~.SIFMA Securities Industry and 

Financial Markets Association 

May 29,2007 

rcc -=-·· 'E t - ~ .. -

'· '=' -- r· ' I. ' . 

()1~2 

@ 

. ., I' '.'1' 'I·'~ '·1 U· ' " L ,. i 1! 

Via Electronic Delivery 

Nancy M. Morris 

Secretary 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E. 

Received CFrC 

Records Section 

~/,;~o/o1 

Washington, DC 20549-1090 

Re: File Number S7-09-07: Model Privacy Form 

Dear Ms. Morris: 

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA") 1 appreciates the 

opportunity to comment on the Interagency Proposed Rule for Model Privacy Form 

(the "Model Form") under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB Act") jointly issued by the 

Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") and the other Federal agencies2 (the 

"Agencies"). The Agencies' proposal responds to Congress's direction in the Financial Services 

Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (the "Regulatory Relief Act") to jointly develop a model form that 

may be used at the option of financial institutions to provide initial and annual privacy notices 

under section 503 of the GLB Act.3 

I. SUMMARY 

SIFMA recognizes the importance of respecting customer information and strongly supports the 

GLB Act privacy provisions. Our member firms have worked hard to provide consumers with 

accurate and meaningful information about their privacy policies in order to make informed 

choices. We commend the Commission and the Agencies on their efforts to develop a model 

form that provides clear and conspicuous disclosures, is comprehensible to consumers and is 

succinct. 

1 The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association ("SIFMA") brings together the shared interests of more 

than 650 securities firms, banks and asset managers. SIFMA's mission is to promote policies and practices that 

work to expand and perfect markets, foster the development of new products and services and create efficiencies for 

member firms, while preserving and enhancing the public's trust and confidence in the markets and the industry. 

SIFMA works to represent its members' interests locally and globally. It has offices in New York, Washington 

D.C., and London and its associated firm, the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, is based 

in Hong Kong. 2 Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration and the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 3 Section 728 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, Pub. L. I 09-351 , 120 Stat. 1966. 

\\'a shington • :\~w York • l.ond<m • Hong Kong 

I YJ9 New Ynrl< \I'Cnu~. NW • Washington [)(· 20005-47 11 • P: 202.434.:\400 • 1': 202.434.:\4:'6 • '"'w.SII'iVI:\ .org 
SIFMA believes that a model disclosure form can serve consumers and financial institutions. 

We also believe the structure of the proposed Model Form establishes a format that could 

potentially make privacy notices clearer and more useful to consumers. 

However, because of the rigidity and prescriptive nature of the proposed Model Form many 

firms will not be able to accurately reflect their practices in the form as proposed. Therefore, in 

order to make the Model Form applicable to actual firm policies as well as useful and meaningful 

to consumers, SIFMA recommends that the Commission and the Agencies provide financial 

institutions with flexibility to modify certain items contained in the Model Form to reflect 

institutions' actual information collection practices and disclosure policies. We present below 

various ways in which this flexibility may be accomplished. 

In addition, SIFMA believes that certain operational aspects of the proposal are needlessly 

burdensome. Providing additional flexibility in the areas presented below will improve the 

usefulness and comprehension of the Model Form to consumers without diminishing its 

importance. SIFMA member firms indicate that it is more likely that they will use the Model 

Form if the Agencies provide additional flexibility which enables them to more accurately 

describe their privacy and information sharing policies to consumers. 

Accordingly, we are pleased to present the following comments. 

II. PROPOSED MODEL FORM 

We appreciate that the Commission's proposed rule provides that use of the Model Form 

constitutes compliance with the notice content requirements of Regulation S-P. While the Model 

Form provides consumers with a simple presentation, SIFMA is concerned that in some sections, 

the Model Form is overly simplistic. We believe that the format may not enable financial 

institutions to adequately convey certain details of their information-sharing practices. For 

example, institutions may adopt different sharing practices depending upon the sensitivity of the 

information. Accordingly, we request the Agencies provide financial institutions with flexibility 

to modify the language of the Model Form as indicated below without affecting their ability to 

continue to fall within the safe harbor provided in the proposal. 

