From: Steve DeWitt
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Comments
Subject: Alternative Forms of Privacy Notices

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on possible revisions to the privacy notices required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

It seems interesting that the agencies want to spend more time on this issue. Our bank and  probably most other rural community banks have already spent a great deal of time and money on the development of the privacy notices currently used. Spending more time and money seems unnecessary.

More importantly, we feel the need to send our customers a new notice annually is an expense with little benefit to our customer. Privacy notices now come to customers from many sources and as a result, very few if any are now looked at. We would like to suggest that a notice continue to be given to the customer up front but thereafter only be sent if a change is made to a bank's existing notice. This method would be similar to requirements of other consumer regulations where redisclosing is only necessary when a change in account terms occurs.

Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Sincerely,

Steven DeWitt
Sr. Vice President and Cashier
The First State Bank of Burlingame
Burlingame, Kansas