Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58861

(14 CFR) part 73 (part 73) to establish 

R–2507E, Chocolate Mountains, CA, as 

part of a USMC training initiative. The 

USMC has requested the establishment 

of this airspace to support its CAS 

within the Chocolate Mountains Range. 

The proposed R–2507E will be 

contiguous with the existing R–2507S, 

extending from the surface to flight level 

(FL) 400 and will encompass a portion 

of the Abel North MOA. The proposed 

time of designation will be from 0700 to 

2300 hours daily. Since the Chocolate 

Mountains Range complex is joint-use 

airspace, the restricted areas would only 

be scheduled when needed for training, 

and would be available for transit by 

non-participating aircraft when not in 

use. 

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. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation: (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 so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this 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 the 

appropriate environmental analysis in 

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

Policies and Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts, prior to any 

FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as 

follows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 73.25 [Amended] 

2. § 73.25 is amended as follows:

* * * * *

R–2507E Chocolate Mountains, CA [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33°17′06′′ N., 

long. 115°04′ 35′′ W., to lat. 33°14′26′′ N., 

long. 114°59′ 00′′ W., to lat. 33°14′26′′ N., 

long. 114°56′ 35′′ W., to lat. 33°10′21′′ N., 

long. 114°56′ 26′′ W., to lat. 33°08′45′′ N., 

long. 114°56′ 43′′ W. 

Designated altitudes. Surface to FL 400. 

Time of designation. 0700–2300 local daily 

other times by NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Los Angeles 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. Commanding Officer, USMC 

Air Station, Yuma, AZ.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

24, 2004. 

Reginald C. Matthews, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules.

[FR Doc. 04–22020 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 642 and 698 

RIN 3084–AA94 

Prescreen Opt-Out Disclosure

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The recently enacted Fair and 

Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 

2003 (FACT Act or the Act) directs the 

FTC, in consultation with the federal 

banking agencies and the National 

Credit Union Administration, to adopt a 

rule to improve the required notice to 

consumers regarding their right to opt 

out of prescreened solicitations for 

credit or insurance. In this action, the 

FTC is proposing, and seeking comment 

on, a proposed Rule that would 

implement this requirement of the 

FACT Act. In addition, the FTC is 

proposing model forms that creditors 

and insurers may use to comply with 

the Rule.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before October 28, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘FACTA 

Prescreen Rule, Project No. R411010’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

A comment filed in paper form should 

include this reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and should be 

mailed to the following address: Federal 

Trade Commission, FACTA Prescreen 

Rule, Post Office Box 1030, Merrifield, 

VA 22116–1030. Please note that courier 

and overnight deliveries cannot be 

accepted at this address. Courier and 

overnight deliveries should be delivered 

to the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission/Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–159 (Annex R), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form, as explained in the 

Supplementary Information section. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by clicking on the 

following weblink: https://

secure.commentworks.com/

ftcprescreen/ and following the 

instructions on the web-based form. To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the web-based form at the https://

secure.commentworks.com/

ftcprescreen/ weblink. You may also 

visit http://www.regulations.gov to read 

this proposed Rule, and may file an 

electronic comment through that Web 

site. The Commission will consider all 

comments that regulations.gov forwards 

to it. 

Comments on any proposed filing, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements that are subject to 

paperwork burden review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act should be 

submitted to the FTC as indicated 

above, and should additionally be 

submitted to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Federal Trade 

Commission. Comments should be 

submitted via facsimile to (202) 395–

6974 because U.S. postal mail at the 

Office of Management and Budget is 

subject to lengthy delays due to 

heightened security precautions. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments received by the 

Commission, whether filed in paper or 

in electronic form, will be considered by 

the Commission, and will be available 

to the public on the FTC Web site, to the 

extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a 

matter of discretion, the FTC makes 

every effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from public 

comments it receives before placing 

those comments on the FTC Web site. 

More information, including routine 

uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may 

be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanne-Marie Burke or Kellie A. 

Cosgrove, Attorneys, Division of 

Financial Practices, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

58862 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1See 16 CFR 313.3(b)(2) (financial privacy rule; 

examples of how a notice can be made to be 

‘‘reasonably understandable’’); see also 69 FR 

33324, 33327 (June 15, 2004) (notice of proposed 

affiliate marketing rule; examples of ‘‘reasonably 

understandable’’).

2 G. Ray Funkhouser, An Empirical Study of 

Consumers’ Sensitivity to the Wording of 

Affirmative Disclosure Messages, 3 J. Pub. Pol. & 

Mktg. 26 (1984). Comment #2 on Interagency 

Proposal to Consider Alternative Forms of Privacy 

Notices Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 

Hunton & Williams (The Center for Information 

Policy Leadership) (available at http://www.ftc.gov/

os/comments/glbaltprivacynotices/03–31992–

0002.pdf).

3See Id.; Comment #24 on Interagency Proposal 

to Consider Alternative Forms of Privacy Notices 

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Peter Swire 

(available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/

glbaltprivacynotices/03–31992–0024.pdf).