A. Page One 

i. Affiliates 

The proposed rule states that page one permits an institution to include on the form the name of 

the financial institution or a group of affiliated institutions providing the notice on the form. 

SIFMA agrees that affiliated institutions should be permitted to adopt a single privacy notice for 

affiliated institutions. However, given the limited space available and the fact that in many 

instances the names of affiliates are not similar, SIFMA is concerned that consumers may not 

comprehend to which institutions the notices apply. To alleviate this concern, SIFMA believes 

that financial institutions should be permitted to indicate on the Model Form the names of the 

2 
institutions covered by the policy. This could be accomplished through the use of a footnote, a 

listing on the reverse side of the form, or provision for expansion of the definition of the term 

"affiliates" on page 2 ofthe Model Form. 

Financial institutions often have sharing practices that differ among affiliated entities, divisions 

and lines of business. If such organizations desire to use a single Model Form for all their 

affiliated entities, divisions and lines of business, the form must reflect the sharing practices of 

each business unit. For example, the department that administers customer retirement accounts 

may have a sharing policy that differs from that of the related retail brokerage operation. The 

proposed Model Form does not currently accommodate differing disclosures. Accordingly, in 

order to facilitate the ability of institutions to send a single Model Form that accurately reflects 

the sharing policies of affiliates, divisions and business lines, SIFMA requests the Agencies 

permit firms to indicate the sharing practices of each affiliate, division or business line in the 

disclosure frame on page 1 of the Model Form if appropriate to reflect varying sharing policies 

among such business units. 

If the Commission and the Agencies provide this flexibility, affiliated financial institutions and 

separate business units will be able to deliver a single Model Form to customers. This will avoid 

having consumers receive the same Model Form from companies and business units that are part 

of the same enterprise. Receiving the same form multiple times from the same enterprise could 

prove confusing and frustrating to consumers, who will wonder why they are receiving so many 

notices from the same organization. A voiding the need to send multiple forms to the same 

customer has the added benefit of conserving resources and reducing costs incurred by financial 

institutions. Such flexibility also benefits the environment because fewer forms means using 

fewer natural resources to prepare Model Forms and attend to their disposal. 

The Agencies also ask whether an institution regulated by the Commission and an affiliated 

institution regulated by one of the Agencies that intend to provide a joint privacy notice should 

be able to rely on the Commission Model Form or the form proposed by the other Agencies. 

SIFMA believes that affiliated financial institutions should have the ability to rely upon either 

Model Form. The differences between the two Model Forms are already slight. If the Agencies 

provide the flexibility as described below, institutions will strive to achieve even greater 

uniformity and consistency among affiliates. Accordingly, providing affiliated financial 

institutions with the ability to use either form should provide meaningful disclosure to 

consumers. 

ii. Information Collected 

The key frame entitled "What?" sets forth the type of information financial institutions collect 

and share. Financial institutions may not alter the language in this frame. SIFMA believes that 

the inability to indicate what information the institution actually collects has the potential to 

mislead and cause confusion among consumers. For example, the key frame applicable to 

securities firms indicates that they may collect and share credit history and credit scores. Many 

securities firms do not collect such information. It is likely that securities firms will receive 

3 
numerous inquiries from consumers expressing concern as to why such information is collected. 

Our member firms believe that their ability to disclose their information collection and sharing 

practices will be more meaningful to consumers and better enable them to compare privacy 

policies among financial institutions. Accordingly, in order to provide more accurate disclosure 

and avoid needless confusion, SIFMA believes that financial institutions should have the 

flexibility to modify this frame to reflect the types or categories of information institutions 

actually collect and share. 

iii. Account Closure 

The key frame entitled "What?" also contains the statement that the institution will continue to 

share information about a customer when the account is closed. SIFMA requests that the 

Commission and the Agencies clarify that financial institutions are not required to provide a 

statement regarding sharing of information relating to closed accounts if the institution does not 

share information after an account is closed. 

In addition, SIFMA is concerned that this statement is placed in an incorrect location and could 

be easily overlooked. In order to make this disclosure more meaningful to consumers, SIFMA 

suggests that the statement should not appear in the "What?" frame but rather in the "How?" 

frame, which relates more directly to information-sharing practices rather than the type of 

information collected and shared. 

iv. Disclosure Table 

SIFMA agrees with the Agencies that the disclosure table is the heart of the Model Form. 

