This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
Proposed Rules Federal Register
13143
Vol. 84, No. 65
Thursday, April 4, 2019
1 See Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance
Determination, 81 FR 87734 (Dec. 5, 2016); 12 CFR
part 370.
2 The Recordkeeping Rule generally applies to
IDIs that have 2 million or more deposit accounts.
12 CFR 370.2(c).
3 Insured depository institutions that are not
subject to the Recordkeeping Rule are not required
to perform Legacy Data Cleanup, but may choose to
do so to provide added certainty regarding deposit
insurance coverage to their depositors.
4 12 U.S.C. 1819(Tenth); 1820(g).
5 12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1).
6 12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(B), (C).
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 330
RIN 3064–AF04
Joint Ownership Deposit Accounts
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seeking
comment on a proposed rule that would
amend the regulation governing one of
the requirements for an account to be
separately insured as a joint account.
Specifically, the proposed rule would
provide an alternative method to satisfy
the ‘‘signature card’’ requirement. Under
the proposal, the ‘‘signature card’’
requirement could be satisfied by
information contained in the deposit
account records of the insured
depository institution establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account, such
as evidence that the institution has
issued a mechanism for accessing the
account to each co-owner or evidence of
usage of the deposit account by each co-
owner.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
May 6, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the notice of proposed rulemaking
using any of the following methods:
• Agency Website: https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the agency website.
• Email: comments@fdic.gov. Include
RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject line of
the message.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
Include RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject
line of the letter.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Comments
may be hand delivered to the guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street
Building (located on F Street) on
business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Include RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject
line of the letter.
• Public Inspection: All comments
received, including any personal
information provided, will be posted
generally without change to https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Watts, Counsel, Legal Division,
(202) 898–6678, jwatts@fdic.gov; Teresa
Franks, Associate Director, Division of
Resolutions and Receiverships, (571)
858–8226, tfranks@fdic.gov; Martin
Becker, Chief, Deposit Insurance,
Division of Depositor and Consumer
Protection, (202) 898–7207, mbecker@
fdic.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Policy Objectives
The FDIC is proposing to amend its
regulation governing the requirements
for a deposit account to be insured as a
joint account, 12 CFR 330.9, and
specifically, the requirement that each
co-owner of a joint account has
personally signed a deposit account
signature card. The FDIC periodically
receives inquiries regarding this
requirement. Those inquiries have
increased following the issuance of a
rule (Recordkeeping Rule) 1 that requires
certain large insured depository
institutions (covered institutions) to
configure their information technology
systems to be capable of calculating
insurance coverage for deposit accounts
in the event of the institution’s failure.
The Recordkeeping Rule has introduced
an element of pre-judgment involving
identification of account categories and
satisfaction of recordkeeping
requirements for the institutions subject
to that Rule.2 In particular, for purposes
of that Rule, covered institutions are
required to review their records and
update missing and erroneous deposit
account information (Legacy Data
Cleanup).3 As part of the Legacy Data
Cleanup, covered institutions must
obtain signature cards for owners of
accounts with multiple co-owners that
are missing one or more required
signature cards (affected joint accounts).
Staff at the FDIC has engaged in
discussions with these covered
institutions as part of the
implementation process, and these
discussions have brought to light certain
issues concerning the application of the
signature card requirement, leading the
FDIC to reconsider the methods by
which joint ownership may be
established for purposes of deposit
insurance.
The proposed rule is intended to
reduce the regulatory burden associated
with obtaining deposit account
signature cards for all insured
depository institutions (IDIs). For
covered institutions (i.e., IDIs subject to
the Recordkeeping Rule) discussed
above, the proposed rule also would
reduce the burden of obtaining signature
cards for owners of affected joint
accounts. The proposed rule is intended
to facilitate the prompt payment of
deposit insurance in the event of an
IDI’s failure by providing alternative
methods that the FDIC could use to
determine the owners of joint accounts,
consistent with its statutory authority.
These changes would promote
confidence in FDIC-insured deposits.
Finally, the proposal embodies a
forward-looking approach that would
permit the use of new and innovative
technologies and processes to meet the
FDIC’s policy objectives.
