. Wolters Kluwer 6815 Saukview Drive 1-800-397-2341 

Financial Se(vites , _ ... .. , .. P 0 Box 1457 ~Gfi f\6£ lfj< o?-~ St. Cloud, MN 56303 ~:Worterskluwerfs.com 

:.. ,, .. i.: . .... (f) ~ COMMENT l'T17 t'AY 2 q ·'· P:-1 ij: 39 c Ma~24, 2007 

By Electronic Delivery - OFC. OF THE SECRETAHIAT 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, 

250 E Street, SW. Board of Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System 

Mail Stop 1-5 20th Street and Constitution A venue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20219 Washington, DC 20551 

Attention: Docket Number OCC-2007-0003 Attention: Docket No. R-1280 

Robert E. Feldman Regulation Comments, 

Executive Secretary Chief Counsel's Office, 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Thrift Supervision, 

550 17th Street, NW. 1700 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20429 Washington, DC 20552, 

Attention: Comments Attention: OTS-2007-0005 

MaryRupp Federal Trade Commission 

Secretary of the Board Office of the Secretary 

National Credit Union Administration Room 135 (Annex C), 

1775 Duke Street 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428 Washington, DC 20580 

Attention: FTC File No. P034815 

Eileen Donovan Nancy M. Morris 

Acting Secretary of the Commission Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Securities and Exchange Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 100 F Street, NE. 

1155 21st Street, NW. Washington, DC 20549-1090. 

Washington, DC 20581 File Number S7-09-07 

Re: Proposed Model Privacy Form 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

This letter is submitted on behalf of Wolters Kluwer Financial Services ("WKFS") in 

response to the Interagency Proposal for Model Privacy Form under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 

("Proposal") published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2007. The Proposal requested public 

comment on all aspects of a proposed Model Privacy form. WKFS appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on this very important matter. 

Received CFTC 

~fds Section 

5j~'f/tJ 7 
WKFS provides compliance solutions including deposit, lending, and IRA documents, 

disclosures, software, training, and support services to over 12,000 financial institutions, including 

more than 80 percent of banks in the U.S. In addition, many core processors and software 

developers use WKFS' compliance-related documents and other components in their products. 

Included in WKFS' solutions is the production of customized privacy disclosures that meet the 

requirements ofTitle V ofthe Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"). 

WKFS supports the agencies in their promulgation of the proposed Model Form. We believe, 

however, that certain clarifications are necessary in order to carry out the purposes of the Financial 

Services Regulatory Relief Act of2006 that called for the creation of the Model Form as well as the 

Grarnm-Leach-Bliley Act that is the statutory basis for the privacy disclosure requirements. The 

proposed limitations on adding any information to or varying the format of the Model Form means 

that if certain situations are not anticipated and addressed in the final rule, there will be no flexibility 

to adjust to them later, short of a lengthy rulemaking process. This could greatly affect the useability 

ofthe Model Form. 

Clarifications Regarding Content 

State Laws. Section 507 of GLB provides that state laws, regulations, orders and 

interpretations are not preempted unless they are inconsistent with GLB and that such provisions that 

give greater protection to consumers are not considered to be inconsistent. Several states now have 

laws granting additional protection to consumers and some require additional language on privacy 

disclosures. The proposed Model Form indicates that State laws may give "additional rights", but it 

does not make provision for any required state-specific language. 

In light of the limitations on any unapproved modifications to the Model Form, the agencies . 

should clarify how financial institutions doing business in those states can comply with state 

requirements while still availing themselves of the Safe Harbor protection provided by the Model 

Form. There should be a provision allowing state-specific language or addenda to be added to the 

Model Form. The final rule should also specify whether institutions doing business nationwide can 

create a single addendum covering all state-specific requirements nationwide or whether they must 

they do so on a state-by-state basis. 

Collection of Information. Section 503(b )(2) of GLB provides that privacy disclosures are 

required to include "the categories ofnonpublic personal information that are collected by the 

financial institution" [emphasis supplied]. The Model Form proposal indicates (in footnote 26) that 

the disclosures will contain examples of information "typically" collected rather than the specific 

information that is actually collected by each particular institution. 

The disclosure of Categories of Information Collected in current Sample Clause A-1 follows 

the requirements ofGLB more closely than the Model Form. A version of that Sample Clause 

should be used, and modified as applicable, reflecting the practices of the particular financial 

institution. This would track the GLB requirements. 
Service Providers. Section 502(b )(2) of GLB provides an exception to the opt-out 

requirements for providing nonpublic personal information to a third party who is a service provider 

for the institution, which may include joint marketing with another financial institution. The 

proposed Model Form provides for disclosure for joint marketing agreements, but does not mention 

other service providers. 