Accordingly, it is important to ensure that the information contained in the table accurately 

reflects an institution's sharing practices. The Agencies state that the first column entitled "Does 

[name] share?" permits only a "yes" or "no" answer. SIFMA is concerned that the rigid 

structure of the permitted responses in the first column does not provide financial institutions 

with sufficient flexibility to accurately describe their actual privacy and information sharing 

policies. For example, a financial institution should be permitted to indicate in the column that it 

shares with certain affiliates, including the name of specific affiliates with which it shares, or 

types of institutions. This additional flexibility will provide additional clarity to consumers and 

will not weaken the goal of making the disclosures clear and understandable. 

SIFMA also believes that the first row of the Disclosure Table is unnecessary because it 

repeats virtually the same information that is in the frame entitled "How?" There is 

simply no reason why the Model Form should contain precisely the same information in 

two consecutive sections. SIFMA questions the need to mention in the Disclosure Table 

that financial companies share information for everyday business purposes. As the 

Model Form indicates, all financial companies need to share personal information to 

process transactions and maintain accounts. No institution could possibly provide 

consumers with an opportunity to opt-out from such sharing because an opt-out would 

thwart the ability of the company to deliver the products and services consumers have 

4 
contracted for. Providing a consumer with the opportunity to opt-out from sharing for 

everyday business purposes is inconsistent with a company's responsibility to provide 

products and services in a timely, efficient manner. Retaining this provision in the 

Disclosure Table runs the risk that customers will conclude that the company has chosen 

not to give them a choice when, in reality, there is no logical or practical reason for 

providing customers with the opportunity to opt out under these circumstances. 

Eliminating this row from the Disclosure Table does not affect the ability of consumers to 

compare sharing policies across financial institutions because, as the Model Form clearly 

states, "[a]ll financial institutions need to share customers' personal information to run 

their everyday business ... " To us, this means that no institution will provide consumers 

with an opportunity to opt out from such sharing. Accordingly, SIFMA recommends that 

this row of the Disclosure Table be deleted because it is unnecessary and provides no 

additional information to customers. In this regard, SIFMA also suggests that the 

language in the "How?" section be modified to inform customers that they may not limit 

sharing of information for everyday business purposes. 

v. State and Global Requirements 

As the Commission and the Agencies are aware, as permitted by the GLB Act, several states 

have adopted additional privacy and disclosure requirements. Institutions have modified their 

privacy policies to accommodate the additional requirements that are applicable to customers in 

the affected states. In addition, some member firms have modified their GLB Act privacy 

policies to comply with privacy requirements of foreign countries. The rigid nature of the Model 

Form does not allow for alteration to address these unique state and international requirements. 

Accordingly, SIFMA requests that the Commission and the Agencies permit financial 

institutions to modify the language of the Model Form to incorporate changes that affect 

consumers in states that have altered the GLB Act requirements as well as other privacy laws of 

states and foreign countries that have differing requirements for their residents. 

vi. Contact Information 

The contact information section permits financial institutions to provide a telephone number or a 

web address. Actual practices of member firms differ based upon customer preferences and 

business needs. SIFMA recommends that financial institutions should be permitted to provide 

contact information based upon their actual practices rather than simply a telephone number or 

website address. 

B. Page 2 

i. Frequently Asked Questions on Sharing Practices 

The Agencies state that the language contained in the section entitled "Frequently Asked 

Questions" may not be altered. SIFMA believes that the inability to modify the F AQs to reflect 

an institution's actual sharing practices has the potential to mislead and cause confusion among 

5 
consumers. For example, the F AQ which indicates that a firm collects personal information 

when the customer uses a credit or debit card may have no relation to a particular company's 

business. It is likely that such information will result in numerous inquiries from consumers 

expressing concern as to what this F AQ means. It would be more meaningful to consumers and 

better enable them to compare privacy policies among financial institutions if information in the 

FAQs reflected an institution's actual sharing practices. Accordingly, SIFMA recommends that 

the Agencies provide institutions with flexibility to modify the FAQs to reflect an institution's 

actual sharing policy. 