Background: Current Regulatory
Approach
The FDIC is authorized to prescribe
rules and regulations as it may deem
necessary to carry out the provisions of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI
Act).4 Under the FDI Act, the FDIC is
responsible for paying deposit insurance
in the event of an IDI’s failure up to the
standard maximum deposit insurance
amount, which is currently set at
$250,000.5 The statute provides that
deposits maintained by each depositor
in the same capacity and the same right
at the same IDI generally must be
aggregated and insured up to the
standard maximum deposit insurance
amount.6 Because the statute does not
define ‘‘capacity’’ or ‘‘right,’’ the FDIC
has implemented these terms by issuing
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Apr 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM 04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
Proposed Rules Federal Register
13143
Vol. 84, No. 65
Thursday, April 4, 2019
1 See Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance
Determination, 81 FR 87734 (Dec. 5, 2016); 12 CFR
part 370.
2 The Recordkeeping Rule generally applies to
IDIs that have 2 million or more deposit accounts.
12 CFR 370.2(c).
3 Insured depository institutions that are not
subject to the Recordkeeping Rule are not required
to perform Legacy Data Cleanup, but may choose to
do so to provide added certainty regarding deposit
insurance coverage to their depositors.
4 12 U.S.C. 1819(Tenth); 1820(g).
5 12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1).
6 12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(B), (C).
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 330
RIN 3064–AF04
Joint Ownership Deposit Accounts
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is seeking
comment on a proposed rule that would
amend the regulation governing one of
the requirements for an account to be
separately insured as a joint account.
Specifically, the proposed rule would
provide an alternative method to satisfy
the ‘‘signature card’’ requirement. Under
the proposal, the ‘‘signature card’’
requirement could be satisfied by
information contained in the deposit
account records of the insured
depository institution establishing co-
ownership of the deposit account, such
as evidence that the institution has
issued a mechanism for accessing the
account to each co-owner or evidence of
usage of the deposit account by each co-
owner.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until
May 6, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the notice of proposed rulemaking
using any of the following methods:
• Agency Website: https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the agency website.
• Email: comments@fdic.gov. Include
RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject line of
the message.
• Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive
Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.
Include RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject
line of the letter.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Comments
may be hand delivered to the guard
station at the rear of the 550 17th Street
Building (located on F Street) on
business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Include RIN 3064–AF04 on the subject
line of the letter.
• Public Inspection: All comments
received, including any personal
information provided, will be posted
generally without change to https://
www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Watts, Counsel, Legal Division,
(202) 898–6678, jwatts@fdic.gov; Teresa
Franks, Associate Director, Division of
Resolutions and Receiverships, (571)
858–8226, tfranks@fdic.gov; Martin
Becker, Chief, Deposit Insurance,
Division of Depositor and Consumer
Protection, (202) 898–7207, mbecker@
fdic.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Policy Objectives
The FDIC is proposing to amend its
regulation governing the requirements
for a deposit account to be insured as a
joint account, 12 CFR 330.9, and
specifically, the requirement that each
co-owner of a joint account has
personally signed a deposit account
signature card. The FDIC periodically
receives inquiries regarding this
requirement. Those inquiries have
increased following the issuance of a
rule (Recordkeeping Rule) 1 that requires
certain large insured depository
institutions (covered institutions) to
configure their information technology
systems to be capable of calculating
insurance coverage for deposit accounts
in the event of the institution’s failure.
The Recordkeeping Rule has introduced
an element of pre-judgment involving
identification of account categories and
satisfaction of recordkeeping
requirements for the institutions subject
to that Rule.2 In particular, for purposes
of that Rule, covered institutions are
required to review their records and
update missing and erroneous deposit
account information (Legacy Data
Cleanup).3 As part of the Legacy Data
Cleanup, covered institutions must
obtain signature cards for owners of
accounts with multiple co-owners that
are missing one or more required
signature cards (affected joint accounts).
Staff at the FDIC has engaged in
discussions with these covered
institutions as part of the
implementation process, and these
discussions have brought to light certain
issues concerning the application of the
signature card requirement, leading the
FDIC to reconsider the methods by
which joint ownership may be
established for purposes of deposit
insurance.
The proposed rule is intended to
reduce the regulatory burden associated
with obtaining deposit account
signature cards for all insured
depository institutions (IDIs). For
covered institutions (i.e., IDIs subject to
the Recordkeeping Rule) discussed
above, the proposed rule also would
reduce the burden of obtaining signature
cards for owners of affected joint
accounts. The proposed rule is intended
to facilitate the prompt payment of
deposit insurance in the event of an
IDI’s failure by providing alternative
methods that the FDIC could use to
determine the owners of joint accounts,
consistent with its statutory authority.
These changes would promote
confidence in FDIC-insured deposits.
Finally, the proposal embodies a
forward-looking approach that would
permit the use of new and innovative
technologies and processes to meet the
FDIC’s policy objectives.