If the disclosure on page 2 ofthe proposed Model Form labeled "Joint marketing" is intended 

to include the listing of other service providers as well, it would be best to include "or other service 

providers" on the label for that row of the disclosure and clarify the issue in the guidance for filling 

out the form. If that space is not intended to cover other service providers, there should be 

clarification as to how the disclosure of the names of other service providers under Section 502(b )(2) 

can be done when the Model Form is used: 

Prior Opt-out. The clause on the opt-out page that says "Unless we hear from you, we can 

begin sharing your information 30 days from the date of this letter" suggests that a former opt-out 

does not remain effective. It might be helpful to consumers, as well as more accurate, to put a 

statement on the form that if they have already opted:-out and do not wish to change their choice, it is 

not necessary to send another opt-out since the earlier opt-out is effective until it is revoked. 

Contact Information. Additional information should be allowed in this space, including a 

logo, which would fit logically with institution contact information. 

Clarifications regarding Format 

Lengthy or Multiple Institution Names. The proposed Model Form has a number of places 

where the name of the financial institution or group of affiliated institutions is supposed to be 

inserted. Some of these are in places on the form where there isvery little space for anything but a 

short name. Some provision should be made to accommodate lengthy names or multiple names, 

particularly ifthere is no shorthand way to describe a group of institutions. 

The form should provide for a "Who?" section on page one of the form to go along with the 

"Why?", "What?" and "How?" sections. This would allow for the use of an abbreviated institution 

name in the areas with little space and would provide a detailed listing of the names of all 

institutions included in that abbreviated name. This would accommodate the current regulatory 

approach of allowing joint notices with other financial institutions "as identified in the notice" that is 

in section .9(f) of the various regulations implementing the GLB requirements. If space on the page 

is a concern, the left-hand column could be narrowed and the right-hand column widened to reduce 

the number of lines needed for text in the right-hand column. 

Taglines and Barcodes. Vendors, such as WKFS, that produce disclosures and other 

compliance documents for financial institutions generally include a "tagline" at the bottom of each 

page. This is a line in a relatively small type size that identifies the vendor and contains other useful 

information, such as the date that the particular version of the form was created. This allows for 

identification of the vendor if issues arise and also allows the institution to determine whether a 

particular copy of their privacy notice is the most recent version, as opposed to an outdated one. In 
addition, institutions with automated document control often use barcodes on documents to track that 

required forms are given 

A clarification should be made to the proposal saying that taglines are allowed to be added to 

the bottom of each page of the Model Form. To minimize the space needed for the tagline, the final 

rule should allow the tagline to be printed in a size less than the 1 0-point font that is required for the 

substantive information on the disclosure. Six-point type would be adequate for this purpose. 

Barcodes, which are usually 5/6ths of an inch should also be allowed for document control. 

Delivery with Other Information. Since there are strict requirements regarding the number 

and layout of pages, several issues arise regarding the delivery of the notices. 

• Some institutions deliver their current privacy notices as a part of a brochure that can 

include other disclosures such as Funds Availability, Electronic Funds Transfers, and 

Truth in Savings as well as account terms and conditions. Can the Model Form be 

given as an attachment to such a brochure at account opening? 

• For annual mailings, can it be included in a mailing with other information? 

• Can there be a cover page to explain what is being mailed? 

• Can it be included as a part of another document, such as a newsletter or account 

statement? 

• Can it be stapled to another document? 

• Can it be folded? If so, can it be made into a self-mailer by folding and printing the 

mailing information on the back? 

Printing on Both Sides of the Page. The current proposal allows printing on only one side 

of the page. Allowing printing on front and back would reduce the number of pages and the expense 

of production of the forms. It would also allow institutions that don't share to put their information 

on one page, while institutions that do share would have a separate page for their opt-out. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, WKFS supports the concept of the new Model Form and believes that 

resolving the issues presented in this comment letter will result in substantial improvement to the 

form. The fact that the Safe Harbor for compliance will eventually be withdrawn from the existing 

sample clauses makes it all the more important for the Model Form to be as useable as possible. 

If you have any questions concerning these comments, or if we may be of any assistance in 

connection with this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (320) 240-5769. 

Sincerely, 

Theodore D. Dreyer 

Senior Attorney