Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 177 / Thursday, September 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51609 

1 72 FR 61423 (October 30, 2007). Model forms for 

opt-out notices are published at 16 CFR part 698, 

appendix B. 

2Public 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 through 1022.27. There are no 

substantive differences between the two rules, but 

the two rules are organized differently and, in some 

cases, use different examples. See, e.g., 12 CFR 

1022.20(b)(4)(iii). 

9 85 FR 59466 (September 22, 2020). 

10 12 U.S.C. 5519. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

from the Scott TACAN extending from the 

7.4-mile radius of Scott AFB/MidAmerica St. 

Louis Airport to 10.5 miles northwest of the 

Scott TACAN. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 

9, 2021. 

Martin A. Skinner, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19831 Filed 9–15–21; 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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is issuing a final rule (‘‘Final Rule’’) to 

amend its Affiliate Marketing Rule to 

correspond to changes made to the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (‘‘FCRA’’) by the 

Dodd-Frank Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 18, 

2021. 

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 consumers 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 opt-out of 

sharing with non-affiliated third parties 

under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 

(‘‘GLBA’’), 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq., which 

apply indefinitely, Section 624 provides 

that a consumer’s affiliate marketing 

opt-out election must 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 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 (‘‘DoddFrank 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 FCRA to the 

extent the rules apply to motor vehicle 

dealers described in section 1029(a) of 

the Dodd-Frank Act 5 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. Regulatory Review of the Affiliate 

Marketing Rule 

On September 22, 2020, the 

Commission solicited comments on the 

Affiliate Marketing Rule as part of its 

periodic review of its rules and guides.9

The Commission sought information 

about the costs and benefits of the rule, 

and its regulatory and economic impact. 

In addition, the Commission proposed 

amending the rule to narrow its scope 

to motor vehicle dealers excluded from 

CFPB jurisdiction as described in the 

Dodd-Frank Act.10 The Commission 

received no comments. 

III. Overview of Final Rule 

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 the 

regulation is consistent with the text of 

the amended FCRA. Accordingly, the 

Commission amends the Affiliate 

Marketing Rule to properly reflect the 

rule’s scope. 

The amendment to § 680.1(b) narrows 

the scope description of the Affiliate 

Marketing Rule to the entities excluded 

from CFPB jurisdiction as described in 

the Dodd-Frank Act.11 It does so by 

replacing the broad term ‘‘person’’ with 

the term ‘‘motor vehicle dealer,’’ as 

defined in amended § 680.3. 

The amendment to § 680.3 adds a 

definition of ‘‘motor vehicle dealer’’ that 

defines motor vehicle dealers as those 

entities excluded from CFPB 

jurisdiction as described in the DoddFrank Act.12

The amendments do not change the 

substantive provisions of the rule or the 

examples in the rule, even where those 

provisions and examples involve 

entities covered by the CFPB’s rule 

rather than the Commission’s rule. The 

51610 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 177 / Thursday, September 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

13 5 U.S.C. 603–605. 14 85 FR 59466, 59469 (Sept. 22, 2020). 

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 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 they cover. 

IV. 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’’). 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has approved 

the rule’s existing information 

collection requirements 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 shares 

equally the remaining estimated PRA 

burden with the CFPB for other persons 

for which both agencies have 

enforcement authority. 

The Final Rule amends 16 CFR part 

680. The amendments do not modify or 

add to information collection 

requirements 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 the amendments 

substantially or materially modify any 

‘‘collections of information’’ as defined 

by the PRA. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency 

to either 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.13 The Commission published 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis in order to inquire into the 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities.14 The Commission received no 

responsive comments. 

The Commission does not believe 

these amendments have the threshold 

impact on small entities. The 

amendments effectuate changes to the 

Dodd-Frank Act and will not impose 

costs on small motor vehicle dealers 

because the amendments are for 

clarification purposes and will 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 under the Final Rule. Therefore, 

the Commission certifies that amending 

the Affiliate Marketing Rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small 

businesses. 

Although the Commission certifies 

under the RFA that the Final Rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and hereby provides notice of that 

certification to the Small Business 

Administration, the Commission 

nonetheless has determined publishing 

a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’) is appropriate to ensure the 

impact of the rule is fully addressed. 

Therefore, the Commission has prepared 

the following analysis: 

A. Need for and Objectives of the Final 

Rule 

To address the Dodd-Frank Act’s 

changes to the Commission’s 

rulemaking authority, the amendments 

clarify that the rule applies only to 

motor vehicle dealers. 

B. Significant Issues Raised in Public 

Comments in Response to the IRFA 

The Commission did not receive any 

comments that addressed the burden on 

small entities. In addition, the 

Commission did not receive any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’). 