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–

3224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Section-by-Section Analysis of Proposed 

Rule 

A. Purpose and Scope 

B. Definitions 

C. Prescreen Opt-Out Notices 

D. Effective Date 

E. Model Prescreen Opt-Out Notices 

III. Summary of Consumer Study 

A. Overview 

B. Key Findings

1. Opt-out Messages 

2. Ancillary Messages 

IV. Invitation To Comment 

V. Communications by Outside Parties to 

Commissioners and Their Advisors 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Description of the Reasons That Action 

by the Agency Is Being Considered 

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal 

Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

C. Small Entities To Which the Proposed 

Rule Will Apply 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 

Other Compliance Requirements 

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting 

Federal Rules 

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed 

Rule 

VIII. Questions for Comment on the Proposed 

Rule

I. Introduction 

Section 615(d) of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (FCRA) requires that any 

person who uses a consumer report in 

order to make an unsolicited firm offer 

of credit or insurance to the consumer, 

shall provide with each written 

solicitation a clear and conspicuous 

statement that:

(A) Information contained in the 

consumer’s consumer report was used in 

connection with the transaction; (B) the 

consumer received the offer of credit or 

insurance because the consumer satisfied the 

criteria for credit worthiness or insurability 

under which the consumer was selected for 

the offer; (C) if applicable, the credit or 

insurance may not be extended if, after the 

consumer responds to the offer, the consumer 

does not meet the criteria used to select the 

consumer for the offer or any applicable 

criteria bearing on credit worthiness or 

insurability or does not furnish any required 

collateral; (D) the consumer has a right to 

prohibit information contained in the 

consumer’s file with any consumer reporting 

agency from being used in connection with 

any credit or insurance transaction that is not 

initiated by the consumer; and (E) the 

consumer may exercise the right referred to 

in subparagraph (D) by notifying a 

notification system established under section 

604(e) [of the FCRA].

Section 615(d)(1) of the FCRA [15 U.S.C. 

1681m(d)(1)].

The Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–

159, 117 Stat. 1952 (FACT Act or the 

Act) was signed into law on December 

4, 2003. Section 213(a) of the FACT Act 

amends FCRA Section 615(d) to require 

that the statement mandated by Section 

615(d) ‘‘be presented in such format and 

in such type size and manner as to be 

simple and easy to understand, as 

established by the Commission, by rule, 

in consultation with the Federal 

banking agencies and the National 

Credit Union Administration.’’

Therefore, having consulted with the 

federal banking agencies and the 

National Credit Union Association, the 

FTC proposes the following rule.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis of 

Proposed Rule 

This proposed Rule carries out the 

Commission’s mandate to improve 

prescreen notices so that they are simple 

and easy to understand. There are two 

components to making a notice simple 

and easy to understand: (1) Language 

and syntax that effectively convey the 

intended message to readers; and (2) 

presentation and format that call 

attention to the notice and enhance its 

readability. The proposed Rule 

establishes certain baseline 

requirements for these two components 

to ensure that the notices meet the 

statutory mandate. Within that broad 

framework, however, the proposed Rule 

provides flexibility to those making 

prescreened offers in designing their 

specific disclosures. The determination 

of whether a notice meets the ‘‘simple 

and easy to understand’’ standard is 

based on the totality of the disclosure 

and the manner in which it is presented, 

not on any single factor. The proposed 

Rule also provides a model disclosure to 

aid companies’ compliance. 

The proposed Rule: (1) Sets forth the 

purpose and scope of the Rule; (2) 

defines ‘‘simple and easy to 

understand’’; (3) requires a layered 

notice consisting of an initial, 

prominent statement that provides basic 

opt-out information, and a separate 

longer explanation that offers further 

details; (4) sets an effective date for the 

Rule; and (5) proposes model notices 

that may be used for compliance with 

the Rule and the FCRA. 

A. Purpose and Scope 

Proposed paragraph 642.1 sets forth 

the purpose and scope of the proposed 

Rule. Section 615(d) of the FCRA and 

this proposed Rule apply to any person 

who uses a consumer report on any 

consumer in connection with any credit 

or insurance transaction that is not 

initiated by the consumer, pursuant to 

Section 604(c) of the FCRA [15 U.S.C. 

1681b(c)]. 

B. Definitions 

Proposed paragraph 642.2 contains a 

definition for ‘‘simple and easy to 

understand,’’ the term used by Section 

213(a) of the FACT Act. 

Subparagraph (a) defines ‘‘simple and 

easy to understand’’ to mean plain 

language designed to be understandable 

to ordinary consumers. Factors to be 

considered in determining whether a 

statement is simple and easy to 

understand are provided. These factors 

generally are consistent with those cited 

in other recent rulemaking proceedings 

requiring understandable consumer 

notices.1 Within these factors 

companies retain flexibility in 

determining how best to meet this 

standard.

C. Prescreen Opt-Out Notices 

Paragraph 642.3 of the proposed Rule 

sets forth certain baseline formatting 

and language requirements for the 

disclosures required by Section 615(d) 

of the FCRA. This paragraph requires a 

‘‘layered’’ notice—that is, both a short 

and long notice. Research in the area of 

consumer notices shows that 

disclosures tend to be more effective if 

they are written in a clear and concise 

manner that is easily understandable by 

the average consumer, and convey a 

limited amount of information.2 One 

way to accomplish this, especially in 

instances when the information to be 

disclosed is voluminous or complex, is 

through a layered approach—imparting 

the most important information in a 

prominent location, with reference to a 

second location that provides additional 

details.3

The Commission understands that, in 

prescreened solicitations, space is at a 

premium. The Commission also 

recognizes that prescreened notices, 

under various laws, must disclose a 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58863

4 In addition to Section 615(d) of the FCRA, other 

federal laws may require disclosures in prescreened 

solicitations. For example, the Truth in Lending Act 

(TILA) and its implementing Regulation Z require, 

in certain credit offers relating to the cost of credit, 

a number of disclosures. Various state laws may 

also require disclosures.

5Section 213 of the FACT Act. Section 213 is 

titled, ‘‘Enhanced Disclosure of the Means 

Available to Opt Out of Prescreened Lists.’’

Although the title of a statutory section cannot limit 

that section, it may assist in explaining what was 

intended by that section.

6See, e.g., 149 Cong. Rec. S13851–52 (daily ed. 