SIFMA also believes that it may prove confusing to consumers to have a F AQ regarding 

information collection practices in the section entitled "sharing practices." The collection of 

information would appear to have little reason to appear in the "sharing practices" section. 

Accordingly, SIFMA recommends that the F AQ regarding information collection be moved to a 

more appropriate section. 

SIFMA also believes that the response to the first F AQ does not accurately reflect when financial 

institutions are required to provide information to customers. The Model Form states that 

institutions "must notify [customers] about [their] sharing practices when [the customer] opens 

an account and each year while [the customer] is a customer." The GLB Act and Agencies' 

regulations provide that the initial notice that reflects the institution's privacy policies and 

practices are to be provided when the person becomes a customer and annually thereafter.4 If the 

customer obtains an additional product or service, no additional notice is required if the prior 

notice delivered to the customer was accurate with respect to the new product or service.

5 

Accordingly, SIFMA recommends that the Model Form be changed to state that institutions must 

notify customers about their sharing practices when the person becomes a customer and each 

year while he or she is a customer. 

ii. Definitions- Everyday Business Purposes 

The definition of"everyday business purposes" provides short examples of instances where 

institutions routinely share information. SIFMA believes that the three examples provided do 

not adequately convey the range of circumstances under which information may be shared for 

everyday business purposes across the numerous types of financial institutions subject to the 

GLB Act. SIFMA believes that it would be more meaningful to consumers if financial 

institutions could expand this disclosure to include additional instances in which they share 

information. For example, a financial institution's sale of assets or a sale of a business may 

involve the transfer of customer information to the purchaser. This constitutes an everyday 

business purpose, yet is not included in the definition. Further, the definition includes disclosure 

of information to credit bureaus. This has the potential to confuse customers if an institution is 

not providing information to credit bureaus. SIFMA believes that institutions should be 

permitted to modify the definition of everyday business purposes to reflect the institution's 

actual practices. 

4 See, M.,_, 12 C.F.R. § 216.4(a)(l); 216.5(a)(1). 5 See, M.,_, 12 C.F.R. § 216.4(d). 

6 
C. Page3 

i. 30 Day Delay 

The third page of the Model Form provides that institutions are required to delay sharing for 30 

days from the date of the Model Form. Because the Model Form will be sent each year, this 

seems to suggest that every year a financial institution is required to cease sharing a customer's 

nonpublic personal information for 30 days from the date of the annual notice. SIFMA believes 

that this is not what Regulation S-P intends or requires. SIFMA believes that the Commission 

did not intend to impose a 30-day moratorium on sharing each year. See 17 C.F.R. § 248.10. 

Such a moratorium may be contrary to the wishes of customers who have previously chosen not 

to opt out because it may prevent them from receiving information about products and services 

offered by third parties. Moreover, as a practical matter, institutions cannot possibly implement 

a 30-day moratorium on information sharing each year. Accordingly, SIFMA request that the 

Model Form be modified to indicate that the 30 day waiting period applies only to the initial optout opportunity provided to consumers when they first become customers, as set forth in 

Regulation S-P. 

ii. Partial Opt-out 

Regulation S-P permits firms to allow a consumer to select certain nonpublic personal 

information or certain nonaffiliated third parties with respect to which the consumer wishes to 

opt-out. See 17 C.F.R. § 248.11(c). The Model Form does not appear to permit institutions to 

offer partial opt-outs to consumers. Because the Commission's Regulation S-P permits partial 

opt-out, in order to ensure that institutions are able to accurately describe to customers their 

available opt-out options, SIFMA requests that firms be provided such flexibility in the Model 

Form. SIFMA also suggests that the Agencies permit financial institutions to modify the 

disclosure table on page 1 of the proposed Model Form to reflect these options. 

iii. Affiliate Opi-Out 

The opt-out form provides a choice that permits a consumer to prohibit the institution from 

allowing its affiliates to use the customer's information to market to the customer. SIFMA is 

concerned that this statement does not accurately convey the fact that Section 624 of the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),6 

as amended by section 214 of the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACT Act"), permits a company to use information of an affiliate to 

market to a customer under a variety of circumstances without providing customers the 

opportunity to opt out. For example, a company may use information of an affiliate for 

marketing purposes if the person is a customer of both institutions, or if the person authorized or 

requested the solicitation. Accordingly, SIFMA requests that financial institutions be permitted 

to modify the Model Form to indicate that consumers do not have the right to prevent an 

institution from using an affiliate's information if the consumer is a customer of both institutions. 