Background: Current Regulatory
Approach
The FDIC is authorized to prescribe
rules and regulations as it may deem
necessary to carry out the provisions of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI
Act).4 Under the FDI Act, the FDIC is
responsible for paying deposit insurance
in the event of an IDI’s failure up to the
standard maximum deposit insurance
amount, which is currently set at
$250,000.5 The statute provides that
deposits maintained by each depositor
in the same capacity and the same right
at the same IDI generally must be
aggregated and insured up to the
standard maximum deposit insurance
amount.6 Because the statute does not
define ‘‘capacity’’ or ‘‘right,’’ the FDIC
has implemented these terms by issuing
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Apr 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM 04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
13144 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 65 / Thursday, April 4, 2019 / Proposed Rules
7 See 12 CFR part 330.
8 12 CFR 330.9(a).
9 12 CFR 330.9(c)(1). The signature card
requirement does not apply to certificates of
deposit, deposits evidenced by negotiable
instruments, or accounts maintained by an agent,
nominee, guardian, or conservator on behalf of two
or more persons. 12 CFR 330.9(c)(2).
10 12 CFR 330.9(d).
11 See 32 FR 10408, 10409 (July 14, 1967) (‘‘A
joint deposit account shall be deemed to exist, for
purposes of insurance of accounts, only if each co-
owner has personally executed a deposit account
signature card and possesses withdrawal rights.’’)
12 The FDIC stated that its purpose was to ‘‘carry
out the concept of limited insurance coverage
intended by Federal deposit insurance,’’ and it
interpreted the FDI Act to ‘‘limit the various devices
commonly used to increase such coverage beyond
that meant to be provided by law.’’ 32 FR 10408
(July 14, 1967).
13 See, e.g., 55 FR 20111, 20113 (May 15, 1990).
14 See FDIC Financial Institution Employee’s
Guide to Deposit Insurance, 2016 ed., at 34.
15 See 12 CFR 330.5.
16 Public Law 106–229; 15 U.S.C. 7001(a).
regulations recognizing particular
categories of accounts, such as single
ownership accounts and joint
ownership accounts.7 If a deposit meets
the requirements for a particular
category, the deposit is insured up to
the $250,000 limit separately from
deposits held by the depositor in a
different category at the same IDI. For
example, deposits in the single
ownership category will be separately
insured from deposits in the joint
ownership category held by the same
depositor at the same IDI.
Section 330.9 of the FDIC’s
regulations governs insurance coverage
for joint ownership accounts. Joint
ownership accounts include deposit
accounts held pursuant to various forms
of co-ownership under state law. For
example, joint tenants could each hold
an equal, undivided interest in a deposit
account. Section 330.9 provides that
only ‘‘qualifying joint accounts’’
(whether owned as joint tenants with
the right of survivorship, as tenants in
common, or as tenants by the entirety)
are insured separately from
individually-owned deposit accounts
maintained by the co-owners.8
‘‘Qualifying joint accounts’’ generally
must satisfy three requirements: (1) All
co-owners of the funds in the account
are ‘‘natural persons,’’ as defined in
section 330.1(l) of the regulations; (2)
each co-owner has personally signed a
deposit account signature card; and (3)
each co-owner possesses withdrawal
rights on the same basis.9 If a joint
deposit account is not a qualifying joint
account, each co-owner’s actual
ownership interest in the account is
aggregated with other single ownership
accounts of such individual or other
accounts of such entity.10 This may
result in some uninsured deposits if a
depositor’s single ownership accounts at
the same IDI, including deposits in any
non-qualifying joint accounts, exceed
$250,000.
The requirement that each co-owner
of a joint account has personally signed
a deposit account signature card
(signature card requirement) in order for
the account to be insured as a joint
account has been included in the
regulation governing insurance coverage
since 1967.11 This requirement was
intended to address practices such as
the addition of nominal co-owners to an
account solely to increase deposit
insurance coverage.12 The FDIC has
periodically considered whether the
signature card requirement should be
eliminated, but retained the
requirement, concluding that signature
cards are reliable indicators of deposit
ownership.13 The FDIC continues to
view the signature card requirement as
important to ensuring consistency with
the FDI Act, which expressly limits the
amount of deposit insurance coverage
available to each depositor at a
particular IDI based on the right and
capacity in which funds are held.
Neither the FDI Act nor the FDIC’s
regulations define the term ‘‘signature
card.’’ FDIC staff has taken the position
that section 330.9 does not require any
particular format for a deposit account
signature card. Therefore, staff has
previously concluded that IDIs may
satisfy the requirement through various
forms of documentation used in their
account opening processes. For
example, staff has concluded that a
deposit account agreement signed by
each of an account’s co-owners would
satisfy the signature card requirement.