Nov. 4, 2003) (statement of Sen. Sarbanes) (noting 

that the amendments to the FCRA ‘‘will require a 

summary of consumers’ rights to opt-out of 

prescreened offers.’’); 149 Cong. Rec. S13855 (daily 

ed. Nov. 4, 2003) (statement of Sen. Johnson) 

(noting that the amendments to the FCRA ‘‘take[] 

important new steps to empower consumers to 

reduce unwanted credit solicitations.’’); 149 Cong. 

Rec. S15806–07 (daily ed. Nov. 24, 2003) (statement 

of Sen. Sarbanes) (noting that the amendments to 

the FCRA will ‘‘help ensure that consumers are 

aware of how to opt out of the prescreening process 

* * *. The FTC * * * will be required to write 

rules on the size and prominence of the disclosure 

of the opt-out telephone number that is included 

with offers of credit to consumers.’’)

7See, e.g., Funkhouser, An Empirical Study of 

Consumers’ Sensitivity to the Wording of 

Affirmative Disclosure Messages, 3 J. Pub. Pol. & 

Mktg. at 31, 33 (finding that ‘‘information must be 

presented simply and straightforwardly,’’ and 

‘‘affirmative disclosures should say exactly what 

they are intended to mean.’’) (Emphasis in the 

original).

8As discussed in Section III below, the 

Commission conducted a consumer study to gain 

information about consumer understanding of 

prescreen opt-out notices. In that study, examples 

of additional information that the Commission 

believes would likely comply with the proposed 

Rule were included in the notices tested and are 

discussed in Section III.

significant amount of information.4 The 

Commission believes that a layered 

notice will convey effectively the 

required information, while at the same 

time not unnecessarily increasing costs 

to those making prescreened offers.

In creating Section 213 of the FACT 

Act, Congress intended to ‘‘enhance[] 

disclosure of the means available to opt 

out of prescreened lists.’’ 5 Although 

there are several items of information 

that must be conveyed by the FCRA 

Section 615(d) notice, the purpose of 

Section 213(a) of the FACT Act 

amendments was to highlight for 

consumers their right to opt out of 

receiving prescreened solicitations and 

the available means of exercising that 

right.6

Therefore, the proposed Rule requires 

the short notice to inform consumers 

about the right to opt out of receiving 

prescreened solicitations and to specify 

a toll-free number for consumers to call 

to opt out. The long notice provides 

consumers with all of the additional 

information required by Section 615(d) 

of the FCRA. The Commission considers 

the layered notice prescribed by the 

proposed Rule to be an appropriate 

means of effecting the statutory purpose, 

but invites comment on whether there 

are more effective methods of 

communicating consumers’ opt-out 

rights. 

Under the proposed Rule, the short 

notice must be: (1) Prominent, clear, and 

conspicuous; (2) in a type size that is 

larger than the type size of the principal 

text on the same page, but in no event 

smaller than 12-point type; (3) on the 

front side of the first page of the 

principal promotional document in the 

solicitation, or, if provided 

electronically, on the first screen; (4) 

located on the page and in a format so 

that the statement is distinct from other 

text; and (5) in a typeface that is distinct 

from other typeface used on the same 

page.

With respect to the requirement that 

the notice appear on the front side of the 

first page of the principal promotional 

document, the question of what 

constitutes the ‘‘principal promotional 

document’’ is fact specific. In general, 

prescreened mailers contain several 

documents, including a cover letter 

describing the offer, an application 

form, and in some instances additional 

promotional materials. In these 

situations, the Commission generally 

would consider the cover letter to be the 

principal promotional document. The 

Commission also generally would 

consider a marketer to be in compliance 

with the proposed Rule if it includes the 

notice on the front of the document that 

is designed for consumers to see first 

when they open the envelope. 

The proposed Rule does not mandate 

any specific language for the short 

notice; rather, it imposes a more general 

performance standard that the notice 

must be a ‘‘simple and easy to 

understand’’ statement that conveys 

consumers’ opt-out right and how they 

can exercise their opt-out right. The 

proposed Rule also prohibits the 

addition of extraneous information in 

the short notice. The Commission 

considers the short notice to be the 

primary vehicle for conveying 

consumers’ opt-out right, and the 

effectiveness of this communication 

could be diminished by adding 

additional language or concepts, 

however useful that information might 

be.7

The long notice must contain all 

information required by Section 615(d) 

of the FCRA and must also be presented 

in a manner that is simple and easy to 

understand. The proposed Rule does not 

prohibit marketers from including 

additional information in the long 

notice, provided that the additional 

information does not interfere with, 

detract from, contradict, or otherwise 

undermine the purpose of the opt-out 

notices.8 The Commission invites 

comment on whether marketers should 

be prohibited from including additional 

information in the long notice and, if 

not, what restrictions would be 

appropriate.

The long notice must be clear and 

conspicuous and begin with a heading 

identifying it as the ‘‘OPT-OUT 

NOTICE.’’ The long notice must also be: 

(1) In a type size that is no smaller than 

the type size of the principal text on the 

same page, but in no event smaller than 

8-point type; (2) in a typeface that is 

distinct from other typeface used on the 

same page; and (3) set apart from other 

text on the page. 

The proposed Rule requires that the 

long notice appear in the solicitation 

and that the consumer be directed to the 

location of the long notice, but does not 

require that the long notice necessarily 

be in the same document as the short 

notice. This provision provides added 

flexibility to marketers in making the 

disclosures required by the proposed 

Rule. In the Commission’s view, it is 

unnecessary to require both notices to 

appear in the same document as long as 

the marketer notifies the consumer 

about where to find the long notice. The 

Commission invites comment on 

whether the long notice should be 

required to appear in the same 

document as the short notice. 