6 15 U.S.C. § 624(a)(4). 

7 
III. OPERATIONAL ISSUES 

As the Commission and the Agencies are aware, financial institutions incur considerable 

expenses in connection with compliance with the initial and annual GLB Act privacy notice 

requirements. Institutions have adopted policies and procedures that enable them to provide 

privacy notices in an efficient and economical manner. SIFMA member firms have advised us 

that several aspects of the proposed Model Form will require them to implement dramatic 

changes to their existing procedures and will impose significant additional burdens and expenses 

on them. The following presents our views on important operational effects of several proposed 

requirements. 

A. Size of Paper 

The proposal requires that the Model Form be printed on 8 W' by 11" paper. SIFMA does not 

believe that it is necessary for the Agencies to specify the paper size in order for the Model Form 

to accomplish the objectives set forth in the Regulatory Relief Act. SIFMA believes that 

consumers will be able to comprehend the information in the Model Form without having to 

specify the size of the paper on which the form is printed. In this regard, we note that the 

Agencies tested the Model Form only on 8 1;2" by 11" paper. As a result, the test results do not 

indicate whether the Model Form would be just as effective if it were printed on smaller or 

larger-sized paper. Member firms have found that the size of the paper is not as significant as 

how information is presented and the nature of the information the document contains. Using 

different-sized paper also enables financial institutions to economize on paper costs. This means 

that less paper will be used and fewer natural resources will be consumed in meeting the 

requirements of the GLB Act and in disposing of forms not retained by consumers. This will 

help conserve the environment, which we believe is a worthy objective. In light of this, we 

recommend that no paper size requirement be established. 

B. Number of Pages 

The proposal provides that the Model Form appear on two pages, and, if applicable, the opt-out 

form appear on a separate page. The Agencies propose to require that each page be printed on a 

separate sheet of paper because consumers stated a preference for the model that allowed them to 

view the information on pages one and two side-by-side. SIFMA objects to the requirement that 

pages one and two be printed on separate pages. Such a requirement will significantly increase 

an institution's cost for paper, handling and processing. Moreover, a requirement of a multipage Model Form does not materially increase consumer comprehension and usability because, 

as the Agencies concede, the research they conducted indicated that page one alone was adequate 

for consumer comprehension and usability.7 

7 72 Fed. Reg. at 14944. See, also, "Evolution of a Prototype Financial Privacy Notice," Kleimann Communication 

Group, Inc. at 7 (February 28, 2006) ("The Secondary Frame is page 2 of the prototype . .. Testing did not show 

this information as essential for consumers to have, . .. ") 

8 
Permitting a financial institution to print the Model Form on one sheet of paper will save an 

enormous amount of natural resources and reduce expenses. We estimate that requiring an 

additional sheet of paper will increase the cost by approximately $7,500 per million notices. As 

a result, a financial institution that sends 5 million notices per year could save $37,500 per year if 

the Model Form could be printed on two sides of a sheet of paper. Given the billions of notices 

sent each year, permitting the Model Form to be printed on two sides of a sheet of paper could 

reduce costs by $7.5 million per billion notices. Accordingly, we request that the Agencies 

permit financial institutions to print the Model Form on two sides of one piece of paper. This 

will enable institutions to send the Model Form on as many pages as required to describe their 

sharing practices. 