C. Estimate of Number of Small Entities 

to Which the Final Rule Will Apply 

The Commission anticipates many 

covered motor vehicle dealers may 

qualify as small businesses according to 

the applicable SBA size standards. As 

explained in the IRFA, however, 

determining a precise estimate of the 

number of small entities is not readily 

feasible. No commenters addressed this 

issue. Nonetheless, as discussed above, 

these amendments do not add any 

additional burdens on any covered 

small businesses. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements, 

Including Classes of Covered Small 

Entities and Professional Skills Needed 

To Comply 

The amendments impose no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements. 

E. Description of Steps Taken To 

Minimize Significant Economic Impact, 

if any, on Small Entities, Including 

Alternatives 

The Commission did not propose any 

specific small entity exemption or other 

significant alternatives because the 

amendments will not increase reporting 

requirements and will not impose any 

new requirements or compliance costs. 

VI. Other Matters 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this rule as not a ‘‘major 

rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 680 

Consumer protection, Credit, Trade 

practices. 

For the reasons stated above, the 

Federal Trade Commission amends part 

680 of title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 680—AFFILIATE MARKETING 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

680 to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5519(d); 15 U.S.C. 

1681s–3; 15 U.S.C. 1681s–3 note. 

■ 2. In § 680.1, revise 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. 

* * * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 177 / Thursday, September 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51611 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19826 Filed 9–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Parole Commission 

28 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. USPC–2021–03] 

RIN 1104–AA08 

Paroling, Recommitting, and 

Supervising Federal Prisoners: 

Prisoners Serving Sentences Under 

the United States and District of 

Columbia Codes 

AGENCY: United States Parole 

Commission, Justice. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The United States Parole 

Commission is revising its regulation to 

reopen and advance a parole date to 

explicitly reference medical and 

compassionate reasons as bases for 

reopening. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 16, 2021. Comments due on 

or before October 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification 

number USPC–2021–03 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Mail: Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Parole Commission, attention: 

USPC Rules Group, 90 K Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen H. Krapels, General Counsel, U.S. 

Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 

Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530, 

telephone (202) 346–7030. Questions 

about this publication are welcome, but 

inquiries concerning individual cases 

cannot be answered over the telephone. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Parole 

Commission’s regulation at 28 CFR 2.15 

provides that after the prisoner has 

served the minimum term, the Bureau of 

Prisons (‘‘BOP’’) may petition the 

Commission to reopen the case under 28 

CFR 2.28(a) to consider the case for 

parole prior to the date set by the 

Commission at the initial or review 

hearing. The regulation requires that the 

BOP’s request show cause for earlier 

release and provides examples such as 

‘‘an emergency, hardship, or the 

existence of other extraordinary 

circumstances that would warrant 

consideration of early parole.’’ These 

examples encompass a very broad set of 

circumstances that the Commission 

could consider, which would include 

illness and aging. 

The Commission is not limited to 

only considering requests from the BOP, 

the regulation at 28 CFR 2.28(a), which 

is used for reopening a case for 

favorable information, can be used to 

consider a request from other sources, 

such as the prisoner or a family 

member. Revising the heading of the 

regulation will help to highlight its use 

to consider prisoners for compassionate 

release in addition to the ‘‘favorable 

information’’ that the Commission 

usually considers, such as program 

achievement in the institution. Revising 

the text of the regulation to include 

medical and other ‘‘extraordinary and 

compelling’’ information will broaden 

the circumstances that the Commission 

can consider for possible advancement 

of the release date. 

Section 2.28(a) permits advancement 

of a presumptive parole date to an 

earlier presumptive parole date, 

advancement of a presumptive parole 

date to an earlier effective parole date, 

advancement of a continue to expiration 

decision to a presumptive or effective 

parole date, and advancement of a 15- 

year reconsideration hearing to a 

presumptive or effective parole date 

without conducting a hearing. The 

Commissioner reopening the decision 

does have the option of ordering a 

reconsideration hearing to consider this 

new information. 

The Commission is promulgating this 

rule as an interim rule and is providing 

a 30-day period for public comment. 

The revised rule will take effect upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulation Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13565, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b), General Principles of 

Regulation. The Commission has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications 

requiring a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule will not have a significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not cause State, local, 

or tribal governments, or the private 

sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in 

any one year, and they will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. No action under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

is necessary. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act, now codified 

at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies. 

Moreover, this is a rule of agency 

practice or procedure that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties, and 

does not come within the meaning of 

the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section 

804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 

804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Prisoners, Probation and 

parole. 

The Interim Rule 

Accordingly, the U. S. Parole 

Commission amends 28 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

PART 2—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 2 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 

4204(a)(6).