![](media/image1.png)

June 23, 2008

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Department of the Treasury

P.O. Box 39

Vienna, Va 22183

<https://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp>

> Re: Currency Transaction Report Exemptions Rule and Form Amendments

Dear Sir or Madam:

On behalf of its member Corporate credit unions ("Corporates"), the
Association of Corporation Credit Unions ("ACCU") is pleased to respond
to the request for comment by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
("FinCEN") with respect to proposed amendments regarding the Currency
Transaction Report exemption rules.

By way of background, the ACCU is the primary trade association for the
nation's 27 Corporate credit unions. Corporates provide liquidity,
investment, payments, settlement and other wholesale financial services
to the nation's federal and state-chartered natural person (retail)
credit unions.

The ACCU is pleased that FinCEN is taking steps to promote efficiency as
it relates to complying with components of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).
The ACCU generally supports the proposed rules to amend CTR regulations
by (1) removing the requirement to biennially renew Phase II exemptions;
(2) eliminating the requirement to file exemption forms on, and annually
review the supporting information for Phase I customers and (3)
permitting exemptions for Phase II eligible customers within a period
shorter than 12 months. Below, the ACCU specifically sets forth its
position on this proposal.

***Removing the Requirement that Depository Institutions Biennially
Renew Phase II Exemptions.***

With the removal of the biennial requirement, the ACCU supports an
option to file a revocation of exemption if a financial institution
chooses to no longer exempt an otherwise eligible customer. The ACCU
understands the value of filing a revocation form and how it creates a
paper trail that could be useful to law enforcement. However, one could
also make the argument that by virtue of filing CTR forms on entities
that were previously exempt, the CTR could serve as notice of revocation
as well. Either approach is reasonable but the latter speaks to the
efficiencies that the agency is working to improve upon. The ACCU also
supports a 30 day filing period and believes such a requirement would
not place an additional burden on the institution since notice could be
sent at the moment an institution decides to no longer extend the
benefit of an exemption.

***Removing the Requirement to File Exemption Forms and Annually Review
Supporting Information for Phase 1 Customers.***

The ACCU strongly supports this change. One of the services provided by
many Corporates is providing currency delivery to credit unions. The
exemption process relieves Corporates of constantly filing CTRs on its
members that require daily cash orders in excess of \$10,000. While the
exemption eliminated some of the burden, Corporates are still required
to undertake a time consuming process of completing the form and must
annually review that the credit union is still a credit
union---certifying that reason for the exemption still exists. This
proposal would completely remove the burden associated with filing the
form and the annual review and allow more time for Corporates to focus
on meeting other compliance requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act.

***Permitting Exemptions for Phase II Eligible Customers within a Period
Shorter than 12 Months.***

The ACCU believes a risk-based approach is appropriate as many of these
customers are somewhat unique and present varying levels of risk to
financial institutions. A risk-based analysis can best meet the
institution's needs. While the comment requests input on one approach,
the ACCU would also favor a recommended minimum, of at least 3 months,
for newer customers/members. This recommended minimum would allow
institutions to conduct a reasonable degree of due diligence and allow
institutions to gain an understanding of the customer's business
routines and habits. Without this component, the risk to financial
institutions exempting customers without conducting "due diligence"
could be substantial.  Thereafter, a risk-based approach could be
implemented and the intelligence obtained over that 3 month period could
be factored into the risk analysis.

In conclusion the ACCU strongly believes that by removing the
requirement to biennially renew Phase II exemptions, eliminating the
requirement to file exemption forms on, and annually review the
supporting information for Phase I customers and permitting a risk-based
approach with a recommended minimum in certain circumstances would
encourage financial institutions to avail themselves of both Phase I and
Phase II exemptions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at <bmiller@cuna.coop> or Rhonda Whitley
(Assistant Director & Compliance Counsel) at <rwhitley@cuna.coop> should
you need additional information or have questions.

![](media/image2.png){width="2.0in" height="1.0104166666666667in"}

Best regards,

Brad L. Miller

Executive Director