C. Delivery of Model Form 

Many firms find it efficient to include their annual privacy notices with periodic statements sent 

to customers. We find that customers pay attention to important documents such as periodic 

statements. Sending the notice along with a periodic statement insures that consumers will focus 

on the material because of the significance ofthe accompanying document. However, the 

proposed 8 W' x 11" paper size requirement will preclude many firms from being able to send 

the Model Form with a periodic statement because many periodic statements are often smaller 

than 8 Y2" x 11 ". As a result, the Model Form will not fit in the same envelope as the periodic 

statement. Accordingly, many institutions would be unable to make use of existing mailings and 

will find it necessary to send the form in a separate mailing unless the Agencies permit the 

Model Form to be printed on smaller-sized paper. Sending the privacy notice in a separate 

mailing will impose significant costs on financial institutions with very little benefit to 

consumers. We estimate that the printing, preparation and mailing cost of sending the Model 

Form in a separate mailing is approximately $0.41 per notice. 8 A financial institution that sends 

10 million notices per year could save $4.1 million per year if the Model Form could be sent 

with other material in the same mailing. Accordingly, SIFMA requests that the Agencies permit 

financial institutions to print the Model Form on paper sized to enable the form to be sent with 

periodic statements. 

The requirement that the Model Form appear on separate pages will also increase mailing costs 

for financial institutions. Three 8 Yl" x 11" pages weigh 0.5 oz. Adding this weight to a 

statement will force the total weight of the mailing to exceed 1 oz. and will require additional 

postage of approximately $0.12 per notice (presorted). Accordingly, a financial institution that 

sends 10 million notices per year could save $1.2 million per year if a smaller, lighter version of 

the Model Form could be sent in the same mailing with other material. 

The Agencies propose that financial institutions not be permitted to incorporate the Model Form 

into any other document. SIFMA believes that this restriction is unduly harsh and strongly 

objects to it. There is no evidence that incorporating the privacy notice into another document 

dilutes the effectiveness of the notice. In fact, many institutions provide consumers with privacy 

notices as part of a booklet that describes the terms and conditions relating to the consumers' 

8 $0.31 postage (pre-sorted); $0.05 paper and envelope; $0.05 mailing preparation and addressing. 

9 
account relationships with the institutions. Because of their importance and comprehensiveness, 

consumers typically review and retain these booklets. SIFMA believes that it is highly likely 

that a consumer will review the institution's privacy policy when it is part of a booklet 

containing comprehensive terms and conditions relating to the consumer's relationship with the 

institution. Being part of the booklet in fact highlights the importance of the notice. Prohibiting 

institutions from incorporating the Model Form into a brochure or booklet will not make the 

Model Form more comprehensible to consumers, will not cause the disclosures to be clearer or 

more conspicuous and will not enable consumers to better identify and compare institution 

sharing practices. Accordingly, SIFMA requests that the Agencies provide institutions the 

flexibility to incorporate the Model Form with other documents such as in a booklet which 

conveys account terms and conditions. 

Given the billions of privacy notices that are sent to customers each year, if the Agencies adopt 

the above recommendations we believe that it would result in cost savings of more than $75 

million for financial institutions as well as have considerable benefits for the environment. 

D. Web-Based Notice 

The Agencies state that institutions that post a pdf version of the Model Form on their Internet 

websites may obtain a safe harbor. The Agencies ask, however, whether they should develop a 

web-based design for financial institutions to use. SIFMA believes that financial institutions 

should have the option to use either a pdf version of the Model Form or use a web-based Model 

Form. A web-based Model Form may prove more convenient to consumers because it does not 

require them to open up a pdf document to view the institution's privacy policy. They can 

review the privacy policy by simply clicking on the appropriate web page. However, given the 

unique aspects of many firms' websites, SIFMA believes that the Agencies should leave it to 

financial institutions to develop web-based designs and content. Accordingly, we request that 

the Agencies permit financial institutions to develop web-based designs for use on their websites. 

The Agencies should also be mindful that online privacy policies often include information 

regarding terms and conditions of website usage and other consumer issues relating to online 

activities. For example, many firms provide important information on their websites relating to 

phishing frauds and identity theft that consumers find informative and helpful. Therefore, 

SIFMA requests that the Commission and the Agencies not disrupt current practices and permit 

firms that choose to provide web-based forms to also provide additional information relating to 

other consumer issues. Institutions should also be permitted to include on the printed Model 

Form a reference to website URLs where consumers can obtain additional information which 

informs them of important consumer issues. 

E. Notice of Changes 

Financial institutions may notify consumers of changes to their privacy policies in their annual 

privacy notices. The Agencies ask if financial institutions should be required to highlight 

changes in their policies in a distinctive manner as part of the Model Form. SIFMA believes that 

10 
such a requirement is unnecessary and injects the possibility of added consumer confusion. 

Highlighting a change is meaningful only if the consumer is informed as to what the previous 

policy was. Such additional information will undermine the objective of providing the 

institution's policy in a clear, straightforward manner that is readily understandable. Requiring 

that changes be highlighted will add an element of complexity that, based upon the Agencies' 

research, will undoubtedly confuse consumers. 

F. Use of Logo and Color 

The Agencies ask to what extent financial institutions will use corporate logos and color in 

connection with the disclosure form. Member firms use corporate logos on privacy notices in 

order to provide a consistent corporate identity to customers. The use of a corporate logo, which 

often is in color, enables member firms to present an image that customers can immediately 

recognize and to which they relate. Because customers are aware that the information comes 

from an institution with which they do business, they are more likely to read the notice. Member 

firms also find that the appropriate use of color also generates customer interest. Accordingly, 

we think it appropriate and useful to permit financial institutions to use logos and color on the 

Model Form. 

G. Testing 

The Agencies indicate that the Model Form resulted from testing an alternative privacy notice 

among consumers. We understand that the Agencies plan to test the next version of the Model 

Form with consumers. We recommend that the Agencies also test the Model Form with the 

modifications we recommend to determine whether they provide more useful information to 

consumers and if they make the Model Form more understandable. We also believe it would be 

useful for the Agencies to test the next version of the Model Form with privacy professionals in 

the private sector who are familiar with privacy laws to determine whether it conveys meaningful 

information about the privacy policies of financial institutions in a clear and useful manner, as 

intended by Congress. 

H. FCRA Safe Harbor 

The Model Form includes information about disclosure and information use practices relating to 

affiliated institutions, including the opportunity for customers to opt out from certain types of 

information sharing and use among affiliated companies. SIFMA believes that the Commission 

should provide that an institution that uses the Model Form will be deemed to be in compliance 

with the disclosure provisions of the FCRA and Commission rules relating to information 

disclosures to affiliates and use of consumer information by affiliates. 

I. Burden Measurement 

The Commission indicates that use ofthe ModelForm would need little, if any, legal review by 

counsel. SIFMA advises that the Commission is mistaken. Use of the Model Notice will require 

11 
institutions to constantly monitor their information disclosure and use practices to ensure the 

truncated information set forth in the Model Form is accurate. Co-ordination of information 

handling and disclosure practices among affiliated entities is handled typically by company 

attorneys who are trained in the intricacies of privacy law. Moreover, SIFMA believes that the 

Commission has materially underestimated the time institutions will spend on initially 

developing this information and reviewing it annually. Member firms estimate that each will 

spend at least 50 hours ensuring that the Model Form, including opt-out choices, accurately 

reflects their privacy practices. 

* * * 

SIFMA appreciates the opportunity to provide its comments to the Commission and the 

Agencies on the Model Form. SIFMA commends the Commission and the Agencies for the 

thought and effort underlying the Model Form. We believe that our comments will assist the 

Agencies in accomplishing the objectives Congress set out in the Regulatory Relief Act. If you 

have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (202) 434-8400. 

cc: Via Electronic Delivery 

Federal Trade Commission 

Office of the Secretary 

Room H-135 (Annex C) 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20580 

FTC File No. P034815 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 

250 E Street S.W. 

Mail Stop 1-5 

Washington, DC 20219 

Re: Docket No. OCC-2007-0003 

Sincerely, 

Alan E. Sorcher 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

12 
Ms. Jennifer Johnson 

Secretary of the Board 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20551 

Re: Docket No. R-1280 

Mr. Robert E. Feldman 

Executive Secretary 

Attention: Comments 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

550 17th Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20429 

Re: RIN 3064-AD16 

Regulation Comments 

Chief Counsel's Office 

Office ofThrift Supervision 

1700 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20552 

Attention: OTS-2007-005 

Re: Docket ID OTS-2007-0005 

Ms. Eileen Donovan 

Acting Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20581 

Re: RIN 3038-AC04 

MaryRupp 

Secretary of the Board 

National Credit Union Administration 

1775 Duke Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Proposed Rule Part 716 (Model Privacy Notice Form) 

13