Affiliate Marketing Rule
| Published date | 22 September 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 59466 |
| Record Number | 2020-19174 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Trade Commission |
59466
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore: (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and, (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated, will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
■1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1 [Amended]
■2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations, and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:
Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.
* * * * *
AEA PA E2 DuBois, PA [Amended]
DuBois Regional Airport, PA
(Lat. 41°10′42″ N, long. 78°53′55″ W)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface within a 4.8-mile radius of DuBois
Regional Airport. This Class E airspace is
effective during the dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the
Chart Supplement.
Paragraph 6005. Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward from 700 feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *
AEA PA E5 DuBois, PA [Amended]
DuBois Regional Airport, PA
(Lat. 41°10′42″ N, long. 78°53′55″ W)
Penn Highland Healthcare-Dubois Heliport
Point In Space Coordinates
(Lat. 41°6′52″ N, long. 78°46′26″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface within a 9.2-
mile radius of DuBois Regional Airport and
within a 6-mile radius of the Point In Space
Coordinates serving Penn Highland
Healthcare-Dubois Heliport
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on
September 15, 2020.
Matthew N. Cathcart,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North,
Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020–20739 Filed 9–21–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 680
RIN 3084–AB63
Affiliate Marketing Rule
AGENCY
: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION
: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for public comment.
SUMMARY
: The Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
requests public comment on its Affiliate
Marketing Rule as part of the FTC’s
systematic review of all current
Commission regulations and guides. In
addition, the FTC is proposing to amend
the Rule to correspond to changes made
to the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(‘‘FCRA’’) by the Dodd-Frank Act.
DATES
: Written comments must be
received on or before December 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES
: Interested parties may file
comments online or on paper by
following the Request for Comment part
of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below. Write ‘‘Amendment to
the Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR
part 680, Project No. P205408’’ on your
comment and file your comment online
at https://www.regulations.gov by
following the instructions on the web-
based form. If you prefer to file your
comment on paper, mail your comment
to the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite
CC–5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC
20580, or deliver your comment to the
following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW,
5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B),
Washington, DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
David Lincicum (202–326–2773),
Division of Privacy and Identity
Protection, Bureau of Consumer
Protection, Federal Trade Commission,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
I. Background
A. The Affiliate Marketing Rule
The Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 (‘‘FACT Act’’)
was signed into law on December 4,
2003. Public Law 108–159, 117 Stat.
1952. Section 214 of the FACT Act
added a new section 624 to the FCRA.
This provision gives the consumer the
right to restrict a person from using
certain information obtained from an
affiliate to make solicitations to that
consumer. Section 624 generally
provides that if a person receives certain
consumer eligibility information from
an affiliate, the person may not use that
information to make solicitations to the
consumer about its products or services,
unless the consumer is given notice and
an opportunity (via a simple method) to
opt out of such use of the information,
and the consumer does not opt out. The
statute also provides that section 624
does not apply, for example, to a person
using eligibility information: (1) To
make solicitations to a consumer with
whom the person has a pre-existing
business relationship; (2) to perform
services for another affiliate subject to
certain conditions; (3) in response to a
communication initiated by the
consumer; or (4) to make a solicitation
that has been authorized or requested by
the consumer. Unlike the FCRA affiliate
sharing opt-out (15 U.S.C.
1681a(d)(2)(A)(iii)) and the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act (‘‘GLBA’’), 15 U.S.C.
6801 et seq., non-affiliate sharing opt-
out—both of which apply indefinitely—
section 624 provides that a consumer’s
affiliate marketing opt-out election must
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Sep 21, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM 22SEP1
59467
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
1
72 FR 61423 (October 30, 2007).
2
Public Law 111–203 (2010).
3
15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. The Dodd-Frank Act does
not transfer to the CFPB rulemaking authority for
section 615(e) of the FCRA (‘‘Red Flag Guidelines
and Regulations Required’’) and section 628 of the
FCRA (‘‘Disposal of Records’’). See 15 U.S.C.
1681s(e).
4
77 FR 22200 (April 13, 2012).
5
12 U.S.C. 5519.
6
77 FR 22200 (April 13, 2012).
7
Id.
8
12 CFR 1022.20–27. While there are no
substantive differences between the two rules, they
are organized differently and, in some cases, use
different examples. See, e.g., 12 CFR
1022.20(b)(4)(iii).
9
12 U.S.C. 5519.
10
Id.
be effective for a period of at least five
years. Upon expiration of the opt-out
period, the consumer must be given a
renewal notice and an opportunity to
renew the opt-out before information
received from an affiliate may be used
to make solicitations to the consumer.
The Federal Trade Commission
published regulations implementing
Section 624, the Affiliate Marketing
Rule, 16 CFR part 680, on October 30,
2007.
1
B. Dodd-Frank Act
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-
Frank Act’’) was signed into law in
2010.
2
The Dodd-Frank Act
substantially changed the federal legal
framework for financial services
providers. Among the changes, the
Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(‘‘CFPB’’) the Commission’s rulemaking
authority under portions of the FCRA.
3
Accordingly, in 2012, the Commission
rescinded several of its FCRA rules,
which had been replaced by rules
issued by the CFPB.
4
The FTC retained
rulemaking authority for other rules
promulgated under the Acts to the
extent the rules apply to motor vehicle
dealers described in section 1029(a) of
the Dodd-Frank Act
5
that are
predominantly engaged in the sale and
servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing
and servicing of motor vehicles, or both
(‘‘motor vehicle dealers’’).
6
The rules for
which the FTC retains rulemaking
authority include the Affiliate
Marketing Rule, which now applies
only to motor vehicle dealers.
7
Entities
that are not motor vehicle dealers are
covered by the CFPB’s Regulation V,
Subpart C, which is substantially
similar to the Commission’s Rule.
8
II. Technical Changes To Correspond to
Statutory Changes Resulting From the
Dodd-Frank Act
The Commission promulgated the
Affiliate Marketing Rule at a time when
it had rulemaking authority for a
broader group of entities. While the
Dodd-Frank Act did not change the
Commission’s enforcement authority for
the Affiliate Marketing Rule, it did
narrow the Commission’s rulemaking
authority with respect to the Rule. It
now covers only motor vehicle dealers.
The amendments in the Dodd-Frank Act
necessitate a technical revision to the
Affiliate Marketing Rule to ensure that
the regulation is consistent with the text
of the amended FCRA. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes to modify the
Affiliate Marketing Rule to properly
reflect the Rule’s scope.
The proposed amendment to
§ 680.1(b) narrows the scope description
of the Affiliate Marketing Rule to the
entities excluded from Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau jurisdiction
as described in the Dodd-Frank Act.
9
It
does so by replacing the broad term
‘‘person’’ with the term ‘‘motor vehicle
dealer,’’ as defined in amended § 680.3.
The proposed amendment to § 680.3
adds a definition of ‘‘motor vehicle
dealer’’ that defines motor vehicle
dealers as those entities excluded from
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
jurisdiction as described in the Dodd-
Frank Act.
10
Also, the proposed
amendments revise the term ‘‘you’’ (see
680.3(m)) to refer to a motor vehicle
dealer.
The proposed amendments do not
change the substantive provisions of the
Rule or the examples in the Rule, even
where those provisions and examples
involve entities other than motor
vehicle dealers that are covered by the
CFPB’s rule, rather than the
Commission’s Rule. The primary reason
for retaining these provisions and
examples is that the Rule addresses the
relationship between covered motor
vehicle dealers and their affiliates,
which may not be motor vehicle dealers.
The obligations and exceptions set forth
by the rule are inextricably linked to a
consumer’s relationship and actions in
relation to all affiliates, both motor
vehicle dealers and non-motor vehicle
dealers. In order for the Rule to apply
meaningfully, it must address both
types of entities, even those that are not
directly covered by the rule. This will
not create any conflict with the CFPB’s
corresponding rule, as the Commission’s
Affiliate Marketing Rule and the CFPB’s
rule are substantially similar and
impose the same obligations and
exceptions on entities that they cover.
III. Regulatory Review of the Affiliate
Marketing Rule
In addition to proposing the changes
described above, the Commission seeks
information about the costs and benefits
of the Rule, and its regulatory and
economic impact. Consistent with its
practice of reviewing all of its rules and
guides periodically, the Commission
seeks to ascertain whether changes in
technology, business models, or the law
warrant modification or rescission of the
Rule. As part of this review the
Commission solicits comments on,
among other things, the economic
impact and benefits of the Affiliate
Marketing Rule; possible conflict
between the Affiliate Marketing Rule
and state, local, or other federal laws or
regulations; and the effect on the
Affiliate Marketing Rule of any
technological, economic, or other
industry changes.
IV. Issues for Comment
The Commission requests written
comment on any or all of the following
questions. These questions are designed
to assist the public and should not be
construed as a limitation on the issues
about which public comments may be
submitted. The Commission requests
that responses to its questions be as
specific as possible, including a
reference to the question being
answered, and refer to empirical data or
other evidence upon which the
comment is based whenever available
and appropriate.
1. Is there a continuing need for
specific provisions of the Affiliate
Marketing Rule? Why or why not?
2. What benefits has the Affiliate
Marketing Rule provided to consumers?
What evidence supports the asserted
benefits?
3. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Affiliate Marketing Rule
to increase the benefits to consumers?
a. What evidence supports the
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the costs imposed by the Affiliate
Marketing Rule?
4. What significant costs, if any, has
the Affiliate Marketing Rule imposed on
consumers? What evidence supports the
asserted costs?
5. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Affiliate Marketing Rule
to reduce any costs imposed on
consumers?
a. What evidence supports the
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the benefits provided by the
Affiliate Marketing Rule?
6. What benefits, if any, has the
Affiliate Marketing Rule provided to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Sep 21, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM 22SEP1
59468
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
11
16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
businesses, including small businesses?
What evidence supports the asserted
benefits?
7. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Affiliate Marketing Rule
to increase its benefits to businesses,
including small businesses?
a. What evidence supports the
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the costs the Affiliate Marketing
Rule imposes on businesses, including
small businesses?
c. How would these modifications
affect the benefits to consumers?
8. What significant costs, if any,
including costs of compliance, has the
Affiliate Marketing Rule imposed on
businesses, including small businesses?
What evidence supports the asserted
costs?
9. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Affiliate Marketing Rule
to reduce the costs imposed on
businesses, including small businesses?
a. What evidence supports the
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the benefits provided by the
Affiliate Marketing Rule?
10. What evidence is available
concerning the degree of industry
compliance with the Affiliate Marketing
Rule?
11. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Affiliate Marketing Rule
to account for changes in relevant
technology or economic conditions?
What evidence supports the proposed
modifications?
12. Does the Affiliate Marketing Rule
overlap or conflict with other federal,
state, or local laws or regulations? If so,
how?
a. What evidence supports the
asserted conflicts?
b. With reference to the asserted
conflicts, should the Affiliate Marketing
Rule be modified? If so, why, and how?
If not, why not?
13. Should the Affiliate Marketing
Rule be amended to remove provisions
addressing circumstances that do not
apply, or typically do not apply, to
motor vehicle dealers?
14. Can the examples set forth in the
Affiliate Marketing Rule be further
amended to make them more helpful
and informative to motor vehicle
dealers? Would additional examples be
helpful, and if so, what examples?
Should examples that relate to types of
transactions that are not typical in the
motor vehicle context be removed?
15. The Commission proposes to
amend the Rule to reflect statutory
changes to the Rule’s scope. Are the
proposed modifications appropriate?
Should additional amendments be
made? Would these amendments create
conflicts with any other federal, state, or
local regulations or laws?
V. Request for Comment
You can file a comment online or on
paper. For the Commission to consider
your comment, we must receive it on or
before December 7, 2020. Write
‘‘Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR part
680, Project No. P205408’’ on the
comment. Your comment, including
your name and your state, will be
placed on the public record of this
proceeding, including the https://
www.regulations.gov website.
