Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 73192-73195 [2013-29078]

Download as PDF 73192 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Notices FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to extend through December 31, 2016, the current Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’) clearance for the FTC’s enforcement of the information collection requirements in its Affiliate Marketing Rule (or ‘‘Rule’’), which applies to certain motor vehicle dealers, and its shared enforcement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (‘‘CFPB’’) of the provisions (subpart C) of the CFPB’s Regulation V regarding other entities (‘‘CFPB Rule’’). The current clearance expires on December 31, 2013. DATES: Comments must be filed by January 6, 2014. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ‘‘Affiliate Marketing Disclosure Rule, PRA Comment: FTC File No. P0105411’’ on your comment, and file your comment online at https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/ affiliatemarketingpra2, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be addressed to Steven Toporoff, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., NJ– 8100, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326– 3135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (‘‘DoddFrank Act’’).1 The Dodd-Frank Act substantially changed the federal legal framework for financial services providers. Among the changes, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the CFPB most of the FTC’s rulemaking authority ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 1 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:57 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 for the Affiliate Marketing provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (‘‘FCRA’’),2 on July 21, 2011.3 For certain other portions of the FCRA, the FTC retains its full rulemaking authority.4 The FTC retains rulemaking authority for its Affiliate Marketing Rule, 16 CFR 680, solely for motor vehicle dealers described in section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.5 On December 21, 2011, the CFPB issued its interim final FCRA rule, including the affiliate marketing provisions (subpart C) of CFPB’s Regulation V.6 Contemporaneous with that issuance, the CFPB and FTC submitted to OMB, and received its approval for, that agency’s respective burden estimates reflecting its overlapping enforcement jurisdiction with the FTC. The discussion in the Burden Statement below, following preliminary background information, continues that analytical framework of shared enforcement authority, as supplemented by the FTC’s jurisdiction over auto motive dealers, as noted above. On August 27, 2013, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule (August 27, 2013 Notice 7), its shared enforcement with the CFPB of the provisions of the CFPB Rule, and the FTC’s associated PRA burden analysis. No comments were received. However, the FTC is correcting and otherwise modifying certain estimates that appeared in the August 27, 2013 Notice: 2 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Act, at section 1061. This date was the ‘‘designated transfer date’’ established by the Treasury Department under the Dodd-Frank Act. See Dep’t of the Treasury, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection; Designated Transfer Date, 75 FR 57252, 57253 (Sept. 20, 2010); see also DoddFrank Act, at section 1062. 4 The Dodd-Frank Act does not transfer to the CFPB rulemaking authority for FCRA sections 615(e) (‘‘Red Flag Guidelines and Regulations Required’’) and 628 (‘‘Disposal of Records’’). See 15 U.S.C. 1681s(e); Public Law 111–203, section 1088(a)(10)(E). Accordingly, the Commission retains full rulemaking authority for its ‘‘Identity Theft Rules,’’ 16 CFR Part 681, and its rules governing ‘‘Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records,’’ 16 CFR Part 682. See 15 U.S.C. 1681m, 1681w. 5 See Dodd-Frank Act, at section 1029 (a), (c). 6 76 FR 79308. Subpart C of the interim final rule became effective on December 30, 2011. Subpart C is codified at 12 CFR 1022.20 et seq. Except for certain motor vehicle dealers (see supra note 5 and accompanying text), the disclosure and opt-out provisions described in the ‘‘Background’’ discussion below also pertain to Subpart C of Regulation V and the FTC’s associated coenforcement jurisdiction. 7 78 FR 52918. 3 Dodd-Frank PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 These adjustments are highlighted by footnotes appended to the revised figures that appear in the ensuing Burden Statement. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed herein, and must be received on or before January 6, 2014. For more background on the FTC’s Affiliate Marketing Rule, see the August 27, 2013 Notice.8 Burden Statement Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, federal agencies must get OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ‘‘Collection of information’’ includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). The FTC is seeking clearance for its assumed share of the estimated PRA burden regarding the disclosure requirements under the FTC and CFPB Rules. Except where otherwise specifically noted, staff’s estimates of burden are based on its knowledge of the consumer credit industries and knowledge of the entities over which the Commission has jurisdiction. This said, estimating PRA burden of the Rule’s disclosure requirements is difficult given the highly diverse group of affected entities that may use certain eligibility information shared by their affiliates to send marketing notices to consumers. The estimates provided in this burden statement may well overstate actual burden. As noted above, verbatim adoption of the