D. Effective Date 

Paragraph 642.4 of the proposed Rule 

provides that the Rule would become 

effective 60 days after it is final. The 

Commission considers this amount of 

time adequate and appropriate to 

implement the limited requirements of 

the Rule. The Commission invites 

comment and specific information on 

whether a different time period to 

comply with the proposed Rule is 

necessary and appropriate. 

E. Model Prescreen Opt-Out Notices 

In addition to the requirements for the 

prescreen opt-out notices prescribed by 

Paragraph 642.3 of the proposed Rule, 

the Commission proposes model 

notices, to be published at 16 CFR Part 

698, Appendix A. These notices include 

model language and also are intended to 

illustrate the proper placement and 

display of the language. The proposed 

illustrations are modeled on actual 

solicitations, but, except for the 

operative model language, substitute 

dummy text for the remainder of the 

solicitation to demonstrate more clearly 

proper format, manner, and type size of 

prescreen opt-out notices. 

58864 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

9These items were selected as exemplars of the 

many types of information that may be relevant and 

useful to consumers.

10Whether additional information added to the 

long notice would detract from the opt-out message 

depends on individual circumstances, including the 

volume of the information added and whether that 

information in any way contradicted or interfered 

with the opt-out message. In general, the 

Commission would not consider the three items of 

information included in the notices tested in the 

survey to detract from the communication of the 

opt-out message.

As described above, the FCRA 

requires that prescreen opt-out notices 

contain several items of information 

about the nature and limitations of the 

offer, as well as about consumers’ right 

to opt out of such offers. The model 

language contained in the proposed 

Rule is designed to convey this 

information in a manner that is 

understandable to ordinary consumers. 

Because prescreened solicitations can be 

offered for credit or insurance, the 

model language also allows for 

alternatives that may be used, 

depending on the product offered. The 

Commission considers the model 

notices compliant with the statutory 

requirements, as well as with the 

requirements of the proposed Rule.

The Commission requests comment 

on whether the language of the model 

notices provides consumers with 

sufficient information regarding how 

they were selected for the offer, the 

reasons that they might not receive the 

offer, the consumers’ right to opt out of 

prescreened solicitations, and how they 

can exercise that right. 

III. Summary of Consumer Study 

To gain a better understanding of 

consumer comprehension of prescreen 

opt-out notices in solicitations, the 

Commission commissioned a consumer 

study. This section briefly summarizes 

the key findings of the study to assist 

comment on this proposal. The report 

on the study is posted at www.ftc.gov

(‘‘Study Report’’). Also posted is a 

report from the contractor who 

conducted the consumer survey 

(‘‘Synovate Report’’). 

A. Overview 

The study was conducted to compare 

the noticeability and comprehension of 

three different versions of an opt-out 

notice embedded in prescreened offers 

of credit. Respondents were recruited in 

shopping malls across the country, and 

were asked to look at one of three prescreened credit card offers. 

• Version #1 (current). This version 

included virtually verbatim the 

language from Section 615(d) of the 

FCRA, and is representative in content 

and placement (back page of the offer) 

of what is currently used in many 

prescreened credit card offers. 

• Version #2 (improved). This version 

used simpler language, similar to that of 

the model notices in the proposed Rule. 

As with version #1, the notice was on 

the back of the offer, but its prominence 

was enhanced through contrasting print 

color and format. 

• Version #3 (layered). This version 

had the same text and formatting as 

version #2, as well as an added, boxed 

‘‘short notice’’ at the bottom of the front 

page with (1) a statement about the optout right and how to exercise it, and (2) 

a referral to the back for additional 

details. 

Each participant in the study was 

shown one of the versions of the offer. 

Interviewers first asked the participant 

to read the offer and then removed it 

from view (‘‘initial exposure’’) before 

asking a series of questions about the 

noticeability and understandability of 

the opt-out notice. Then, each 

participant was shown the offer a 

second time and was directed to the optout notice (‘‘forced exposure’’), followed 

by another series of questions. The 

complete questionnaire and tabulations 

of responses are provided in the 

Synovate Report. 

The main purpose of the study was to 

compare the effectiveness of the 

different versions of the notice in 

communicating the messages that 

consumers can opt out of prescreened 

offers, and how they can do so (i.e., by 

calling a toll-free number or mailing an 

opt-out request to the consumer 

reporting agency). A second purpose 

was to gauge whether additional, 

ancillary information could be 

communicated effectively as part of the 

notice. Versions #2 and #3 (back page) 

contained three added items of 

information that may be relevant and 

useful to consumers making an opt-out 

decision. The added items related to the 

possible usefulness of prescreened 

offers in making product choices, the 

fact that opting out would not eliminate 

all mailed solicitations for credit or 

insurance, and the need to provide a 

social security number when calling the 

opt-out phone number.9

B. Key Findings 

1. Opt-Out Messages 

The study found that the layered 

version communicated the two opt-out 

messages more effectively than did the 

current version following both the 

initial and forced exposures, while the 

improved version was more effective 

than the current version following the 

forced exposure. The difference in 

effectiveness between the layered and 

improved versions, however, was less 

clear. With respect to the second 

message (how to exercise the opt-out 

right), the layered version was 

significantly more effective than the 

improved version following the initial 

exposure, but not statistically 

significantly more effective after the 

forced exposure. 

These findings support the approach 

required by the proposed Rule. The 

simpler language of the layered notice is 

substantially more understandable to 

consumers than the language commonly 

used today. Moreover, the layered 

approach appears to be more effective in 

communicating how consumers can opt 

out of future offers than either of the 

other approaches tested. 