Because of the public health
emergency in response to the COVID–19
outbreak and the agency’s heightened
security screening, postal mail
addressed to the Commission will be
subject to delay. We strongly encourage
you to submit your comment online
through the https://www.regulations.gov
website. To ensure the Commission
considers your online comment, please
follow the instructions on the web-
based form provided by regulations.gov.
If you file your comment on paper,
write ‘‘Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR
part 680, Project No. P205408’’ on your
comment and on the envelope, and mail
your comment to the following address:
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex B),
Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your
comment to the following address:
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th
Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex
B), Washington, DC 20024. If possible,
please submit your paper comment to
the Commission by courier or overnight
service.
Because your comment will be placed
on the publicly accessible website,
https://www.regulations.gov, you are
solely responsible for making sure that
your comment does not include any
sensitive or confidential information. In
particular, your comment should not
include sensitive personal information,
such as your or anyone else’s Social
Security number, date of birth, driver’s
license number or other state
identification number or foreign country
equivalent, passport number, financial
account number, or credit or debit card
number. You are also solely responsible
for making sure that your comment does
not include any sensitive health
information, such as medical records or
other individually identifiable health
information. In addition, your comment
should not include any ‘‘trade secret or
any commercial or financial information
which . . . is privileged or
confidential,’’ as provided by section
6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and
FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2),
including in particular, competitively
sensitive information such as costs,
sales statistics, inventories, formulas,
patterns, devices, manufacturing
processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for
which confidential treatment is
requested must be filed in paper form,
must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’
and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c).
In particular, the written request for
confidential treatment that accompanies
the comment must include the factual
and legal basis for the request, and must
identify the specific portions of the
comment to be withheld from the public
record. Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the FTC General
Counsel grants your request in
accordance with the law and the public
interest. Once your comment has been
posted on https://www.regulations.gov,
we cannot redact or remove your
comment from that website, unless you
submit a confidentiality request that
meets the requirements for such
treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and
the General Counsel grants that request.
Visit the Commission website at
https://www.ftc.gov to read this
document and the news release
describing it. The FTC Act and other
laws that the Commission administers
permit the collection of public
comments to consider and use in this
proceeding as appropriate. The
Commission will consider all timely
and responsive public comments that it
receives on or before December 7, 2020.
For information on the Commission’s
privacy policy, including routine uses
permitted by the Privacy Act, see
https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/
privacy-policy.
VI. Communications by Outside Parties
to the Commissioners or Their Advisors
Written communications and
summaries or transcripts of oral
communications respecting the merits
of this proceeding, from any outside
party to any Commissioner or
Commissioner’s advisor, will be placed
on the public record.
11
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Affiliate Marketing Rule contains
information collection requirements as
defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the
definitional provision within the Office
of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’)
regulations that implement the
Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’).
OMB has approved the Rule’s existing
information collection requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Sep 21, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM 22SEP1
59469
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
12
5 U.S.C. 603–605.
13
The U.S. Small Business Administration Table
of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North
American Industry Classification System Codes
(NAICS) are generally expressed in either millions
of dollars or number of employees. A size standard
is the largest that a business can be and still qualify
as a small business for Federal Government
programs. For the most part, size standards are the
annual receipts or the average employment of a
firm. New car dealers (NAICS code 441100) are
classified as small if they have fewer than 200
employees. Used car dealers (NAICS code 441120)
are classified as small if their annual receipts are
$27 million or less. Recreational vehicle dealers,
boat dealers, motorcycle, ATV and all other motor
vehicle dealers (NAICS codes 441210, 441222 and
441228) are classified as small if their annual
receipts are $35 million or less. The 2019 Table of
Small Business Size Standards is available at
https://www.sba.gov/document/support—table-size-
standards.
through February 28, 2023 (OMB
Control No. 3084–0131). Under the
existing clearance, the FTC has
attributed to itself the estimated burden
regarding all motor vehicle dealers, and
it shares the remaining estimated PRA
burden equally with the CFPB for other
persons for which both agencies have
enforcement authority.
This proposal would amend 16 CFR
part 680. The proposed amendments do
not modify or add to information
collection requirements that were
previously approved by OMB. The
amendments make no substantive
changes to the Rule, other than to clarify
that the scope of the Rule is limited to
motor vehicle dealers. The Rule’s OMB
clearance already reflects that scope.
Therefore, the Commission does not
believe that the proposed amendments
would substantially or materially
modify any ‘‘collections of information’’
as defined by the PRA.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency
to provide an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) with a
proposed rule, or certify that the
proposed rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
12
The Commission does not
expect that this Rule, if adopted, would
have the threshold impact on small
entities. The Commission does not
expect the proposal to impose costs on
small motor vehicle dealers because the
amendments are primarily for
clarification purposes and should not
result in any increased burden on any
motor vehicle dealer. Thus, a small
entity that complies with current law
need not take any different or additional
action if the proposal is adopted.
Therefore, based on available
information, the Commission certifies
that amending the Affiliate Marketing
Rule as proposed will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses.
Although the Commission certifies
under the RFA that the proposed
amendment would not, if promulgated,
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
Commission has determined,
nonetheless, that it is appropriate to
publish an IRFA to inquire into the
impact of the proposed amendment on
small entities. Therefore, the
Commission has prepared the following
analysis:
A. Description of the Reasons for the
Proposed Rule
To address the Dodd-Frank Act’s
changes to the Commission’s
rulemaking authority, the Commission
proposes to clarify that the Rule applies
only to motor vehicle dealers.
B. Succinct Statement of the Objectives,
and Legal Basis For, the Proposed Rule
The objectives of the proposed Rule
are discussed above. The legal basis for
the proposed Rule is 15 U.S.C. 1681s–
3.
C. Description of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
Determining a precise estimate of the
number of small entities
13
to which the
Rule applies is not readily feasible.
Financial institutions covered by the
Rule include certain motor vehicle
dealers. A substantial number of these
entities likely qualify as small
businesses. The Commission estimates
that the proposed amendment will not
have a significant impact on small
businesses because it imposes no new
obligations.
D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements,
Including Classes of Covered Small
Entities and Professional Skills Needed
To Comply
The proposed amendments would
impose no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements. The small entities
potentially covered by the proposed
amendment will include all such
entities subject to the Rule.
E. Identification of Duplicative,
Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal
Rules
The Commission has not identified
any other federal statutes, rules, or
policies that would duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the proposed
amendment. Nonetheless, the
Commission is requesting comment on
the extent to which other federal
standards involving consumer
information may duplicate and/or
satisfy or possibly conflict with the
Rule’s requirements for any covered
financial institutions.
F. Description of Any Significant
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The Commission has not proposed
any specific small entity exemption or
other significant alternatives because
the proposed amendment would not
impose any new requirements or
compliance costs. Nonetheless, the
Commission welcomes comment on any
significant alternative consistent with
the FCRA that would minimize the
impact of the proposed Rule on small
entities.
IX. Proposed Rule Language
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 680
Consumer protection, Credit, Trade
practices.
For the reasons stated above, the
Federal Trade Commission proposes to
amend part 680 of title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 680—AFFILIATE MARKETING
■1. Revise the authority section for part
680 to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 108–159, sec. 311; 15
U.S.C.A. 1681s–3; 12 U.S.C. 5519(d).
■2. Revise § 680.1 paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
§ 680.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(b) Scope. This part applies to any
motor vehicle dealer as defined in
§ 680.3 that uses information from its
affiliates for the purpose of marketing
solicitations, or provides information to
its affiliates for that purpose.
■3. In § 680.3, redesignate paragraphs
(i) through(l) as paragraphs (j)
through(m) and add a new paragraph (i)
to read as follows:
§ 680.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
(i) Motor vehicle dealer. The term
‘‘motor vehicle dealer’’ means any
person excluded from Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau jurisdiction
as described in 12 U.S.C. 5519.
* * * * *
By direction of the Commission,
Commissioner Slaughter and Commissioner
Wilson not participating.
April J. Tabor,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020–19174 Filed 9–21–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Sep 21, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM 22SEP1