disclosure of information provided by the federal government is not a ‘‘collection of information’’ to which to assign PRA burden estimates, and an unknown number of covered entities will opt to use the model disclosure language. Second, an uncertain, but possibly significant, number of entities subject to FTC jurisdiction do not have affiliates and thus would not be covered by section 214 of the FACT Act or the Rule. Third, Commission staff does not know how many companies subject to FTC jurisdiction under the Rule actually share eligibility information among affiliates and, of those, how many affiliates use such information to make marketing solicitations to consumers. Fourth, still other entities may choose to 8 78 FR 52919. E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Notices ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES rely on the exceptions to the Rule’s notice and opt-out requirements.9 Finally, the population estimates below to apply further calculations are based on industry data that, while providing tallies of business entities within industries and industry segments, does not identify those entities individually. Thus, there is no clear path to ascertain how many individual businesses have newly entered and departed within a given industry classification, from one year to the next or from one triennial PRA clearance cycle to the next. Accordingly, there is no ready way to quantify how many establishments accounted for in the data reflect those previously accounted for in the FTC’s prior PRA analysis, i.e., entities that would already have experienced a declining learning curve applying the Rule with the passage of time. For simplicity, the FTC analysis will continue to treat covered entities as newly undergoing the previously assumed learning curve cycle, although this would effectively overstate estimated burden for unidentified covered entities that have remained in existence since OMB’s most recent clearances for the FTC Rule.10 As in the past, FTC staff’s estimates assume a higher burden will be incurred during the first year of a prospective OMB three-year clearance, with a lesser burden for each of the subsequent two years because the opt-out notice to consumers is required to be given only once. Institutions may provide for an indefinite period for the opt-out or they may time limit it, but for no less than five years. Staff’s labor cost estimates take into account: managerial and professional time for reviewing internal policies and determining compliance obligations; technical time for creating the notice and opt-out, in either paper or electronic form; and clerical time for disseminating the notice and opt-out.11 In addition, staff’s cost estimates presume that the availability of model disclosures and opt-out notices will simplify the compliance review and 9 Exceptions include, for example, having a preexisting business relationship with a consumer, using information in response to a communication initiated by the consumer, and solicitations authorized or requested by the consumer. 10 On December 21, 2010, OMB granted three-year clearance for the Rule through December 31, 2013 under Control No. 3084–0131. On February 3, 2012, OMB additionally approved under that control number FTC adjustments submitted on December 9, 2011 to reflect the effects of the Dodd-Frank Act, but the latter approval retained the previously accorded clearance expiration of December 31, 2013. 11 No clerical time was included in staff’s burden analysis for GLBA entities as the notice would likely be combined with existing GLBA notices. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:57 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 implementation processes, thereby significantly reducing the cost of compliance. Moreover, the Rule gives entities considerable flexibility to determine the scope and duration of the opt-out. Indeed, this flexibility permits entities to send a single joint notice on behalf of all of its affiliates. A. Non-GLBA Entities Based, in part, on industry data regarding the number of businesses under various industry codes, staff estimates that 1,174,347 non-GLBA entities under FTC jurisdiction have affiliates and would be affected by the Rule.12 Commission staff further estimates an average of 5 businesses per family or affiliated relationship, and believes that the affiliated entities will choose to send a joint notice, as permitted by the Rule. Thus, an estimated 234,869 non-GLBA business families may send the affiliate marketing notice. Staff also estimates that non-GLBA entities under the jurisdiction of the FTC would each incur 14 hours of burden during the prospective requested three-year PRA clearance period, comprised of a projected 7 hours of managerial time, 2 hours of technical time, and 5 hours of clerical assistance. Based on the above, total burden for non-GLBA entities during the prospective three-year clearance period would be approximately 3,288,166 hours, cumulatively. Associated labor cost would total $123,353,199.13 These 12 This estimate is derived from an analysis of a database of U.S. businesses based on June 2013 SIC codes for businesses that market goods or services to consumers, which included the following industries: transportation services; communication; electric, gas, and sanitary services; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services (excluding business services and engineering, management services). See http://www.naics.com/ search.htm. This estimate excludes businesses not subject to FTC jurisdiction and businesses that do not use data or information subject to the rule. To the resulting sub-total (7,111,026), staff applies a continuing assumed rate of affiliation of 16.75 percent, see 75 FR 43526, 43528 n. 6 (July 26, 2010), reduced by a continuing estimate of 100,000 entities subject to the Commission’s GLBA privacy notice regulations, see id., applied to the same assumed rate of affiliation. The net total is 1,174,347. 