2. Ancillary Messages

In general, the study had mixed 

results on the communication 

effectiveness of the three ancillary 

messages embedded in the improved 

and long notices. The study asked 

communication questions about two of 

the three ancillary messages (the 

possible benefits of prescreened offers 

and the fact that opting out would not 

eliminate all offers). After the initial 

exposure, neither the improved nor 

layered versions communicated either 

ancillary message effectively. After the 

forced exposure, however, as would be 

expected, communication levels of both 

messages were considerably higher. As 

described above, the proposed Rule 

would prohibit ancillary information in 

the short portion of the notice, but 

permit it in the long portion if it does 

not detract from the opt-out message.10

IV. Invitation To Comment 

All persons are hereby given notice of 

the opportunity to submit written data, 

views, facts, and arguments addressing 

the issues raised by this Notice. Written 

comments must be submitted on or 

before October 28, 2004. Comments 

should refer to ‘‘FACTA Prescreen Rule, 

Project No. R411010’’ to facilitate the 

organization of comments. A comment 

filed in paper form should include this 

reference both in the text and on the 

envelope, and should be mailed to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, FACTA Prescreen Rule, 

Post Office Box 1030, Merrifield, VA 

22116–1030. Please note that courier 

and overnight deliveries cannot be 

accepted at this address. Courier and 

overnight deliveries should be delivered 

to the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission/Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–159 (Annex R), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. If the comment 

contains any material for which 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58865

11Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

comment must be accompanied by an explicit 

request for confidential treatment, including the 

factual and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the comment to be 

withheld from the public record. The request will 

be granted or denied by the Commission’s General 

Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the 

public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c).

12The legal, professional, and training costs of 

implementing this Rule are likely to be 

inconsequential. Such costs were already incurred 

when the FCRA first required prescreen opt-out 

disclosures. The nature of this proposed Rule limits 

additional costs in these areas by providing models 

for compliance with the proposed Rule. Therefore, 

the primary cost incurred by this proposed Rule 

will be incurred by the reformatting of solicitations.

confidential treatment is requested, it 

must be filed in paper (rather than 

electronic) form, and the first page of 

the document must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential.’’ 11

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by clicking on the 

following weblink: https://

secure.commentworks.com/

ftcprescreen/ and following the 

instructions on the web-based form. To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the web-based form at the https://

secure.commentworks.com/

ftcprescreen/ weblink. You may also 

visit http://www.regulations.gov to read 

this proposed Rule, and may file an 

electronic comment through that Web 

site. The Commission will consider all 

comments that regulations.gov forwards 

to it. 

Comments on any proposed filing, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements that are subject to 

paperwork burden review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act should be 

submitted to the FTC as indicated 

above, and should additionally be 

submitted to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Federal Trade 

Commission. Comments should be 

submitted via facsimile to (202) 395–

6974 because U.S. postal mail at the 

Office of Management and Budget is 

subject to lengthy delays due to 

heightened security precautions. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments received by the 

Commission, whether filed in paper or 

electronic form, will be considered by 

the Commission, and will be available 

to the public on the FTC Web site, to the 

extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a 

matter of discretion, the FTC makes 

every effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from the 

public comments it receives before 

placing those comments on the FTC 

Web site. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/

privacy.htm. 

V. Communications by Outside Parties 

to Commissioners and 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. See 16 CFR 

1.26(b)(5). 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Commission has submitted this 

proposed Rule and a Supporting 

Statement for Information Collection 

Provisions to the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3517. As 

required by the FACT Act, the proposed 

Rule sets forth the format and manner 

of the disclosure notifying consumers of 

their right to opt out of prescreened 

solicitations.

The Commission staff estimates the 

paperwork burden of the Act and 

proposed Rule based on its knowledge 

of prescreened solicitations. The FTC 

expects that providing the notice to 

consumers would not significantly 

burden industry. The FCRA previously 

required that notices be given to 

consumers in prescreened solicitations; 

the FACT Act and this proposed Rule 

require that those notices be in a format, 

type size, and manner that is simple and 

easy to understand. The proposed Rule 

provides entities making prescreened 

solicitations with a general model form 

(provided in 16 CFR Part 698, Appendix 

A) that they may use to comply with the 

proposed Rule. The notices are 

standardized and machine-generated. 

Entities making prescreened 

solicitations would face a one-time 

burden to reprogram and update 

systems to revise the existing notice and 

to re-format solicitations. 

The FTC estimates that between 500 

and 750 entities make prescreened 

solicitations. The estimated time to 

revise the notice and re-format 

solicitations is approximately 8 hours 

(one business day); therefore, the total 

annual burden is estimated to be 

between 4,000 and 6,000 hours. The 

FTC estimates that the total cost for all 

affected firms will be between $110,000 

and $167,000. This estimate is based on 

Bureau of Labor Statistics data (as of 

July, 2002), as follows: 2 hours of 

managerial/professional time 12 at 

$31.55 per hour; plus 6 hours of skilled 

technical labor at $26.44 per hour; 

multiplied by 500 and 750 entities, for 

a total of between $110,870 and 

$166,305.

The Commission invites comments 

that will enable it to: (1) Evaluate 

whether the proposed collections of 

information are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) evaluate the accuracy of the 

Commission’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collections of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(4) minimize the burden of the 

collections of information on those who 

must comply, including through the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires that 

the Commission provide an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) with a proposed rule and a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’), if any, with the final rule, 

unless the Commission certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603–

605.

The Commission does not anticipate 

that the proposed Rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FCRA previously mandated the optout disclosure. The Act requires the 

Commission to adopt a rule to make the 

required disclosure simple and easy to 

understand. The proposed Rule applies 

to any entity that makes prescreened 

offers of credit or insurance. The 

Commission has been unable to 

determine the number of small entities 

that purchase prescreened lists from 

consumer reporting agencies. However, 

the Commission believes that very few 

small entities make prescreened offers. 

Based on discussions with various trade 

associations, the Commission estimates 

that very few small businesses engage in 

prescreened solicitations because many 

small businesses find it more cost 

effective to engage in point-of-sale 

solicitations and/or solicitations of 

existing customers. Although there may 

58866 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

13These numbers represent size standards for 

most entities in the industries mentioned above. A 

list of the SBA’s size standards for all industries can 

be found at http://www.sba.gov/size/

indextableofsize.html.

be some small entities among the 

entities making prescreened offers, the 

economic impact of the proposed Rule 

is not likely to be significant on a 

particular entity, nor is the proposed 

Rule likely to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The minimal 

impact on creditors and insurers would 

likely consist of revising disclosures 

that they already give in order to make 

the disclosures simple and easy to 

understand, and the proposed Rule 

would provide model notices to aid in 

this undertaking. 

Accordingly, this document serves as 

notice to the Small Business 

Administration of the agency’s 

certification of no effect. To ensure the 

accuracy of this certification, however, 

the Commission requests comment on 

whether the proposed Rule will have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, including 

specific information on the number of 

entities that would be covered by the 

proposed Rule, the number of these 

companies that are ‘‘small entities,’’ and 

the average annual burden for each 

entity. Although the Commission 

certifies under RFA that the Rule 

proposed in this notice 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 in order 

to inquire into the impact of the 

proposed Rule on small entities. 

Therefore, the Commission has prepared 

the following analysis: 

A. Description of the Reasons That 

Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered 

The Act directs the FTC to adopt a 

rule to improve the required notice to 

consumers regarding their right to opt 

out of prescreened solicitations for 

credit or insurance. In this action, the 

FTC is proposing, and seeking comment 

on, a proposed Rule that would 

implement this requirement of the 

FACT Act. 

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and 

Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

The objective of the proposed Rule is 

to improve the required notice to 

consumers regarding their right to opt 

out of prescreened solicitations for 

credit or insurance by establishing a 

format, type size, and manner of the 

notice so that the notice will be simple 

and easy to understand. The proposed 

Rule is authorized by and based upon 

section 213(a) of the FACT Act, Pub. L. 

108–159, 117 Stat. 1952. 

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Will Apply 

As described above, the proposed 

Rule applies to any entity, including 

small entities, that makes prescreened 

offers of credit or insurance. The 

Commission has been unable to 

ascertain a precise estimate of the 

number of small entities that are 

creditors or insurers. Entities covered by 

the Rule include any entity that extends 

credit or insurance, including insurance 

companies, retailers, department stores, 

and banking institutions, if they are 

engaging in prescreened offers of credit. 

For these kinds of entities, the Small 

Business Administration defines small 

business to include, in general 

insurance companies and retailers 

whose annual receipts do not exceed $6 

million in total receipts, and department 

stores whose annual receipts do not 

exceed $23 million in total receipts. For 

banking institutions, the Small Business 

Administration defines small business 

to include entities whose total assets do 

not exceed $150 million.13

However, not all businesses that 

extend credit or insurance are required 

to comply with the Rule. Rather, only 

such entities that make prescreened 

solicitations will be subject to the Rule’s 

requirements. Although the number of 

small businesses that offer credit or 

insurance is large, the Commission 

estimates that only a small number of 

those businesses engage in prescreened 

solicitations. Based on discussions with 

various trade associations, the FTC 

understands that many small businesses 

do not find prescreened solicitations to 

be cost-effective. The Commission 

invites comment and information on 

this issue. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

Under the proposed Rule, any entity 

making a prescreened offer of credit or 

insurance will be required to provide 

recipients of the offer with a disclosure 

regarding their right to opt out of such 

offers. These disclosures are to be in a 

form that is simple and easy to 

understand. As noted in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act analysis above, the 

estimated time to revise the notice and 

re-format solicitations is approximately 

8 hours (one business day), and the total 

cost for all entities to comply with this 

Rule is between $110,00 and $167,000. 

The FTC is seeking comment on these 

cost and burden estimates.

E. 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 Rule. The 

Commission invites comment and 

information on this issue. 

F. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

The Commission is not, at this time, 

aware of what particular alternative 

methods of compliance may comport 

with the statute and also reduce the 

impact of the proposed Rule on small 

entities that may be affected by the Rule. 

The statutory requirements are specific 

as to the information that must be 

conveyed in the disclosure. The 

Commission is given some flexibility in 

establishing the format, type size, and 

manner of the disclosure, so long as the 

disclosure is simple and easy to 

understand. The proposed Rule allows 

companies to retain flexibility in 

determining how best to meet the 

standards set forth by the proposed 

Rule. Therefore, the Commission seeks 

comment and information with regard 

to: (1) The existence of small business 

entities for which the proposed Rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact; (2) suggested alternative 

methods of compliance that, consistent 

with the statutory requirements, would 

reduce the economic impact of the Rule 

on such small entities; (3) whether the 

length or format of the disclosure 

should be adjusted to make it less 

burdensome while still satisfying the 

statutory requirements; (4) whether the 

effective date is appropriate; and (5) 

whether any particular small business 

has a need for a longer compliance 

period. If the comments filed in 

response to this notice identify small 

entities that are significantly affected by 

the Rule, as well as alternative methods 

of compliance that would reduce the 

economic impact of the Rule on such 

entities, the Commission will consider 

the feasibility of such alternatives and 

determine whether they should be 

incorporated into the final Rule. 

