<p>ARLINGTON, Va. – NASCUS has recommended that NCUA correct language in its proposed Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 01-3 that the association said in its current form would "unnecessarily require state-chartered, federally-insured credit unions to have a supervisory or audit committee." Explaining the association's position, NASCUS President/CEO Doug Duerr said, "While federal credit unions are obligated to have a supervisory committee, prior mandates do not require the same from all state-chartered credit unions. NASCUS is asking for a simple correction to IRPS 01-3 to ensure it is consistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme. In his letter filed with NCUA on behalf of the NASCUS Board and the NASCUS Council Board, Duerr in particular cited language NCUA used in footnote #3 of the proposed IRPS 01-3, which calls for "all insured" credit unions to have a supervisory or audit committee. "This language is inconsistent with the construction of Title II of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCUA), and Part 741.202 and part 715 of the NCUA rules and regulations. While federal credit unions are required to have a supervisory committee, currently, nothing in the FCU or the NCUA's rules and regulations require state chartered federally insured credit unions to have a supervisory committee as long as those credit unions meet the annual audit requirements. As a practical matter, not all states require either supervisory or audit committees," Duerr wrote. He continued to state that, "While credit unions have the option of fulfilling their audit requirements through the use of a supervisory committee or certified independent outside party, there is certainly no formal supervisory committee requirement in all states. To that extent, footnote #3 of the proposed IRPS 01-3 needs to be reworded to ensure it is consistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme." Mary Martha Fortney, vice president of government relations for NASCUS said she "doubted" NCUA intended to sweep state regulation aside with the language of the proposed IRPS. "I'm sure it was just an oversight," she said. "NASCUS and state regulators worked closely with NCUA when Part 715 was revised and we worked closely with them to preserve state authority when it was appropriate," said Fortney. "This was not intentional by the agency." Fortney pointed out that NCUA by proposing IRPS 01-3 is just following what other federal bank regulators have already done to clarify their annual audit requirements. But while she said IRPS 01-3 is "not a substantive regulation" but rather is a "policy statement, she also emphasized that it is still meaningful and something credit unions should be aware of. Fortney said she is confident NCUA will correct the language in proposed IRPS 01-3 as recommended by NASCUS. "The agency has listened to us in the past when we showed them things like this," she said. -</p> <p>[email protected]</p>