Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Notices 12031 

1 12 U.S.C. 5491(a). 

2 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. 

3 12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. 

4FDIC Study of Bank Overdraft Programs (‘‘FDIC 

Study’’); Washington, DC, November, 2008, 

available at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/anlytical/

overdraft/. 

5FDIC Study at Table III–1, page 5. 

6FDIC Study at page 56. ‘‘NSF-related’’ income 

included fees for items returned due to all fees 

referred to as ‘‘overdraft fees’’ in this document, 

including fees for items declined due to insufficient 

funds (‘‘NSF fees’’), paid overdraft items (‘‘overdraft 

coverage fees’’) and fees for not repaying paid 

overdraft items for a certain period of time 

(‘‘extended overdraft fees’’). 

7FDIC Study at page 76. 

8FDIC Study at page iv. 

9 74 FR 5584 (July 29, 2009). The CFPB restated 

Regulation DD at 12 CFR part 1030. 76 FR 79276 

(Dec. 21, 2011). 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0007] 

Impacts of Overdraft Programs on 

Consumers 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

information. 

SUMMARY: Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act, Public Law 111–203 (the 

Dodd-Frank Act), charges the Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection (the 

CFPB or the Bureau) with regulating 

‘‘the offering and provision of consumer 

financial products or services under the 

Federal consumer financial laws.’’ 1

Specifically, the Dodd-Frank Act grants 

regulatory authority to the Bureau for 

the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,2

except with respect to section 920 of 

that Act, and the Truth in Savings Act,3

which taken together, in part, govern 

consumer transaction accounts. 

Accordingly, the Bureau is reviewing 

existing regulations and supervisory 

guidance issued by various regulators 

pertaining to the use of overdraft 

programs by financial institutions. To 

support this review, the Bureau seeks 

information from the public on the 

impact of overdraft programs on 

consumers. 

The Bureau encourages comments 

from the public, including consumers, 

overdraft program processors, and 

financial institutions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 30, 2012 to be assured 

of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012– 

0007, by any of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: cfpb_overdraft_comments@

cfpb.gov. 

• Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., (Attn: 

1801 L Street NW.), Washington, DC 

20220. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica 

Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20006. 

Instructions: The CFPB encourages 

the early submission of comments. All 

submissions must include the document 

title and docket number. Please note the 

number of any question to which you 

are responding at the top of each 

response (respondents need not answer 

each question). In general, all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov. In 

addition, comments will be available for 

public inspection and copying at 1700 

G Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, 

on official business days between the 

hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern 

Time. You can make an appointment to 

inspect the documents by telephoning 

202–435–7275. All comments, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, will become part of the public 

record and subject to public disclosure. 

Sensitive personal information such as 

account numbers or Social Security 

numbers should not be included. 

Comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general inquiries, submission process 

questions or any additional information, 

please contact Monica Jackson, Office of 

the Executive Secretary, 202–435–7275. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Technological Advances in 

Transaction Accounts: With changes in 

technology, the number of ways in 

which consumers can access funds in a 

checking account has expanded over 

decades from paper checks to include 

automated teller machine (ATM) 

withdrawals, point-of-sale (POS) debit 

card use, preauthorized debit card use, 

Automated Clearing House (ACH) 

payments, and online banking 

transactions. This expanded range of 

accessing funds also means that the 

number and types of transactions 

potentially causing an overdraft has 

increased as well. 

When checking accounts were 

accessed exclusively or predominantly 

through paper checks, institutions 

generally declined to pay an item if 

there were insufficient funds in the 

account to cover that item; instead, the 

item would be returned and the 

consumer would be charged a returned 

check or non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee. 

Before returning an item, some 

institutions would conduct a manual 

review and, as a courtesy, pay certain 

items based on the institution’s 

relationship with the consumer. 

Over the past decade or more, many 

institutions introduced automated 

overdraft systems under which overdraft 

items are paid, subject to tolerances or 

limits that are established at the account 

level, and an overdraft fee is charged on 

a per item basis. A study published in 

2008 by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC) of overdraft 

practices among banks it supervised 4

found that more than two-thirds of 

surveyed banks with assets of $250 

million or more had automated 

overdraft programs.5 The FDIC study 

found that overdraft and NSF fees 

accounted for 74% of the deposit 

service income of banks with automated 

overdraft programs during the 2006 

study period.6

While not based on a representative 

sample of banks, the FDIC’s analysis of 

account-level data found that the 

approximately 9% of accountholders 

who incurred 10 or more overdrafts 

annually bore approximately 84% of 

overdraft-related fees.7 Those who 

incurred over 20 overdrafts per year— 

representing 4.9% of all consumers— 

incurred fees of over $1,600 per year on 

average.8 The FDIC study also 

concluded that the most frequent 

overdrafters were disproportionately 

low and moderate income and more 

likely to be young adults. 

Regulatory Actions Since Completion of 

the FDIC Study 

Amendments to Regulation DD: On 

January 29, 2009, the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board) published final 

regulations amending Regulation DD, 

which implements the Truth in Savings 

Act, effective January 1, 2010.9 These 

amendments require all institutions to 

provide additional periodic statement 

disclosures of overdraft fees and fees for 

returning items unpaid. They also 

restrict institutions’ ability to provide 

‘‘padded’’ balance amounts (i.e., 

including amounts institutions may 

make available through their overdraft 

coverage programs) in response to 

balance inquiries using automated 

systems such as ATMs, online banking 

and voice response units. 

It is uncertain what impact these 

changes to Regulation DD have had on 

consumer behavior or on the incidence 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Notices 

10 74 FR 59033 (Nov. 17, 2009). The rule had a 

delayed mandatory compliance date of July 1, 2010. 

The CFPB restated Regulation E at 12 CFR part 

1005, 76 FR 81020 (Dec. 27, 2011). 

11 Id. at p. 59038. 

12 Id. at pp. 59038–59039. 

13 Id. at p. 59039. 

14Consumer Bankers Association Press Release, 

October 27, 2011, which can be viewed at http:// 

www.cbanet.org/news/PRdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=

19595. 

15Moebs Services press release, March 8, 2011 

which can be viewed at http://moebs.com/

PressReleases/tabid/58/ctl/Details/mid/380/ItemID/

199/Default.aspx. 

16Center for Responsible Lending: Banks Collect 

Overdraft Opt-ins Through Misleading Marketing; 

April 2011, page 2, available at http://www.

responsiblelending.org/overdraft-loans/policylegislation/regulators/CRL-OD-Survey-Brief-final-2- 

4-25-22.pdf. 

17The prudential regulators had previously 

expressed concerns about overdraft programs in 

2005. See 70 FR 8428 (Feb. 18, 2005) (OTS overdraft 

guidance) and 70 FR 9127 (Feb. 24, 2005) (OCC, 

FDIC, Board, and NCUA joint overdraft guidance). 

18FIL–81–2010: Overdraft Payment Programs and 

Consumer Protection Final Overdraft Payment 

Supervisory Guidance, November 24, 2010, 

available at http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/

financial/2010/fil10081.html (FDIC Final 

Guidance). 

19FDIC, Financial Institution Letter, (August 11, 

2010) (citing the 2005 Joint Guidance on Overdraft 

Protection Programs adopted by the Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency; Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System; Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation; National Credit Union 

Administration). http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/

financial/2010/fil10047a.html. 

20 Guidance on Deposit-Related Consumer Credit 

Products 76 FR 33409 (June 8, 2011) (OCC Proposed 

Guidance). 

21 Id. p. 33409. 

22 Id. p. 33411. 

23Separately from the FDIC and OCC, the Office 

of Thrift Supervision (OTS) specifically addressed 

consumer financial protection concerns in proposed 

supplemental guidance it issued in April 2010 to 

OTS guidance issued in 2005 on overdraft 

programs. For example, the OTS noted that savings 

associations should avoid practices it labeled as 

deceptive, such as marketing an account ‘‘without 

informing consumers of significant overdraft fees 

associated with an account’’ or failing to disclose 

certain transaction ordering policies and the effect 

they may have on the frequency with which 

overdrafts might occur. The OTS also suggested that 

failing to ‘‘limit fees for consumers who frequently 

overdraw their accounts’’ could be unfair as ‘‘these 

consumers may not be able to avoid the harm 

caused by high overdraft fees;’’ for example, ‘‘those 

who frequently overdraw accounts may simply not 

have other options in the market, as they may have 

credit histories and other characteristics that 

prevent them from obtaining less expensive 

services.’’ 75 FR 22681 (April 29, 2010). 

24OCC Proposed Guidance, 74 FR at 33410. 

25American Bankers Association letter to FDIC, 

OCC, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and 

CFPB, August 24, 2011 viewable online at http:// 

www.aba.com/aba/documents/news/

OverdraftLetter82511.pdf. 

26American Bankers Association letter in 

response to OCC proposed guidance August 4, 2011 

viewable online at http://www.aba.com/aba/

documents/news/OCCGuidanceLetter8411.pdf. 

of overdrafts or related charges to 

consumers. 

Amendments to Regulation E: On 

November 17, 2009, the Board 

published final regulations amending 

Regulation E, which implements the 

Electronic Fund Transfer Act, effective 

January 19, 2010.10 These amendments 

prohibit financial institutions from 

charging fees for transactions that 

overdraw an account by use of a debit 

card at an ATM and point-of-sale unless 

the consumer opts in to permitting the 

institution to authorize and pay 

overdrafts on these transactions. In so 

doing the Board noted that ‘‘the cost to 

consumers of overdraft fees assessed in 

connection with ATM and debit card 

overdrafts is significant’’ and ‘‘may 

substantially exceed the amount[s] 

overdrawn.’’ 11 And based upon 

research that it conducted, the Board 

found that ‘‘many consumers may not 

be aware that they are able to overdraft 

an ATM or POS’’ and may therefore 

‘‘unintentionally overdraw their 

account.’’ 12 Based on consumer testing, 

the Board further found that many 

consumers ‘‘would prefer to have ATM 

withdrawal and debit card transactions 

declined if they had insufficient funds, 

rather than incur an overdraft fee.’’ 13

There is disagreement about the 

impact that this regulatory change has 

had. For example, a 2011 industry 

survey of 18 large banks found that only 

16% of consumers had opted in for 

overdraft coverage on ATM and debit 

card transactions.14 In contrast, Moebs 

Research estimated that, as of March 

2011, 75% of consumers had opted in 

for such overdraft coverage.15 Further, 

consumer groups have raised concerns 

about the manner in which some 

institutions promoted the opt-in option 

to their existing checking account 

customers. For example, one group’s 

survey of consumers found that ‘‘only 

33 percent of accountholders opted-in to 

overdraft coverage, and most who did 

based their decision on information that 

was deceptive.’’ 16

Recent FDIC and OCC Supervisory 

Guidance: Subsequent to the 

amendments to Regulations DD and E 

taking effect, the prudential regulators 

have expressed ongoing concern about 

overdraft programs.17 In November 

2010, the FDIC issued supervisory 

guidance to ‘‘assist FDIC-supervised 

institutions in identifying, managing 

and mitigating risks associated with 

overdraft payment programs.’’ 18 The 

FDIC guidance addresses, among other 

things, the marketing and disclosure 

practices surrounding automated 

overdraft and alternatives to overdraft 

and also the basis on which overdraft 

charges are assessed, including checkclearing procedures. 

In August 2010, the FDIC also issued 

guidance stating that overdraft payment 

programs are subject to the requirements 

of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

(ECOA) as implemented through 

Regulation B. Specifically, the FDIC 

adopts the 2005 joint Guidance on 

Overdraft Protection Programs, stating 

that ‘‘steering or targeting certain 

consumers on a prohibited basis for 

overdraft protection programs while 

offering other consumers overdraft lines 

of credit or other more favorable credit 

products or overdraft services, will raise 

concerns under the ECOA.’’ 19

In June 2011, the Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) 