13 The associated labor cost is based on the labor cost burden per notice by adding the hourly mean private sector wages for managerial, technical, and clerical work and multiplying that sum by the estimated number of hours. The classifications used are ‘‘Management Occupations’’ for managerial employees, ‘‘Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations’’ for technical staff, and ‘‘Office and Administrative Support’’ for clerical workers. See OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES— MAY 2012, U.S. Department of Labor released March 29, 2013, Table 1 (‘‘National employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 2012’’): http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf. The respective private sector hourly wages for these classifications are $52.20, $38.55, and $16.54. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 73193 estimates include the start-up burden and attendant costs, such as determining compliance obligations. Non-GLBA entities, however, will give notice only once during the clearance period ahead. Thus, averaged over that three-year period, the estimated annual burden for non-GLBA entities is 1,096,055 hours and $41,117,733 in labor costs. B. GLBA Entities Entities that are subject to the Commission’s GLBA privacy notice regulation already provide privacy notices to their customers.14 Because the FACT Act and the Rule contemplate that the affiliate marketing notice can be included in the GLBA notices, the burden on GLBA regulated entities would be greatly reduced. Accordingly, the GLBA entities would incur 6 hours of burden during the first year of the clearance period, comprised of a projected 5 hours of managerial time and 1 hour of technical time to execute the notice, given that the Rule provides a model.15 Staff further estimates that 3,350 GLBA entities under FTC jurisdiction would be affected,16 so that the total burden for GLBA entities during the first year of the clearance period would approximate 20,100 hours (3,350 × 6) and $1,003,493 in associated labor costs.17 Allowing for increased familiarity with procedure, the PRA burden in ensuing years would decline, with GLBA entities each incurring an estimated 4 hours of annual burden (3 hours of managerial time and 1 hour of technical time) during the remaining two years of the clearance, amounting to 13,400 hours (3,350 × 4) and $653,753 in labor costs in each of the ensuing two Estimated hours spent for each labor category are 7, 2, and 5, respectively. Multiplying each occupation’s hourly wage by the associated time estimate, labor cost burden per notice equals $525.20. This subtotal is then multiplied by the estimated number of non-GLB business families projected to send the affiliate marketing notice (234,869) to determine cumulative labor cost burden for non-GLBA entities ($123,353,199). 14 Financial institutions must provide a privacy notice at the time the customer relationship is established and then annually so long as the relationship continues. Staff’s estimates assume that the affiliate marketing opt-out will be incorporated in the institution’s initial and annual notices. 15 As stated above, no clerical time is included in the estimate because the notice likely would be combined with existing GLBA notices. 16 Based on the previously stated estimates of 100,000 GLBA business entities at an assumed rate of affiliation of 16.75 percent (16,750), divided by the presumed ratio of 5 businesses per family, this yields a total of 3,350 GLBA business families subject to the Rule. 17 3,350 GLBA families × [$52.20 × 5 hours) + ($38.55 × 1 hour)] = $1,003,493. E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1 73194 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Notices years.18 Thus, averaged over the threeyear clearance period, the estimated annual burden for GLBA entities is 15,633 hours and $770,333 in labor costs. The cumulative average annual burden for both non-GLBA and GLBA for the prospective three-year clearance period is 1,111,688 burden hours and $41,888,066 in labor costs. GLBA entities are already providing notices to their customers so there are no new capital or non-labor costs, as this notice may be consolidated into their current notices. For non-GLBA entities, the Rule provides for simple and concise model forms that institutions may use to comply. Thus, any capital or non-labor costs associated with compliance for these entities are negligible. ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES C. FTC Share of Burden: 560,609 hours; $21,173,214, labor costs 19 To calculate the total burden attributed to the FTC, staff first deducted from the total annual burden hours those hours attributed to motor vehicle dealers, which are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the FTC. Staff estimates that there are 60,959 motor vehicle dealerships subject to the Rule.20 Of these, staff estimates that 10% are non-GLBA entities (6,096), and 90% are GLBA entities (54,863). Applying an assumed rate of affiliation of 16.75%, staff estimates that there are 1,021 21 non-GLBA and 9,190 GLBA motor vehicle dealerships in affiliated families. Staff further assumes there are an average of 5 businesses per family or affiliated relationship, leaving approximately 204 22 non-GLBA and 1,838 GLBA motor vehicle dealership families, respectively. Staff further estimates that non-GLBA business families will spend 14 hours in the first year and 0 hours thereafter to comply with the Rule, while GLBA business families will spend 6 hours in the first year, and 4 hours in each of the 18 3,350 GLBA families × [($52.20 × 3 hours) + ($38.55 × 1 hours)] = $653,753. 