Published guidance also states that
electronic signatures satisfy the
requirement.14
Description of the Proposed Rule
The FDIC is proposing to amend
section 330.9 to provide an alternative
method to satisfy the signature card
requirement. The proposed rule would
allow the signature card requirement to
be satisfied by information contained in
the deposit account records of the IDI
establishing co-ownership of the deposit
account, such as evidence that the
institution has issued a mechanism for
accessing the account to each co-owner
or evidence of usage of the deposit
account by each co-owner. For example,
under this proposal, the requirement
could be satisfied by evidence that an
IDI has issued a debit card to each co-
owner of the account or evidence that
each co-owner of the account has
transacted using the deposit account.
These examples, however, are not
intended to define the only forms of
evidence of co-ownership that could
satisfy the signature card requirement.
The proposed rule only would affect
a requirement in the FDIC’s regulations
that must be satisfied for a deposit
account to be separately insured as a
joint account; it would not affect any
other legal requirements applicable to
IDIs. IDIs may, for legal or other reasons,
find it appropriate or necessary to
continue collecting customers’
signatures.
The proposed rule also would not
affect the general provisions contained
in the FDIC’s deposit insurance
regulations regarding recognition of
deposit ownership.15 These general
rules concerning recognition of deposit
ownership would continue to apply to
all deposit accounts, including joint
accounts.
The proposed rule would not
introduce new requirements with
respect to the requirements for an
account to be insured as a joint account,
and would not reduce or affect
insurance coverage for any account for
which the existing joint account
requirements are satisfied. The
proposed rule simply would provide an
alternative method to satisfy the existing
signature card requirement. If each co-
owner of a joint account signs, or has
previously signed, a deposit account
signature card in accordance with the
existing requirement, the alternative
method provided by the proposed rule
would be unnecessary. Assuming that
the remaining joint account
requirements are satisfied—that is, all
co-owners of the account are natural
persons and possess equal withdrawal
rights—the account would be insured as
a joint account.
The FDIC is also proposing a
conforming amendment to section 330.9
consistent with the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act (E-Sign Act).16
Specifically, the FDIC proposes to
amend the regulation to state expressly
that the signature card requirement may
be satisfied electronically. The current
requirement that each depositor has
personally signed a deposit account
signature card would be amended to
require that each depositor has
personally signed, which may include
signing electronically, a deposit account
signature card. This amendment would
clarify for IDIs and depositors the
manner in which the signature card
requirement may be satisfied, and is
consistent with published guidance and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Apr 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM 04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
7 See 12 CFR part 330.
8 12 CFR 330.9(a).
9 12 CFR 330.9(c)(1). The signature card
requirement does not apply to certificates of
deposit, deposits evidenced by negotiable
instruments, or accounts maintained by an agent,
nominee, guardian, or conservator on behalf of two
or more persons. 12 CFR 330.9(c)(2).
10 12 CFR 330.9(d).
11 See 32 FR 10408, 10409 (July 14, 1967) (‘‘A
joint deposit account shall be deemed to exist, for
purposes of insurance of accounts, only if each co-
owner has personally executed a deposit account
signature card and possesses withdrawal rights.’’)
12 The FDIC stated that its purpose was to ‘‘carry
out the concept of limited insurance coverage
intended by Federal deposit insurance,’’ and it
interpreted the FDI Act to ‘‘limit the various devices
commonly used to increase such coverage beyond
that meant to be provided by law.’’ 32 FR 10408
(July 14, 1967).
13 See, e.g., 55 FR 20111, 20113 (May 15, 1990).
14 See FDIC Financial Institution Employee’s
Guide to Deposit Insurance, 2016 ed., at 34.
15 See 12 CFR 330.5.
16 Public Law 106–229; 15 U.S.C. 7001(a).
regulations recognizing particular
categories of accounts, such as single
ownership accounts and joint
ownership accounts.7 If a deposit meets
the requirements for a particular
category, the deposit is insured up to
the $250,000 limit separately from
deposits held by the depositor in a
different category at the same IDI. For
example, deposits in the single
ownership category will be separately
insured from deposits in the joint
ownership category held by the same
depositor at the same IDI.
Section 330.9 of the FDIC’s
regulations governs insurance coverage
for joint ownership accounts. Joint
ownership accounts include deposit
accounts held pursuant to various forms
of co-ownership under state law. For
example, joint tenants could each hold
an equal, undivided interest in a deposit
account. Section 330.9 provides that
only ‘‘qualifying joint accounts’’
(whether owned as joint tenants with
the right of survivorship, as tenants in
common, or as tenants by the entirety)
are insured separately from
individually-owned deposit accounts
maintained by the co-owners.8
‘‘Qualifying joint accounts’’ generally
must satisfy three requirements: (1) All
co-owners of the funds in the account
are ‘‘natural persons,’’ as defined in
section 330.1(l) of the regulations; (2)
each co-owner has personally signed a
deposit account signature card; and (3)
each co-owner possesses withdrawal
rights on the same basis.9 If a joint
deposit account is not a qualifying joint
account, each co-owner’s actual
ownership interest in the account is
aggregated with other single ownership
accounts of such individual or other
accounts of such entity.10 This may
result in some uninsured deposits if a
depositor’s single ownership accounts at
the same IDI, including deposits in any
non-qualifying joint accounts, exceed
$250,000.
The requirement that each co-owner
of a joint account has personally signed
a deposit account signature card
(signature card requirement) in order for
the account to be insured as a joint
account has been included in the
regulation governing insurance coverage
since 1967.11 This requirement was
intended to address practices such as
the addition of nominal co-owners to an
account solely to increase deposit
insurance coverage.12 The FDIC has
periodically considered whether the
signature card requirement should be
eliminated, but retained the
requirement, concluding that signature
cards are reliable indicators of deposit
ownership.13 The FDIC continues to
view the signature card requirement as
important to ensuring consistency with
the FDI Act, which expressly limits the
amount of deposit insurance coverage
available to each depositor at a
particular IDI based on the right and
capacity in which funds are held.
Neither the FDI Act nor the FDIC’s
regulations define the term ‘‘signature
card.’’ FDIC staff has taken the position
that section 330.9 does not require any
particular format for a deposit account
signature card. Therefore, staff has
previously concluded that IDIs may
satisfy the requirement through various
forms of documentation used in their
account opening processes. For
example, staff has concluded that a
deposit account agreement signed by
each of an account’s co-owners would
satisfy the signature card requirement.
Published guidance also states that
electronic signatures satisfy the
requirement.14
Description of the Proposed Rule
The FDIC is proposing to amend
section 330.9 to provide an alternative
method to satisfy the signature card
requirement. The proposed rule would
allow the signature card requirement to
be satisfied by information contained in
the deposit account records of the IDI
establishing co-ownership of the deposit
account, such as evidence that the
institution has issued a mechanism for
accessing the account to each co-owner
or evidence of usage of the deposit
account by each co-owner. For example,
under this proposal, the requirement
could be satisfied by evidence that an
IDI has issued a debit card to each co-
owner of the account or evidence that
each co-owner of the account has
transacted using the deposit account.
These examples, however, are not
intended to define the only forms of
evidence of co-ownership that could
satisfy the signature card requirement.
The proposed rule only would affect
a requirement in the FDIC’s regulations
that must be satisfied for a deposit
account to be separately insured as a
joint account; it would not affect any
other legal requirements applicable to
IDIs. IDIs may, for legal or other reasons,
find it appropriate or necessary to
continue collecting customers’
signatures.
The proposed rule also would not
affect the general provisions contained
in the FDIC’s deposit insurance
regulations regarding recognition of
deposit ownership.15 These general
rules concerning recognition of deposit
ownership would continue to apply to
all deposit accounts, including joint
accounts.
The proposed rule would not
introduce new requirements with
respect to the requirements for an
account to be insured as a joint account,
and would not reduce or affect
insurance coverage for any account for
which the existing joint account
requirements are satisfied. The
proposed rule simply would provide an
alternative method to satisfy the existing
signature card requirement. If each co-
owner of a joint account signs, or has
previously signed, a deposit account
signature card in accordance with the
existing requirement, the alternative
method provided by the proposed rule
would be unnecessary. Assuming that
the remaining joint account
requirements are satisfied—that is, all
co-owners of the account are natural
persons and possess equal withdrawal
rights—the account would be insured as
a joint account.
The FDIC is also proposing a
conforming amendment to section 330.9
consistent with the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act (E-Sign Act).16
Specifically, the FDIC proposes to
amend the regulation to state expressly
that the signature card requirement may
be satisfied electronically. The current
requirement that each depositor has
personally signed a deposit account
signature card would be amended to
require that each depositor has
personally signed, which may include
signing electronically, a deposit account
signature card. This amendment would
clarify for IDIs and depositors the
manner in which the signature card
requirement may be satisfied, and is
consistent with published guidance and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:38 Apr 03, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04APP1.SGM 04APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS