To: Comments
Subject: EGRPRA Burden Reduction Comment; OCC Docket
0418; Fed Docket R-1206; OTS 2004-35
Comments to FDIC
Dear Comments to FDIC:
As a community banker, I support the EGRPRA project
and commend the
banking agencies for their efforts to identify
outdated, unnecessary, or unduly
burdensome regulatory requirements. I have the
following comments concerning
the regulations that are currently being reviewed and
are categorized as
Consumer Protection: Account/Deposit Relationships
and Miscellaneous Consumer Rules.
Privacy of Consumer Financial Information
The annual privacy notice that banks must send to
customers is not only
very burdensome and costly but the language for the
notices required bylaw and regulations is confusing to customers. An
optional short form
notice would be welcome, but it should replace - not
supplement - the existing notice. Since we have already developed
processes and procedures to comply with existing requirements, use of a short
form notice should be
at the bank's option.
Even more important, we should not have to send out
an annual notice if we
do not change our privacy policies and procedures. We
give our customers
the notice at account opening. That should be enough,
especially since we
are happy to provide information about our privacy
policy upon request.
The annual notice is particularly unnecessary for
community banks that share information only as permitted by one of the
statutory or regulatory
exceptions.
Truth in Savings (Regulation DD)
Even though we are used to the many disclosures
required under Truth in
Savings, most of our customers pay little attention
to the disclosures.
Many of them end up in the trashcan. There is a cost
to developing the
programs and procedures to produce these disclosures,
but if consumers are
not paying attention to them, then this is a perfect
example of a needless
regulatory requirement.
The banking agencies should study whether these
disclosures are truly
serving their purpose. All interested parties should
be involved in the
study, including banks, consumers and software
providers. Regulation DD
would be an ideal regulation for streamlining and
simplification to save
banks from unnecessary costs and burdens and to
improve disclosures to our
customers.
Deposit Insurance Coverage
The FDIC has taken steps in recent years to simplify
the rules about
deposit insurance coverage, but the rules still need
simplification and
streamlining. Customers know that they can organize
accounts to expand
coverage beyond $100,000, but how that works and what
steps are needed are
confusing to both consumers and front-line bank
employees. Broader
dissemination of the tools the FDIC offers would
help. For example, the
EDIE CD-ROM should be distributed to every branch
office of every bank.
We would support simplification of the rules provided
it does not reduce
the ability of individual consumers to expand
coverage, especially since
the coverage levels have been steadily eroded by
inflation since they were
last raised in 1980.
Consumer Protection in Sales of Insurance
The disclosures required by these regulations do not
fit certain products
including credit life and related products, debt
cancellation contracts,
and crop and flood insurance. The focus of the rule
should be on
insurance products that are similar to a deposit
product and that a
consumer might confuse with a deposit that is
FDIC-insured. Bankers find
it burdensome to disclose each time they sell a
customer credit life
insurance, that credit life insurance is not a
deposit and not
FDIC-insured nor insured by any federal government
agency. They also find
it burdensome to obtain the consumer's written
acknowledgement of the
disclosures each time an insurance product or annuity
is sold.
Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E)
Consumer liability from unauthorized transactions
resulting from writing
the personal identification number (PIN) on a card or
keeping the PIN in
the same location as the card should be increased
from $50 to $500. It is
unfair for banks to be presumed liable in every
instance for unauthorized
electronic transactions. Furthermore, the
notification requirement under
Regulation E for a change in account terms or
conditions should be
extended from 21 days to 30 days. This would make the
notification
timeframe consistent with Regulation DD and would
simplify compliance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
|