Aaaaand From Section V "Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd Frank Act" of the proposal:

C. Potential Specific Impacts of the Rule
The Bureau currently understands that 81% of banks with $10 billion or less in assets would be able to utilize the alternative delivery method, with a greater opportunity for utilization among the smaller banks.

I think they did a very good job with this proposal as it will reduce the burden for banks like mine that don't share or have an opt-out.

CFPB owns Reg P for everyone. It applies to all.

To further clarify, go to Reg P (12 CFR 1016)...this is an amendment to part of that reg.

(b) Scope. (1) This part applies only to nonpublic personal information about individuals who obtain financial products or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes from the institutions listed below. This part does not apply to information about companies or about individuals who obtain financial products or services for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes. This part applies to those financial institutions and other persons for which the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) has rulemaking authority pursuant to section 504(a)(1)(A) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act) (12 U.S.C. 6804(a)(1)(A)). Specifically, this part applies to any financial institution and other covered person or service provider that is subject to Subtitle A of Title V of the GLB Act, including third parties that are not financial institutions but that receive nonpublic personal information from financial institutions with whom they are not affiliated. This part does not apply to certain motor vehicle dealers described in 12 U.S.C. 5519 or to entities for which the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has rulemaking authority pursuant to sections 504(a)(1)(A)–(B) of the GLB Act (12 U.S.C. 6804(a)(1)(A)–(B)). Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, entities to which this part applies are referred to in this part as “you.”

I'm hazy on whether or not my banks will be able to utilize the exemption as proposed. We say we may share "For our affiliates to market to you." We are not sharing credit histories, but do share customer lists (name & address only) with our affiliate investment division for marketing. Assuming this passes as proposed, are we going to enjoy the new relief, or are we stuck under FCRA opt-out requirements?

There is a great deal of discussion in the proposal about the FCRA opt out requirements. Just search on Affiliate Marketing.

For example:

Given that the Affiliate Marketing Rule notice and opt out is not required on the annual privacy notice (and indeed does not have to be provided annually), the Bureau believes that the
existence of an opt-out right under the Affiliate Marketing Rule should not preclude a financial institution from using the proposed alternative delivery method. Instead, the Bureau is proposing that the alternative delivery method would be available for a financial institution that must provide a notice and opt out under the Affiliate Marketing Rule as long as the annual privacy notice is not the only notice provided to the customer explaining that opt-out right. In other words, a financial institution that undertakes opt-out obligations under the Affiliate Marketing Rule may use the alternative delivery method provided that it fulfills those notice and opt-out
obligations separately from the annual privacy notice.

Thanks, Kay Bee, my Dodd-Frank addled brain glossed right over that, even though it goes on for pages in the proposal!

Just wondering if anyone has any insight on when we might see a final rule for this?

We are starting to prepare for our annual mailing in December.....

I wouldn't recommend changing course at this point for 2014.

Thanks, Jay.....that's what I was thinking....was hoping MAYBE they'd come out with something before the end of the year....I know wishful thinking.....

I was hoping the same thing, but am preparing mine to go out this month. Wish I could save the money and use it for something else.

See this post. http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1970605#Post1970605

We have an affiliate with whom we share NPPI. My reading of the rule says that we can share NPPI with affiliates, but so long as we do not share credit history with the affiliate we can still opt out of the annual privacy notice requirement, and provide the alternative. Is that accurate?

Bump, final rule has been published for those who check this thread:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-10-28/pdf/2014-25299.pdf

Is the notice sent with the coupon book or billing statement to the primary borrower of a mortgage loan sufficient if there are other parites to the loan such as grantors?

Are you talking about the old privacy notice or the new alternative notification of availability?

There seem to be two camps on this based on the interpretation of the rule so the determination has to be made whether the notice can be separate or if it has to be ON the coupon.

Thank you. My question is related to the new alternative notification. We intend to proceed with the alternative notification and add an inserted notice with our coupon books and billing statements.

If by inserted you mean a stuffer in the same envelope, the talk I'm hearing is that is specifically not allowed.
The notice must be conspicuously placed ON the coupon or statement or notice required by law.

I posed this question to the CFPB yesterday and heard back this morning. The attorney who called mentioned that “on” and “with” are not synonyms, so a notice that is different from the statement or other disclosure used as the delivery vehicle won't necessarily work.

If the availability notice of the Privacy Disclosure will not fit within a statement/disclosure/coupon book it can be on a separate piece of paper under certain circumstances:

• Not a small slip of paper (a buckslip type, like selling things in a credit card statement, or some other type of info slipped into a folded statement). If it could be mistaken for an ad or some other extraneous information, it won’t work.

• The paper would have to be statement paper (same size, same paper stock, same style and font, etc.) so that it appears to be part of the statement or other disclosure being used as the delivery vehicle. If it is stapled to the statement, all the better, but not mandatory if it appears to be part of the statement.

I did not ask about every possible combination, of course. The notice just needs to appear to be PART OF what you are sending it with.

Anyone wanting to try something not obviously in keeping with the information in the final rule and analysis would be advised to get their own opinion from the CFPB. You can email questions to CFPB_reginquiries@cfpb.gov

We have added it as an additional 'coupon' page in our coupon books.

Can we send a 'postcard' type mailing to our customers who have only CD's or loans that do not receive coupon books? It would be a completely separate mailing, but just as a postcard.

The way I am reading this is that this process will be continuous throughout the year, not just a one time thing in, say, May of each year?

Is there an option to just mail a stand alone notice to customers?

I was reading it that we had to give them notice of the availability of the notice on our website at least annually, or provide the actual privacy notice to those types of account holders that I had mentioned above.

My take is no because the rule and the analysis state that the notice of availability has to be part of a document that the customer believes contains information about their account. But I am not the Privacy God. I would not try that without a regulatory opinion. The analysis section of the final rule publication states:

"The Bureau proposed to require that the notice of availability be included on a statement or notice required or otherwise permitted by law to ensure that customers were likely to read the underlying document on which the notice of availability is included. The Bureau believes that customers also have compelling reasons to read account statements and coupon books that directly concern the status of their existing accounts even if they are not required or otherwise
permitted by law. Accordingly, under the final rule, the Bureau is allowing a notice of availability included on an “account statement” or “coupon book” also to satisfy § 1016.9(c)(2)(ii)(A). An account statement would include periodic statements or billing statements not required or expressly and specifically permitted by law. The Bureau intends the term “account statement” to be flexible enough to cover documents provided to customers by a diverse array of financial institutions. In contrast, the Bureau is concerned that customers may not read advertisements or newsletters on the assumption that they do not specifically concern the customer’s existing account. The Bureau believes it would not be consumer-friendly to require customers to seek out and examine advertisements and newsletters to find the notice of availability."

Thank you Kathleen. I found it in the Federal Register after you pointed it out. No postcards.

I appreciate your help.