19 Previously stated as 560,179 hours and $20,771,941 in the August 27, 2013 Notice, based on pre-corrected inputs, as further detailed below. 20 This figure consists, in part, of 55,417 car dealers per NADA (franchise/new cars) (http:// www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/2011/ default) and NIADA data (independents/used cars) (http://www.usedcarnews.com/news/2963-niadasurvey-shows-more-action-online), respectively, for 2011, multiplied by an added factor of 1.10 to cover for an unknown quantity of additional motor vehicle dealer types (motorcycles, boats, other recreational vehicles) also covered within the definition of motor vehicle dealer under section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. This leaves a total of 60,959 motor vehicle dealers subject to the Rule. 21 Erroneously stated as 102 non-GLBA entities in the August 27, 2013 Notice. 22 Erroneously stated as 20 in the August 27, 2013 Notice. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:57 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 following two years. The cumulative average annual burden for the nonGLBA and GLBA motor vehicle dealership families is 9,529 hours.23 To calculate the FTC’s total shared burden hours, staff deducted from the total burden hours (1,111,688 hours) those attributed to motor vehicle dealerships (9,529), leaving a total of 1,102,159 hours to split between the CFPB and the FTC. The resulting shared burden for the CFPB is half that amount, or 551,080 hours. To calculate the total burden hours for the FTC, staff added the burden hours associated with motor vehicle dealers (9,529 hours), resulting in a total burden of 560,609 hours. Staff used the same approach to estimate the shared costs for the FTC. Staff estimated the costs attributed to motor vehicle dealers as follows: nonGLBA business families have $35,714 in annualized labor costs,24 and GLBA business families have $422,648 annualized labor costs,25 for cumulative annualized costs of $458,362.26 To calculate, on an annualized basis, the FTC’s cumulative share of labor cost burden, staff deducted from the overall total ($41,888,066) 27 the labor costs attributed to motor vehicle dealerships ($458,362), leaving a net amount of $41,429,704 to split between the CFPB and the FTC. The resulting shared burden for the CFPB is half that amount, or $20,714,852. To calculate the total burden hours for the FTC, staff added the costs associated with motor vehicle dealers ($458,362), resulting in a total cost burden for the FTC of $21,173,214. 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 23 204 non-GLBA families × 4.666667 average hours = 952 hours; 1,838 GLBA families × 4.666667 average hours = 8,577 hours. The total is thus 9,529 hours. In the August 27, 2013 Notice the estimated total was 8,670 hours, but that reflected the precorrected input for the estimated number of nonGLBA motor vehicle dealership families. 24 (204 non-GLBA families × $525.20) ÷ 3 = $35,714. Previously stated as $3,501 in the August 27, 2013 Notice, but that reflected the pre-corrected input for the estimated number of non-GLBA motor vehicle dealership families. 25 In the first year, GLBA families have $550,573 costs: 1,838 × [($52.20 × 5 hours) + ($38.55 × 1 hour)] = $550,573. In each of the second and third years, GLBA families have $358,686 in costs: 1,838 × [($52.20 × 3 hours) + ($38.55 × 1 hour)] = $358,686. 26 Previously stated as $426,149 in the August 27, 2013 Notice, but that reflected the pre-corrected input for the estimated number of non-GLBA motor vehicle dealership families. 27 The August 27, 2013 Notice used $41,117,733 as the total labor cost estimate from which to apportion between the FTC and CFPB, but that amount represented only the non-GLBA labor cost estimate while inadvertently excluding the estimate for GLBA-related labor cost. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 before January 6, 2014. Write ‘‘Affiliate Marketing Disclosure Rule, PRA Comment: FTC File No. P0105411’’ on your comment. Your comment— including your name and your state— will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals’ home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn’t include any sensitive personal information, like anyone’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 doesn’t include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, don’t include any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,’’ as provided in 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). In particular, don’t include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).28 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https:// public.commentworks.com/ftc/ affiliatemarketingpra2 by following the 28 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. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Notices instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http:// www.regulations.gov/# !home, you also may file a comment through that Web site. If you file your comment on paper, write ‘‘Affiliate Marketing Disclosure Rule, PRA Comment: FTC File No. P0105411’’ on your comment, and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service. 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 January 6, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission’s privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm. Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395–5167. David C. Shonka, Principal Deputy General Counsel. [FR Doc. 2013–29078 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–P Notice of Computer Matching Program (CMP). ACTION: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, this notice announces the renewal of a CMP that CMS plans to conduct with the Purchased Care at the Health Administration Center (PC@HAC) of the Department of Veteran Affairs. We have provided background information about the proposed matching program in the ‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section below. Although the Privacy Act requires only that CMS provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the proposed matching program, CMS invites comments on all portions of this notice. See ‘‘Effective Dates’’ section below for comment period. DATES: Effective Dates: CMS filed a report of the CMP with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We will not disclose any information under a matching agreement until 40 days after filing a report to OMB and Congress or 30 days after publication. We may defer implementation of this matching program if we receive comments that persuade us to defer implementation. ADDRESSES: The public should address comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Privacy Policy (DPP), Privacy Policy and Compliance Group (PPCG), Office of E-Health Standards & Services (OESS), CMS, Mailstop S2–24– 25, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244–1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.–3 p.m., eastern daylight time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Description of the Matching Program DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Privacy Act of 1974: CMS Computer Matching Program Match No. 2013–01; HHS Computer Matching Program Match No. 1312 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:57 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 A. General The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100– 503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 73195 amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records (SOR) are matched with other Federal, state, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to: 1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs; 2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements; 3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB; 4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and, 5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual’s benefits or payments. B. CMS Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act CMS has taken action to ensure that all CMPs that this Agency participates in comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. Dated: November 21, 2013. Michelle Snyder, Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS Computer Match No. 2013–01; HHS Computer Match No. 1312 NAME: ‘‘Computer Matching Agreement between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Purchased Care at the Health Administration Center (PC@HAC) of the Department of Veterans Affairs for Verification of CHAMPVA Eligibility.’’ SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: None PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Purchased Care at the Health Administration Center (PC@ HAC) of the Department of Veterans Affairs. AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING MATCHING PROGRAM: This Computer Matching Program (CMP) is executed to comply with the provisions of Public Laws (Pub. L.) 93– 82, 94–581, 102–190, and 107–14 (codified at Title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1713) that restrict CHAMPVA eligibility for benefits dependent upon a beneficiary’s Medicare Part A and Part B status. This computer matching program will match CHAMPVA applicants and beneficiaries with Medicare Part A and B beneficiaries. E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73192-73195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29078]



[[Page 73192]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') to extend through December 31, 2016, the current Paperwork 
Reduction Act (``PRA'') clearance for the FTC's enforcement of the 
information collection requirements in its Affiliate Marketing Rule (or 
``Rule''), which applies to certain motor vehicle dealers, and its 
shared enforcement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
(``CFPB'') of the provisions (subpart C) of the CFPB's Regulation V 
regarding other entities (``CFPB Rule''). The current clearance expires 
on December 31, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the 
Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
below. Write ``Affiliate Marketing Disclosure Rule, PRA Comment: FTC 
File No. P0105411'' on your comment, and file your comment online at 
https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/affiliatemarketingpra2, by 
following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file 
your comment on paper, mail or deliver your comment to the following 
address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 
(Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information 
should be addressed to Steven Toporoff, Attorney, Division of Privacy 
and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., NJ-8100, Washington, DC 20580, 
(202) 326-3135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed 
into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(``Dodd-Frank Act'').\1\ The Dodd-Frank Act substantially changed the 
federal legal framework for financial services providers. Among the 
changes, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred to the CFPB most of the FTC's 
rulemaking authority for the Affiliate Marketing provisions of the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act (``FCRA''),\2\ on July 21, 2011.\3\ For certain 
other portions of the FCRA, the FTC retains its full rulemaking 
authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.
    \3\ Dodd-Frank Act, at section 1061. This date was the 
``designated transfer date'' established by the Treasury Department 
under the Dodd-Frank Act. See Dep't of the Treasury, Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection; Designated Transfer Date, 75 FR 
57252, 57253 (Sept. 20, 2010); see also Dodd-Frank Act, at section 
1062.
    \4\ The Dodd-Frank Act does not transfer to the CFPB rulemaking 
authority for FCRA sections 615(e) (``Red Flag Guidelines and 
Regulations Required'') and 628 (``Disposal of Records''). See 15 
U.S.C. 1681s(e); Public Law 111-203, section 1088(a)(10)(E). 
Accordingly, the Commission retains full rulemaking authority for 
its ``Identity Theft Rules,'' 16 CFR Part 681, and its rules 
governing ``Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records,'' 
16 CFR Part 682. See 15 U.S.C. 1681m, 1681w.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC retains rulemaking authority for its Affiliate Marketing 
Rule, 16 CFR 680, solely for motor vehicle dealers described in section 
1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act that are predominantly engaged in the 
sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of 
motor vehicles, or both.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Dodd-Frank Act, at section 1029 (a), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2011, the CFPB issued its interim final FCRA rule, 
including the affiliate marketing provisions (subpart C) of CFPB's 
Regulation V.\6\ Contemporaneous with that issuance, the CFPB and FTC 
submitted to OMB, and received its approval for, that agency's 
respective burden estimates reflecting its overlapping enforcement 
jurisdiction with the FTC. The discussion in the Burden Statement 
below, following preliminary background information, continues that 
analytical framework of shared enforcement authority, as supplemented 
by the FTC's jurisdiction over auto motive dealers, as noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 76 FR 79308. Subpart C of the interim final rule became 
effective on December 30, 2011. Subpart C is codified at 12 CFR 
1022.20 et seq. Except for certain motor vehicle dealers (see supra 
note 5 and accompanying text), the disclosure and opt-out provisions 
described in the ``Background'' discussion below also pertain to 
Subpart C of Regulation V and the FTC's associated co-enforcement 
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 27, 2013, the FTC sought public comment on the 
information collection requirements associated with the Rule (August 
27, 2013 Notice \7\), its shared enforcement with the CFPB of the 
provisions of the CFPB Rule, and the FTC's associated PRA burden 
analysis. No comments were received. However, the FTC is correcting and 
otherwise modifying certain estimates that appeared in the August 27, 
2013 Notice: These adjustments are highlighted by footnotes appended to 
the revised figures that appear in the ensuing Burden Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 78 FR 52918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement 
the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second 
opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the 
pre-existing clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as 
prescribed herein, and must be received on or before January 6, 2014.
    For more background on the FTC's Affiliate Marketing Rule, see the 
August 27, 2013 Notice.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 78 FR 52919.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burden Statement

    Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must get OMB 
approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. 
``Collection of information'' includes agency requests or requirements 
to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third 
party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). The FTC is seeking clearance 
for its assumed share of the estimated PRA burden regarding the 
disclosure requirements under the FTC and CFPB Rules.
    Except where otherwise specifically noted, staff's estimates of 
burden are based on its knowledge of the consumer credit industries and 
knowledge of the entities over which the Commission has jurisdiction. 
This said, estimating PRA burden of the Rule's disclosure requirements 
is difficult given the highly diverse group of affected entities that 
may use certain eligibility information shared by their affiliates to 
send marketing notices to consumers.