VIII. Questions for Comment on the 

Proposed Rule 

The Commission seeks comment on 

all aspects of the proposed Rule. 

Without limiting the scope of issues on 

which it seeks comment, the 

Commission is particularly interested in 

receiving comments on the questions 

that follow. Responses to these 

questions should include detailed, 

factual supporting information 

whenever possible. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58867

1. Are the proposed requirements for 

format and manner of disclosure 

appropriate and adequate to fulfill the 

purpose of enabling consumers to 

understand their right to opt out of 

receiving prescreened offers? 

2. Does the layered notice 

requirement provide a simple and easy 

format for disclosing the required 

information? Are the type sizes 

proposed for the short notice and the 

long notice appropriate? Should they be 

larger? Should they be smaller? 

3. Is the requirement that the short 

notice be ‘‘on the first page of the 

principal promotional document in the 

solicitation’’ sufficient to ensure that the 

short notice is prominent and 

noticeable? Should ‘‘principal 

promotional document’’ be a defined 

term? Should there be a safe harbor for 

placing the short notice on the first page 

of the document that is designed to be 

seen first by the consumer? What other 

factors should be considered in 

determining whether a document is the 

‘‘principal promotional document’? 

4. Is there additional information that 

should be required in the short notice to 

enhance its simplicity and 

understandability? If additional 

information is needed, identify the 

information and state why it is needed. 

5. Should the Rule allow additional 

information in the short notice? If so, 

what, if any, restrictions or conditions 

should apply to the inclusion of 

additional information? 

6. Is there additional information that 

should be required in the long notice to 

enhance its simplicity and 

understandability? If additional 

information is needed, identify the 

information and state why it is needed. 

7. Should the Rule prohibit 

information beyond that required by the 

statute from being included in the long 

notice? 

8. Should the Rule require the long 

notice to appear in the same document 

as the short notice? 

9. Is the effective date adequate and 

appropriate? If not, please specify what 

an appropriate effective date would be 

and provide specific information 

regarding why an effective date other 

than the date in this proposed Rule is 

necessary and appropriate. For example, 

is the effective date adequate for 

marketers to exhaust their existing 

inventories of solicitation forms, redesign the opt-out notice in order to 

incorporate the layered approach, and 

print solicitations with the new layered 

notices? Is there any small business that 

has a particular need for a longer period 

for compliance?

10. Are the model notices simple and 

easy to understand? Are there terms 

used in the model notice that are not 

likely to be understood by ordinary 

consumers? If so, what are those terms, 

and what other terms would be 

understandable? For example, is the 

term ‘‘criteria’’ understandable to 

ordinary consumers? Are ordinary 

consumers more likely to understand a 

term such as ‘‘credit standards’’ or 

‘‘requirements’? 

11. Do the model notices adequately 

provide consumers with the information 

necessary to exercise their right to opt 

out? If additional information is needed, 

identify such information and state why 

it is needed. 

12. Do the model notices offer helpful 

guidance for complying with the Rule? 

13. The model long notice includes 

the name of the consumer reporting 

agency to whom the consumer can write 

to exercise the opt-out right. Is this 

helpful to consumers? Should the notice 

include the names of all nationwide 

consumer reporting agencies? 

14. To what extent do credit and 

insurance providers make prescreened 

solicitations electronically? Describe the 

circumstances under which a 

prescreened solicitation would be made 

electronically. Are electronic 

prescreened offers likely to become 

more prevalent? Does the proposed rule 

adequately address prescreened offers 

that are made electronically? 

15. What is the number and nature of 

entities that are covered by the Rule? 

Are any of these entities small 

businesses? (See http://www.sba.gov/

size/indextableofsize.html for guidance 

on what constitutes a ‘‘small business.’’) 

If so, what is the number and nature of 

any such small business entities? How 

many of these small entities make 

prescreened offers of credit or 

insurance? 

16. Please provide comment on any or 

all of the provisions in the proposed 

Rule with regard to (a) the impact of the 

provision(s) (including any benefits and 

costs), if any, and (b) what alternatives, 

if any, the Commission should consider, 

as well as the costs and benefits of those 

alternatives, paying specific attention to 

the effect of the proposed Rule on small 

entities in light of the above analysis. 

Costs to ‘‘implement and comply’’ with 

the proposed Rule should include 

expenditures of time and money for any 

employee training, attorney, computer 

programmer, or other professional time, 

as well as notice reformatting, mailing, 

or other implementation costs. 

17. Please describe ways in which the 

proposed Rule could be modified, 

consistent with the FACT Act’s 

mandated requirements, to reduce any 

costs or burdens for small entities. 

18. Please describe whether and how 

technological developments could 

reduce the costs to small entities of 

complying with the proposed Rule. 

19. Please provide any information 

quantifying the economic costs and 

benefits of the proposed Rule for 

regulated entities, including small 

entities. 

20. Please identify any relevant 

federal, state, or local rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

proposed Rule.

List of Subjects 

16 CFR Part 642 

Fair Credit Reporting Act, Consumer 

reports, Consumer reporting agencies, 

Credit, Trade practices. 

16 CFR Part 698 

Fair Credit Reporting Act, Consumer 

reports, Consumer reporting agencies, 

Credit, Trade practices.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, the FTC proposes to 

amend chapter I, title 16, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

1. Add new part 642 to read as 

follows:

PART 642—PRESCREEN OPT-OUT 

NOTICES

Sec. 

642.1 Purpose and scope. 

642.2 Definitions. 

642.3 Prescreen opt-out notices. 

642.4 Effective date.

Authority: Public Law 108–159, sec. 

213(a); 15 U.S.C. 1681m(d).

§ 642.1 Purpose and scope. 

