|
Home > Regulation & Examinations > Laws & Regulations > FDIC Federal Register Citations |
|||
|
FDIC Federal Register Citations |
||
| September 6, 2002 Executive Secretary Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 550 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20429 Att: Comments/OES Re: Customer Identification Program Dear Sir/Madam: I am the Compliance Administrator for a small community bank located in northwestern New Jersey. Please accept this letter as a formal comment on the proposed regulations designed to implement Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act. These draft regulations were published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2002, with comments due by September 6, 2002. Our Bank has adopted and is using enhanced due diligence procedures similar to those outlined in the draft regulations in order to ascertain and verify the identity of its customers. Thus, except for the fact that the draft regulations will necessarily require that our procedures be recodified and approved by our Board of Directors, these proposals will have a limited effect on our actual operations. My concern with the draft regulations is with the way the verification provisions are drafted. The draft provides that the program must contain procedures describing when the bank will verify identity through documents and set forth the documents the bank will use for that purpose. That is fine, and if the draft stopped there, I would not be writing. The draft goes further, however. It gives, "as an example", an unexpired government-issue photo i.d., and that is the core of my concern. By giving "an example", the regulation lends itself to interpreting the "example" as a firm and unwaivable command. Since there are people who do not have photo i.d, and who, for a variety of. reasons unrelated to security concerns, may not need or desire to obtain such i.d., such a requirement, express or implied, that such i.d. is necessary in order to open a bank account may serve to exclude such persons from having access to banking services. Such a result makes no sense. While the PATRIOT Act requires that banks take extra steps to verify their customers' identity, there are, and must necessarily be, limits to such efforts. With the possible exception of fingerprints or retinal scans, there is no form of identification which cannot be forged or compromised, if that is the goal or intention of the individual. The minimal (at best) gain in security which may flow from requiring photo i.d. to open a bank account is more than offset by the inconvenience in excluding persons from the banking system not because of who they are or what they may do, but simply because they do not have or wish to have a photo i.d. Thus, in promulgating the final regulations, I urge that the draft be modified by deleting the "examples", and leaving it to the banks to devise and designate what documents they will use. This will satisfy the statutory requirements and give the banks enough flexibility to structure their programs to service their customers, all without compromising security. Thus, Sec. 103.121(b)(4)(iii)(A) should be revised to read: The Customer Identification Program must contain procedures describing when the bank will verify identity through documents and setting forth the documents that the bank will use for this purpose. Thank you for considering this comment. Richard A. Fifield Skylands Community Bank Hackettstown, NJ. |
| Last Updated 09/11/2002 | regs@fdic.gov |