    The estimates provided in this burden statement may well overstate 
actual burden. As noted above, verbatim adoption of the disclosure of 
information provided by the federal government is not a ``collection of 
information'' to which to assign PRA burden estimates, and an unknown 
number of covered entities will opt to use the model disclosure 
language. Second, an uncertain, but possibly significant, number of 
entities subject to FTC jurisdiction do not have affiliates and thus 
would not be covered by section 214 of the FACT Act or the Rule. Third, 
Commission staff does not know how many companies subject to FTC 
jurisdiction under the Rule actually share eligibility information 
among affiliates and, of those, how many affiliates use such 
information to make marketing solicitations to consumers. Fourth, still 
other entities may choose to

[[Page 73193]]

rely on the exceptions to the Rule's notice and opt-out 
requirements.\9\ Finally, the population estimates below to apply 
further calculations are based on industry data that, while providing 
tallies of business entities within industries and industry segments, 
does not identify those entities individually. Thus, there is no clear 
path to ascertain how many individual businesses have newly entered and 
departed within a given industry classification, from one year to the 
next or from one triennial PRA clearance cycle to the next. 
Accordingly, there is no ready way to quantify how many establishments 
accounted for in the data reflect those previously accounted for in the 
FTC's prior PRA analysis, i.e., entities that would already have 
experienced a declining learning curve applying the Rule with the 
passage of time. For simplicity, the FTC analysis will continue to 
treat covered entities as newly undergoing the previously assumed 
learning curve cycle, although this would effectively overstate 
estimated burden for unidentified covered entities that have remained 
in existence since OMB's most recent clearances for the FTC Rule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Exceptions include, for example, having a preexisting 
business relationship with a consumer, using information in response 
to a communication initiated by the consumer, and solicitations 
authorized or requested by the consumer.
    \10\ On December 21, 2010, OMB granted three-year clearance for 
the Rule through December 31, 2013 under Control No. 3084-0131. On 
February 3, 2012, OMB additionally approved under that control 
number FTC adjustments submitted on December 9, 2011 to reflect the 
effects of the Dodd-Frank Act, but the latter approval retained the 
previously accorded clearance expiration of December 31, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the past, FTC staff's estimates assume a higher burden will 
be incurred during the first year of a prospective OMB three-year 
clearance, with a lesser burden for each of the subsequent two years 
because the opt-out notice to consumers is required to be given only 
once. Institutions may provide for an indefinite period for the opt-out 
or they may time limit it, but for no less than five years.
    Staff's labor cost estimates take into account: managerial and 
professional time for reviewing internal policies and determining 
compliance obligations; technical time for creating the notice and opt-
out, in either paper or electronic form; and clerical time for 
disseminating the notice and opt-out.\11\ In addition, staff's cost 
estimates presume that the availability of model disclosures and opt-
out notices will simplify the compliance review and implementation 
processes, thereby significantly reducing the cost of compliance. 
Moreover, the Rule gives entities considerable flexibility to determine 
the scope and duration of the opt-out. Indeed, this flexibility permits 
entities to send a single joint notice on behalf of all of its 
affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ No clerical time was included in staff's burden analysis 
for GLBA entities as the notice would likely be combined with 
existing GLBA notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Non-GLBA Entities

    Based, in part, on industry data regarding the number of businesses 
under various industry codes, staff estimates that 1,174,347 non-GLBA 
entities under FTC jurisdiction have affiliates and would be affected 
by the Rule.\12\ Commission staff further estimates an average of 5 
businesses per family or affiliated relationship, and believes that the 
affiliated entities will choose to send a joint notice, as permitted by 
the Rule. Thus, an estimated 234,869 non-GLBA business families may 
send the affiliate marketing notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This estimate is derived from an analysis of a database of 
U.S. businesses based on June 2013 SIC codes for businesses that 
market goods or services to consumers, which included the following 
industries: transportation services; communication; electric, gas, 
and sanitary services; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real 
estate; and services (excluding business services and engineering, 
management services). See http://www.naics.com/search.htm. This 
estimate excludes businesses not subject to FTC jurisdiction and 
businesses that do not use data or information subject to the rule. 