(a) Purpose. This part implements 

section 213(a) of the Fair and Accurate 

Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which 

requires the Federal Trade Commission 

to establish the format, type size, and 

manner of the notices to consumers, 

required by section 615(d) of the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (‘‘FCRA’’), 

regarding the right to prohibit (‘‘opt out’’

of) the use of information in a consumer 

report to send them solicitations of 

credit or insurance. 

(b) Scope. This part applies to any 

person who uses a consumer report on 

any consumer in connection with any 

credit or insurance transaction that is 

not initiated by the consumer, and that 

is provided to that person under section 

604(c)(1)(B) of the FCRA (15 U.S.C. 

1681b(c)(1)(B)).

§ 642.2 Definitions. 

As used in this part, unless the 

context requires otherwise: 

(a) Simple and easy to understand

means plain language designed to be 

58868 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

understood by ordinary consumers. For 

purposes of this part, factors to be 

considered in determining whether a 

statement is simple and easy to 

understand include: 

(1) Use of clear and concise sentences, 

paragraphs, and sections; 

(2) Use of short explanatory 

sentences; 

(3) Use of definite, concrete, everyday 

words; 

(4) Use of active voice; 

(5) Avoidance of multiple negatives; 

(6) Avoidance of legal and technical 

business terminology; 

(7) Avoidance of explanations that are 

imprecise and reasonably subject to 

different interpretations; and 

(8) Use of language that is not 

misleading. 

(b) [Reserved]

§ 642.3 Prescreen opt-out notices. 

Any person who uses a consumer 

report on any consumer in connection 

with any credit or insurance transaction 

that is not initiated by the consumer, 

and that is provided to the person under 

section 604(c)(1)(B) of the FCRA (15 

U.S.C. 1681b(c)(1)(B)), shall, with each 

written solicitation made to the 

consumer about the transaction, provide 

the consumer with the following 

notifications, both of which shall be in 

the same language as the offer of credit 

or insurance: 

(a) Short notice.

(1) Content. The short notice shall be 

a simple and easy to understand 

statement that the consumer has the 

right to opt out of receiving prescreened 

solicitations, and the toll-free number 

the consumer can call to exercise that 

right. The short notice also shall direct 

the consumer to the existence and 

location of the long notice, and shall 

state the heading for the long notice 

required by paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this 

section. The short notice shall not 

contain any other information. 

(2) Form. The short notice shall be: 

(i) Prominent, clear, and conspicuous; 

(ii) In a type size that is larger than 

the type size of the principal text on the 

same page, but in no event smaller than 

12-point type; 

(iii) On the front side of the first page 

of the principal promotional document 

in the solicitation, or, if provided 

electronically, on the first screen; 

(iv) Located on the page and in a 

format so that the statement is distinct 

from other text, such as inside a border; 

and 

(v) In a typeface that is distinct from 

other typeface used on the same page, 

such as bolding, italicizing, underlining, 

and/or in a color that contrasts with the 

color of the principal text on the page, 

if the solicitation is in more than one 

color. 

(b) Long notice.

(1) Content. The long notice shall be 

a simple and easy to understand 

statement that includes the information 

required by section 615(d) of the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 

1681m(d)). The long notice shall not 

include any other information that 

interferes with, detracts from, 

contradicts, or otherwise undermines 

the purpose of the opt-out notices. 

(2) Form. The long notice shall: 

(i) Be clear and conspicuous; 

(ii) Appear in the solicitation; 

(iii) Be in a type size that is no smaller 

than the type size of the principal text 

on the same page, but in no event 

smaller than 8-point type; 

(iv) Begin with a heading in capital 

letters and underlined, and identifying 

the long notice as the ‘‘OPT-OUT 

NOTICE’’; 

(v) Be in a typeface that is distinct 

from other typeface used on the same 

page, such as bolding, italicizing, 

underlining, and/or in a color that 

contrasts with the color of the principal 

text on the page, if the solicitation is in 

more than one color; and 

(vi) Be set apart from other text on the 

page, such as by including a blank line 

above and below the statement, and by 

indenting both the left and right margins 

from other text on the page.

§ 642.4 Effective date. 

This part shall become effective sixty 

(60) days after this part becomes final.

PART 698—SUMMARIES, NOTICES, 

AND FORMS 

2. Revise the authority citation in part 

698 to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1681e, 1681g, 1681j, 

1681m(d), 1681s; Pub. L. 108–159, sections 

151, 153, 211(c) and (d), 213, and 311, 117 

Stat. 1952. 

3. Amend § 698.1 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 698.1 Authority and purpose.

* * * * *

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this part 

is to comply with sections 607(d), 

609(c), 609(d), 612(a), and 615(d) of the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended 

by the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003, and Section 

211 of the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003. 

4. Add Appendix A to Part 698 as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Part 698—Model 

Prescreen Opt-Out Notices

In order to comply with section 615(d) of 

the FCRA (15 U.S.C. 1681m(d)) and part 642 

of this chapter, the following model notices 

may be used. These notices include model 

language and also are intended to illustrate 

the proper placement and display of the 

language. The proposed illustrations are 

modeled on actual solicitations, but, except 

for the operative model language, substitute 

dummy text for the remainder of the 

solicitation to demonstrate more clearly 

proper format, manner, and type size of 

prescreen opt-out notices.

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58869

English Language Model Notice: Short Notice


EP01OC04.076</GPH><FNP>
58870 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

English Language Model Notice: Long Notice


EP01OC04.077</GPH><FNP>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58871

Spanish Language Model Notice: Short Notice


EP01OC04.078</GPH><FNP>
58872 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Spanish Language Model Notice: Long Notice

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22039 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C


EP01OC04.079</GPH>