proposed guidance to ‘‘detail[] the 

principles that the OCC expects national 

banks to follow in connection with any 

deposit-related consumer credit 

product.’’ 20 The OCC’s proposed 

guidance includes an appendix that 

‘‘illustrate[s] application of these 

principles to * * * automated overdraft 

protection products.’’ 21 The proposed 

guidance states that the ‘‘OCC is 

concerned with several practices that 

have developed’’ with respect to 

overdraft programs including 

‘‘potentially misleading statements’’ in 

marketing; ‘‘failure to assess a 

customer’s ability to manage and repay 

overdraft protection before it is made 

available to the customer’’; ‘‘failure to 

* * * identify excessive usage’’; and 

‘‘payment processing intended to 

maximize overdraft and related fees.’’ 22

The FDIC and OCC based their 

supervisory guidance on safety and 

soundness concerns, but raised 

significant consumer protection issues 

as well.23 The FDIC Final Guidance 

expressly noted that overdraft programs 

‘‘include[d] risks that could result in 

serious financial harm to certain 

consumers.’’ Similarly, the OCC 

predicated its proposed guidance ‘‘on 

the premise that bankers should provide 

their customers with products they 

need, and that bankers should not use 

their products to take advantage of their 

customer relationship.’’ 24

While the OCC document has not 

been finalized, the proposal is 

materially different from the FDIC 

guidance. Indeed, after the OCC issued 

its proposed guidance, the American 

Bankers Association wrote to the Bureau 

and to the prudential regulators 

(including the OCC) urging the 

development of a ‘‘uniform set of 

supervisory expectations’’ 25 and 

forwarding comments urging 

‘‘consistent regulatory treatment for 

similar products.’’ 26

Request for Information 

The Bureau seeks additional and 

updated information from the public, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Notices 12033 

including consumers, third party 

processors, and financial institutions, 

regarding overdraft programs and their 

costs, benefits and risks to consumers. 

This information will enable the Bureau 

to better understand and evaluate any 

potential consumer protection issues 

raised by overdraft programs. 

In the questions that follow, we use 

the terms ‘‘overdraft’’ and ‘‘overdraft 

fee’’ broadly to refer to practices 

followed and fees charged when a 

consumer initiates a transaction for 

which there are insufficient funds in the 

consumer’s checking account. 

Specifically, the term overdraft fee 

includes fees charged for a returned 

check (e.g., an NSF fee), fees charged 

when an overdraft item is paid (i.e., an 

overdraft coverage fee), and fees charged 

if an overdraft is not repaid within a 

specified period of time. The questions 

are grouped into six broad categories: (a) 

Lower cost alternatives to overdraft 

protection programs offered by financial 

institutions, (b) consumer alerts and 

information provided regarding 

balances and overdraft triggers, (c) 

impact of changes to Regulation DD and 

Regulation E and overdraft opt-in rates, 

(d) impact of changes in financial 

institutions’ operating policies, (e) the 

economics of overdraft programs, and (f) 

the long-term impact of overdraft 

programs on consumers. Please feel free 

to respond to all of the questions or only 

those that interest you, but please be 

sure to indicate in your comments 

which questions you are answering. 

Lower Cost Alternatives to Overdraft 

Protection Programs 

1. What alternatives do institutions 

offer to overdraft protection programs 

and how much do consumers make use 

of these alternatives? Among other 

things, comments could address the 

availability and utilization of 

alternatives to traditional overdraft 

fees—for example, linked savings 

accounts or overdraft lines of credit— 

especially among those who incur 

overdraft charges on their checking 

accounts. 

2. To what extent do consumers avail 

themselves of alternatives to incurring 

overdraft fees? 

3. How are consumers informed of 

alternatives to overdraft protection 

programs and how are such alternatives 

marketed to new customers, existing 

customers, and to particular customer 

segments? 

4. What portion of the most frequent 

overdrafters—those who would benefit 

the most from alternatives—would 

qualify for a linked savings account (i.e., 

have a savings account) or line of credit 

(i.e., pose acceptable credit risk)? 

Consumer Alerts and Information 

Provided Regarding Balances and 

Overdraft Triggers 

5. What opportunities do financial 

institutions offer consumers to sign up 

for alerts via text message and/or email 

that inform consumers when their 

balances are low and, thus, when 

payment transactions might put them at 

risk of incurring an overdraft? The 

Bureau is interested in programs and 

technologies that make consumers 

aware at the time they engage in a 

transaction that they may incur an 

overdraft fee. Among other things, 

comments could address: 

a. The extent, if any, to which 

consumers are given the opportunity to 

be alerted to and avoid a transaction 

that would cause an overdraft fee; 

b. The marketing of, participation 

rates in, and impact on consumers, of 

such alert programs, particularly among 

those who are likely to incur overdraft 

fees; 

c. The way account balances are 

communicated generally in response to 

routine ATM or telephone inquiries; 

d. The extent to which communicated 

balances differ from available balances 

and whether these differences affect 

consumers’ ability to avoid incurring 

overdrafts; and 

e. The balance calculations—e.g., 

available vs. actual balances—used to 

determine when an overdraft has 

occurred in end-of-day batch 

processing. 

6. Whether a particular transaction 

will incur an overdraft fee depends 

upon the interaction of various terms, 

rules, and practices, including those 

governing funds availability, the posting 

order of debits and credits, the amount 

by which an account must be overdrawn 

to trigger an overdraft fee, the number 

of overdraft fees that can be incurred in 

a single day, and whether the fee is onetime or for each day the account 

remains in overdraft status. Comments 

could include information regarding 

how these are communicated to 

consumers and the extent to which 

consumers understand them. For 

example: 

a. In what ways are consumers 

informed of the rules and practices that 

determine which transactions will cause 

overdraft fees to be incurred? When they 

enroll in an account? As part of notices 

that they have incurred an overdraft? 

b. Is there any customer research 

available that documents consumers’ 

perceptions regarding how transactions 

are processed, when overdrafts are 

incurred, and when related fees are 

charged? 

c. What changes in consumer 

behavior or understanding of overdrafts 

have resulted from the changes that took 

effect in Regulation DD in 2010? 

Impact of Changes to Regulation DD, 

Regulation E, and Overdraft Opt-In 

Rates 

7. The Bureau is interested in the 

impact of the changes to Regulation E 

that took effect in 2010 on consumers. 

Among other things, comments could 

address: 

a. What were the variations across 

institutions in opt-in rates among 

consumers with accounts as of July 1, 

2010? What variations in opt-in rates 

occur now among institutions? What 

differences in marketing and disclosures 

practices may be responsible for 

differences in opt-in rates? 

b. How did opt-in rates vary based 

upon prior usage of overdraft? Were 

there significant variations between 

non-overdrafters, occasional 

overdrafters, and frequent overdrafters 

(e.g., those who incurred 10 or more 

overdrafts in a year)? 

c. How did the opt-in rates vary based 

upon average account balance or 

demographic characteristics, such as 

income, age, or education level? 

d. How do the overdraft frequencies of 

consumers who opted in differ from 

those who did not? 

8. The Bureau is interested in learning 

how institutions are conducting 

outreach to customers who incur 

overdrafts repeatedly, what policies 

have been implemented to manage both 

the risks and needs such customers may 

present, and which options are given to 

such customers. The Bureau is aware 

that some institutions may charge fees 

based on accounts being overdrawn, 

notwithstanding the customer’s request 

to close the account, and would like to 

understand what impact this practice 

may have. Among other things, the 

Bureau is particularly interested in 

hearing more about: 

a. The extent to which consumers are 

permitted to close existing accounts 

when there are outstanding overdraft 

fees; 

b. The consequences to consumers of 

keeping accounts open that have 

outstanding overdraft fees and what 

additional fees consumers accrue; and 

c. The practices that can best serve 

consumers who have incurred negative 

balances while protecting institutional 

safety. 

Impact of Changes in Financial 

Institutions’ Operating Policies 

9. The Bureau is aware that some 

institutions have recently changed their 

order of processing transactions in 

various ways, including, for example, 

adoption of a purely chronological 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Notices 

27For example, one consulting firm estimated 

that the 26 percent of checking accounts in which 

overdraft fees occur and the 23 percent of accounts 

with balances over $3000 are responsible for the 

vast majority of bank revenue (the former based on 

overdraft fees and the latter based on interest 

earned on deposits) while the remaining 51 percent 

of accounts were unprofitable, earning less in fee 

income and interest than it cost the banks to service 

them. (Celent blog posted March 10, 2010, viewable 

at http://bankingblog.celent.com/?p=1261). 

system of posting debit transactions; 

adoption of a system that separates 

different types of debit transactions 

(e.g., ATM and point of sale debit, ACH, 

check, and various account fees) and 

applies different rules to order 

transactions in discrete buckets; and 

adoption of a system which orders debit 

transactions from smallest to highest 

dollar amount. The Bureau is interested 

in learning how these changes have 

affected consumers. Comments could 

include information regarding: 

a. The different ways in which 

institutions currently group and order 

different types of transactions; 

b. How institutions disclose the ways 

in which they currently group and order 

transactions; 

c. The consequences in practice of 

different grouping and ordering policies 

for the frequency with which consumers 

may incur overdrafts and related fees. 

Or the consequences for whether certain 

overdraft items will or will not be paid; 

or 

d. The impact of funds availability 

policies on when overdrafts are 

determined to have occurred. 

10. In addition to transaction ordering 

policies, the Bureau is also aware that 

some institutions have adopted other 

new policies with respect to overdrafts. 

For example, some institutions have 

declined to permit consumers to opt in 

to overdraft coverage of electronic debits 

and instead reject those transactions or 

allow consumers to opt in at the point 

of the transaction. Other institutions 

have adopted cushions on the amount 

by which an account must be overdrawn 

to incur an overdraft fee; caps on the 

number of fees that may be incurred in 

a given day; tiered overdraft fees; a grace 

period to cover an overdraft item 

without incurring a fee; or a waiver of 

fees on a certain number of overdraft 

items per month. In what way do such 

changes—or other new policies with 

respect to overdraft—affect the 

incidence and/or severity of overdraft 

charges? 

The Economics of Overdraft Programs 

11. The Bureau is interested in the 

economics of overdraft programs, 

including their contribution to overall 

costs and revenues associated with 

checking accounts. There is concern 

based on the FDIC study’s data from 

2006 that many institutions are reliant 

on fees from a small group of frequent 

overdrafters for a disproportionate share 

of revenue from checking accounts, 

while many other accountholders 

benefit as ‘‘free riders.’’ 27 The Bureau is 

interested to learn the extent to which 

the FDIC study’s findings from 2006 are 

representative of the market today. At 

the same time, the Bureau also seeks to 

learn what costs regulations affecting 

overdrafts might impose on institutions. 

Comments may address, among other 

things: 

a. How the distribution of overdraft 

revenue from consumers may have 

evolved since the FDIC study and the 

implementation of changes in 

Regulations DD and E; 

b. The distribution of overdraft fees by 

type of transaction (check, ACH, debit, 

ATM, etc.) today relative to what the 

FDIC found in its study; 

c. The extent to which different 

groups of consumers incur overdrafts 

and related fees disproportionately (for 

example, the FDIC study suggested that 

young adults and consumers with low 

or moderate incomes might incur 

overdrafts more frequently than other 

groups); 

d. The share of deposit service fees 

charged to consumer accounts that are 

attributable to overdrafts and NSFs 

today; 

e. The costs to institutions of 

administering overdraft programs; and 

f. The losses (e.g., charge-offs) that 

occur as a result of extending overdraft 

coverage. 

Long-Term Impact on Consumers 

12. The long term impact of overdraft 

programs on consumer behavior and 

options is of particular interest to the 

Bureau. Some have argued that 

overdraft programs allow consumers to 

meet liquidity challenges while others 

argue that overdraft eventually adds to 

liquidity issues because of the high 

recurring fees that frequent overdrafters 

must pay. Further, there is concern that 

heavy use may lead a significant 

percentage of users to damage their 

credit records in databases institutions 

use to qualify consumers for checking 

accounts and thereby to lose access to 

the services of competing providers or 

to the banking system altogether. To 

what extent are these various 

perspectives valid? 

Dated: February 22, 2012. 

Meredith Fuchs, 

Chief of Staff, Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4576 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER 

FINANCIAL PROTECTION 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0008] 

Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Privacy Act 

System of Records. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the 

Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection (‘‘CFPB’’ or the ‘‘Bureau’’) 

gives notice of the establishment of a 

Privacy Act System of Records. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than March 29, 2012. The new 

system of records will be effective April 

9, 2012, unless the comments received 

result in a contrary determination. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012– 

0008, by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier in 

Lieu of Mail: Claire Stapleton, Chief 

Privacy Officer, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20552. 

All submissions must include the 

agency name and docket number for this 

notice. In general all comments received 

will be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

comments will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1700 G Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You 

can make an appointment to inspect 

comments by telephoning (202) 435– 

7220. All comments, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, will become part of the public 

record and subject to public disclosure. 

You should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 

20552, (202) 435–7220. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (‘‘Act’’), Public Law 111– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES