, and CIP obligations for PPSIs.

C. Expected Costs

The FDIC recognizes the likelihood of significant variation in
compliance costs across the estimated population of FDIC-supervised
PPSIs under the proposed rule, given potential differences in size,
structure, and internal processes. This variation also exists across
FDIC-supervised IDIs. The FDIC expects that most, if not all, FDIC-
supervised PPSIs would leverage their parent institutions' AML/CFT and
sanctions compliance programs, including risk assessment methodologies,
monitoring architectures, and governance structures.\14\ As such, the
expected incremental cost imposed by the proposed rule is expected to
be relatively small for FDIC-supervised PPSIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ In addition, the analysis assumes that FinCEN's and OFAC's
proposed rule would be finalized under the baseline. Since FinCEN's
and OFAC's proposed rule would treat PPSIs as financial institutions
under the BSA and require PPSIs to maintain effective economic
sanctions compliance programs, its finalization would reduce the
incremental cost imposed by the proposed rule. See Permitted Payment
Stablecoin Issuer Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of
Terrorism Program and Sanctions Compliance Program Requirements, 91
FR 18582 (April 10, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expected operational costs can be incurred during the development
and maintenance of PPSI-specific risk assessments, policies,
procedures, controls, and technological infrastructures, including
capabilities to block, freeze, or reject transactions in accordance
with lawful orders and applicable sanctions law. Some PPSIs may incur
additional costs to integrate monitoring of distributed-ledger-based
activities into existing enterprise systems and to train staff
responsible for payment stablecoin-related operations.
For purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (as that term is defined below), the FDIC has estimated
the average costs associated with the recordkeeping, reporting, and
disclosure requirements in the proposed rule.\15\ While these costs
only represent a portion of the total compliance costs imposed by the
proposed rule, these expenses can help estimate a minimum level of the
expected costs incurred by the affected populations. As discussed in
more detail in section VI.B, the FDIC estimates that ten FDIC-
supervised PPSIs \16\ would incur an average of 40 hours of burden in
their first year to implement the recordkeeping, reporting, and
disclosure systems required to comply with the proposed rule. At an
estimated hourly labor compensation rate of $112.31,\17\ the total
estimated cost for FDIC-supervised PPSIs to implement these systems
would be approximately $45 thousand. As a conservative estimate, if 30
FDIC-supervised PPSIs were approved in a single year, this one-time
cost would rise to approximately $135 thousand. For ongoing costs, each
FDIC-supervised PPSI is expected to incur, on average, approximately 10
hours of annual burden to comply with the proposed recordkeeping,
reporting, and disclosure requirements. At an estimated hourly labor
compensation rate of $112.31, as described above, the estimated total
annual ongoing cost to FDIC-supervised PPSIs would be approximately $34
thousand per year under the upper-bound assumption that 30 FDIC-
supervised PPSIs would be approved under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ These requirements are described fully in section VI.B.
\16\ The FDIC estimates that none of these PPSIs would be small
for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
\17\ Bureau of Labor Statistics: National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: Industry: Credit
Intermediation and Related Activities (5221 and 5223 only) (May
2024); Employer Cost of Employee Compensation (March 2024); and
Employment Cost Index (March 2024 and September 2025). For the
implementation burden associated with the proposed rule, the FDIC
estimated the following labor allocation for entities complying with
these requirements: Executives and Managers (11-0000): 20 percent;
Lawyers (23-0000): 45 percent; Compliance Officers (13-1040): 25
percent; and IT specialists (15-0000): 10 percent. For the ongoing
reporting burden associated with the proposed rule, the FDIC
estimated the following labor allocation: Executives and Managers:
20 percent; Lawyers: 10 percent; Compliance Officers: 50 percent; IT
specialists: 10 percent; Financial Analysts (13-2051) and Clerical
workers (43-0000): 5 percent each. For the ongoing recordkeeping
burden associated with the proposed rule, the FDIC estimated the
following labor allocation: Executives and Managers: 15 percent;
Lawyers: 5 percent; Compliance Officers: 50 percent; IT specialists:
10 percent; Financial Analysts: 15 percent; and Clerical workers: 5
percent. For the ongoing disclosure burden associated with the
proposed rule, the FDIC estimated the following labor allocation:
Executives and Managers: 15 percent; Lawyers: 10 percent; Compliance
Officers: 50 percent; IT specialists: 10 percent; Financial
Analysts: 10 percent; and Clerical workers: 5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC recognizes that seeking PPSI status and issuing payment
stablecoins would be, nonetheless, a voluntary, market driven activity
resulting from the strategic decisions to engage in the payment
stablecoin market. Therefore, an FDIC-supervised IDI would generally
only engage in these activities if the projected revenue generated
through, for example, transaction-based fees and/or enhanced customer
retention, were expected to outweigh the aggregate operating and
compliance costs associated with those activities.
Overall, the FDIC expects that the proposed rule will promote
financial integrity, enhance the ability of law enforcement to detect
and deter illicit activity involving payment stablecoins, and advance
the GENIUS Act's policy objectives, while imposing compliance costs
that are modest and consistent with the risk profile and operational
characteristics of PPSIs. As such, the expected benefits of the
proposed rule justify its expected costs.
The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting
information provided in the Impact Analysis section. The FDIC is
particularly interested in comments on any material economic effects
that the agency has not identified.

V. Alternatives Considered

The FDIC is proposing to amend its regulations to implement certain
provisions of the GENIUS Act. Because the amendments are statutorily
mandated, the FDIC has not considered a ``no action'' alternative.
Although the FDIC has not developed any alternative proposals, beyond
the options outlined in proposed Sec. 350.203, the FDIC will consider
any alternative regulatory approaches raised by commenters, especially
any that are directly responsive to the questions for commenters set
forth above.

VI. Regulatory Analysis

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency,
in connection with a proposed rule, to prepare and make available for
public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.\18\
However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if
the agency certifies that the proposed rule would not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined ``small
entities'' to include banking organizations with total assets of less
than or equal to $850 million.\19\

[[Page 34176]]

As detailed in the following statement of factual basis, the FDIC
certifies that the proposed rule would not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
\19\ The SBA defines a small banking organization as having $850
million or less in assets and determines an organization's assets by
averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial
statements for the preceding year. See 13 CFR 121.201 (as amended by
87 FR 69118, effective December 19, 2022). Following these
regulations, the FDIC uses an FDIC-supervised institution's
affiliated and acquired assets, averaged over the preceding four
quarters, to determine whether the FDIC-supervised institution is
``small'' for the purposes of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally, the FDIC considers a significant economic impact to be a
quantified effect in excess of 5 percent of total annual salaries and
benefits or 2.5 percent of total noninterest expenses. To estimate the
economic impact of the proposed rule on each small entity, the FDIC
compares expected outcomes under the proposed rule to expected outcomes
under a baseline absent the proposed rule. As noted in section IV, the
FDIC assumes, under the baseline, that all other rulemakings
implementing the GENIUS Act with respect to FDIC-supervised PPSIs are
enacted. This assumption allows the analysis to focus on the effects
specific to the proposed rule.
As previously discussed, the proposed rule would apply to all FDIC-
supervised PPSIs. As of the quarter ending September 30, 2025, the FDIC
insures 4,388 depository institutions, of which 3,062 are small, and
supervises 2,778 IDIs, of which 2,064 are considered small for the
purposes of RFA.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Call Reports, September 30, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section IV.A, the FDIC estimates that the number of
FDIC-supervised PPSIs would likely range between 5 and 30 in the first
few years after the enactment of the proposed rule. Because an FDIC-
supervised PPSI must be a subsidiary of an IDI, the FDIC expects that
the initial adopters of this technology will likely be larger
institutions with the compliance infrastructure and capital necessary
to support payment stablecoin issuance. As such, the FDIC anticipates
that most, if not all, FDIC-supervised PPSIs would not be small
entities as defined by the SBA.
As discussed in section IV.C, the FDIC expects most, if not all,
FDIC-supervised PPSIs would leverage their parent institutions' AML/CFT
and sanctions compliance programs. As such, if there were a small FDIC-
supervised PPSI, the direct impact of the proposed rule on this PPSI
would unlikely be significant.
Based on the preceding statement of factual basis, the FDIC
certifies that the proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDIC invites comments on all aspects of the supporting
information provided in this RFA section. The FDIC is particularly
interested in comments on any significant effects on small entities
that the FDIC has not identified.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This notice of proposed rulemaking has been reviewed for compliance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). In accordance with the PRA, the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor,
and an organization is not required to respond to, an information
collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC has
reviewed the notice of proposed rulemaking and determined that it would
introduce new information collection requirements pursuant to the PRA.
The FDIC is seeking a new control number for these information
collection requirements and will submit them to OMB for review and
approval.
Proposed Information Collection
Title: AML/CFT and Sanctions Requirements for FDIC-Supervised
Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers.
OMB Control No.: 3064-NEW.
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.
Description: Section 350.6(d) would require PPSIs to establish and
maintain AML/CFT and sanctions programs.

Table 1--Summary of Estimated Annual Burden
[OMB No. 3064-NEW]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Information collection (IC) Type of burden Number of Number of time per Annual
(obligation to respond) (frequency of respondents responses per response burden
response) respondent (HH:MM) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AML/CFT and Sanctions Recordkeeping...... 10 1 40:00 400
Requirements for permitted
payment stablecoin issuers--
Implementation, Section 350.6(d)
(Mandatory).
2. AML/CFT and Sanctions Recordkeeping 20 10 1:00 200
Requirements for permitted (Annual).
payment stablecoin issuers--
Ongoing, Section 350.6(d)
(Mandatory).
---------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden (Hours).. ................... .............. .............. ........... 600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FDIC.

Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the
information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information
collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on
aspects of this document that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to the
address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written
comments and recommendations for this information collection also
should be sent within 60 days of publication of this document to
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 60-day Review--Open for
Public

[[Page 34177]]

Comments'' or by using the search function.

C. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act

Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA),\22\ in determining the
effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new
regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other
requirements on IDIs, each Federal banking agency must consider,
consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public
interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place
on affected depository institutions, including small depository
institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the
benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of the RCDRIA
requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose
additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs
generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that
begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in
final form. The FDIC invites comments that further will inform its
consideration of the RCDRIA.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
\23\ 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Plain Language

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act \24\ requires the Federal
banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final
rulemakings published in the Federal Register after January 1, 2000.
The FDIC invites your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier
to understand. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ 12 U.S.C. 4809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If
not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?
<bullet> Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
If not, how could the proposed rule be more clearly stated?
<bullet> Does the proposed rule contain language or jargon that is
not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
<bullet> Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposed rule easier to
understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the proposed
rule easier to understand?
<bullet> What else could the FDIC do to make the proposed rule
easier to understand?

E. Executive Orders 12866 and 14192

Executive Order 12866, as amended, directs agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Within OMB, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rulemaking is a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the draft rule was submitted to OIRA for review. As
noted in other sections of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this
document, the FDIC has assessed the costs and benefits of this
rulemaking and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of
this rulemaking justify its costs.
Executive Order 14192, titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(a) of
Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to
identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed when the
agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this standard, section
3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that the new incremental costs
associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law,
be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least
ten prior regulations. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is
not expected to be a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 350

Custody, Insured state nonmember bank, Insured state savings
associations, Payment stablecoin, Permitted payment stablecoin issuer,
Safekeeping.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 12 CFR part 350 as follows:

PART 350--PAYMENT STABLECOIN

0
1. The authority citation for proposed part 350 continues to read as
follows

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819(Tenth); 12 U.S.C. 5901-5916.

0
2. Amend Sec. 350.6 by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) Bank Secrecy Act and economic sanctions compliance requirements
and standards. To ensure compliance with Bank Secrecy Act and economic
sanctions requirements, each permitted payment stablecoin issuer shall
comply with the Bank Secrecy Act, sections 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6)(B) of
the GENIUS Act (12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(5) and (6)(B)), and applicable
regulations at 31 CFR chapter V and 31 CFR chapter X, including any
Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT)
program, economic sanctions compliance program, and reporting
requirements.
* * * * *
0
3. Add subpart C to read as follows:
Subpart C--Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer AML/CFT Enforcement and
Supervision
350.200 Definitions.
350.201 AML/CFT Supervision and Enforcement Approach.
350.202 FinCEN Consultation.
350.203 Disclosure of Supervisory Information to FinCEN.
350.204 Severability.

Subpart C--Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer AML/CFT Enforcement
and Supervision

Sec. 350.200 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart:
(a) AML/CFT enforcement action means any formal or informal action
taken under authority of 12 U.S.C. 5905, 12 U.S.C. 1818, or other
applicable law, that seeks to penalize, remedy, prevent, or respond to
noncompliance with past or ongoing violations of, or past or ongoing
deficiencies relating to, an AML/CFT requirement. The term includes--
(1) A cease-and-desist order, written agreement, consent order, or
memorandum of understanding; or
(2) The assessment of a civil money penalty.
(b) AML/CFT requirement means a requirement provided under:
(1) the Bank Secrecy Act or applicable regulations at 31 CFR
chapter X;
(2) 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(5)(A)(i)-(v), 12 U.S.C. 5903(a)(6)(B), or 12
U.S.C. 5903(f)(1); or
(3) 12 U.S.C. 1818(s) or this section.
(c) Bank Secrecy Act means:
(1) Section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1829b);
(2) Chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et
seq.); and
(3) Subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code and
notes thereto (31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.).
(d) FinCEN means the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the
United States Department of the Treasury.
(e) Significant AML/CFT supervisory action means any written

[[Page 34178]]

communication or other formal supervisory determination:
(1) That
(i) Identifies one or more alleged deficiencies, weaknesses,
violations of law, or unsafe or unsound practices or conditions
relating to an AML/CFT requirement;
(ii) Communicates supervisory expectations to a permitted payment
stablecoin issuer regarding actions or remedial measures required to
correct the deficiency, weakness, violation, or practice or condition;
and
(iii) Contemplates significant or programmatic actions or remedial
measures to be taken by the permitted payment stablecoin issuer.
(2) The term does not include examiner observations, suggestions,
or other informal comments.

Sec. 350.201 AML/CFT Supervision and Enforcement Policy.

(a) In General. Except with respect to a significant or systemic
failure to implement an effective AML/CFT program in accordance with
applicable regulations at 31 CFR Chapter X, an FDIC-supervised
permitted payment stablecoin issuer that has established an effective
AML/CFT program in accordance with applicable regulations at 31 CFR
Chapter X will not be subject to an AML/CFT enforcement action or to a
significant AML/CFT supervisory action related to the requirements of
31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1), this section, or applicable regulations at 31 CFR
Chapter X.
(b) Program establishment violations. Nothing in this subpart C may
be construed to restrict an AML/CFT enforcement action or a significant
AML/CFT supervisory action with respect to any failure to establish an
effective AML/CFT program in accordance with applicable regulations at
31 Chapter X.
(c) Criminal Enforcement Unaffected. Nothing in this subpart may be
construed to affect criminal enforcement liability under the Bank
Secrecy Act.

Sec. 350.202 FinCEN consultation.

(a) Consultation and consideration requirement. Before initiating
an AML/CFT enforcement action or a significant AML/CFT supervisory
action, the FDIC will provide the Director, FinCEN an opportunity to
review the action and the FDIC will consider any input offered by the
Director, FinCEN on the action, which may include any view as to the
effectiveness of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer's AML/CFT
program.
(b) Notice requirement. To provide the Director, FinCEN an
opportunity to provide a view under Sec. 350.202(a), the FDIC will:
(1) Send written notice to the Director, FinCEN of its intent to
take an action at least 30 days before taking the action (unless a
shorter period of time is necessary, in the sole discretion of the
FDIC, to remedy, prevent, or respond to an unsafe or unsound practice
or condition), accompanied by the relevant AML/CFT information
underlying the proposed action, including the relevant portions of the
draft report or enforcement action, the relevant examination workpapers
supporting the proposed action, and the relevant AML/CFT information
submitted by permitted payment stablecoin issuer to the FDIC, other
than information over which the permitted payment stablecoin issuer may
claim privilege under Federal or State law; and
(2) Respond to the extent reasonably practicable to requests for
additional information from the Director, FinCEN regarding the proposed
action.

Sec. 350.203 Disclosure of Supervisory Information to FinCEN.

[OPTION 1 FOR PARAGRAPH (Sec. 350.203):]

The FDIC permits a permitted payment stablecoin issuer subject to
FDIC jurisdiction, on behalf of FDIC, to disclose to the Director,
FinCEN, and permits the Director, FinCEN to use any information of the
permitted payment stablecoin issuer relating to an existing or
potential AML/CFT enforcement action or significant AML/CFT supervisory
action to which the permitted payment stablecoin issuer has access.

[OPTION 2 FOR PARAGRAPH (Sec. 350.203):]

(a) The FDIC permits a permitted payment stablecoin issuer subject
to FDIC jurisdiction, on behalf of the FDIC, to disclose to the
Director, FinCEN, and permits the Director, FinCEN to use any
information relating to an existing or potential AML/CFT enforcement
action or significant AML/CFT supervisory action to which the permitted
payment stablecoin issuer has access upon the contemporaneous
disclosure of such information to the FDIC.
(b) A permitted payment stablecoin issuer's disclosure of
information to the Director, FinCEN under Sec. 350.203 does not waive,
invalidate, destroy, or otherwise affect any privilege or protection
available under Federal or State law, including the attorney-client
privilege, the work-product doctrine, the bank-examination privilege,
or any other confidentiality or evidentiary privilege.
(c) Any disclosure made by a permitted payment stablecoin issuer
under Sec. 350.203 is made on behalf of the FDIC pursuant to the
FDIC's authorization under 12 U.S.C. 1821(t).

Sec. 350.204 Severability.

The provisions of this subpart are separate and severable from one
another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is
the FDIC's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in
effect.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

By order of the Board of Directors.

Dated at Washington, DC, on May 13, 2026.
Jennifer M. Jones,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-11342 Filed 6-4-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 5, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.