To the resulting sub-total (7,111,026), staff applies a continuing 
assumed rate of affiliation of 16.75 percent, see 75 FR 43526, 43528 
n. 6 (July 26, 2010), reduced by a continuing estimate of 100,000 
entities subject to the Commission's GLBA privacy notice 
regulations, see id., applied to the same assumed rate of 
affiliation. The net total is 1,174,347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff also estimates that non-GLBA entities under the jurisdiction 
of the FTC would each incur 14 hours of burden during the prospective 
requested three-year PRA clearance period, comprised of a projected 7 
hours of managerial time, 2 hours of technical time, and 5 hours of 
clerical assistance.
    Based on the above, total burden for non-GLBA entities during the 
prospective three-year clearance period would be approximately 
3,288,166 hours, cumulatively. Associated labor cost would total 
$123,353,199.\13\ These estimates include the start-up burden and 
attendant costs, such as determining compliance obligations. Non-GLBA 
entities, however, will give notice only once during the clearance 
period ahead. Thus, averaged over that three-year period, the estimated 
annual burden for non-GLBA entities is 1,096,055 hours and $41,117,733 
in labor costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The associated labor cost is based on the labor cost burden 
per notice by adding the hourly mean private sector wages for 
managerial, technical, and clerical work and multiplying that sum by 
the estimated number of hours. The classifications used are 
``Management Occupations'' for managerial employees, ``Computer and 
Mathematical Science Occupations'' for technical staff, and ``Office 
and Administrative Support'' for clerical workers. See OCCUPATIONAL 
EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES--MAY 2012, U.S. Department of Labor released 
March 29, 2013, Table 1 (``National employment and wage data from 
the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 
2012''):  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf. The 
respective private sector hourly wages for these classifications are 
$52.20, $38.55, and $16.54. Estimated hours spent for each labor 
category are 7, 2, and 5, respectively. Multiplying each 
occupation's hourly wage by the associated time estimate, labor cost 
burden per notice equals $525.20. This subtotal is then multiplied 
by the estimated number of non-GLB business families projected to 
send the affiliate marketing notice (234,869) to determine 
cumulative labor cost burden for non-GLBA entities ($123,353,199).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. GLBA Entities

    Entities that are subject to the Commission's GLBA privacy notice 
regulation already provide privacy notices to their customers.\14\ 
Because the FACT Act and the Rule contemplate that the affiliate 
marketing notice can be included in the GLBA notices, the burden on 
GLBA regulated entities would be greatly reduced. Accordingly, the GLBA 
entities would incur 6 hours of burden during the first year of the 
clearance period, comprised of a projected 5 hours of managerial time 
and 1 hour of technical time to execute the notice, given that the Rule 
provides a model.\15\ Staff further estimates that 3,350 GLBA entities 
under FTC jurisdiction would be affected,\16\ so that the total burden 
for GLBA entities during the first year of the clearance period would 
approximate 20,100 hours (3,350 x 6) and $1,003,493 in associated labor 
costs.\17\
    Allowing for increased familiarity with procedure, the PRA burden 
in ensuing years would decline, with GLBA entities each incurring an 
estimated 4 hours of annual burden (3 hours of managerial time and 1 
hour of technical time) during the remaining two years of the 
clearance, amounting to 13,400 hours (3,350 x 4) and $653,753 in labor 
costs in each of the ensuing two

[[Page 73194]]

years.\18\ Thus, averaged over the three-year clearance period, the 
estimated annual burden for GLBA entities is 15,633 hours and $770,333 
in labor costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Financial institutions must provide a privacy notice at the 
time the customer relationship is established and then annually so 
long as the relationship continues. Staff's estimates assume that 
the affiliate marketing opt-out will be incorporated in the 
institution's initial and annual notices.
    \15\ As stated above, no clerical time is included in the 
estimate because the notice likely would be combined with existing 
GLBA notices.
    \16\ Based on the previously stated estimates of 100,000 GLBA 
business entities at an assumed rate of affiliation of 16.75 percent 
(16,750), divided by the presumed ratio of 5 businesses per family, 
this yields a total of 3,350 GLBA business families subject to the 
Rule.
    \17\ 3,350 GLBA families x [$52.20 x 5 hours) + ($38.55 x 1 
hour)] = $1,003,493.
    \18\ 3,350 GLBA families x [($52.20 x 3 hours) + ($38.55 x 1 
hours)] = $653,753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative average annual burden for both non-GLBA and GLBA for 
the prospective three-year clearance period is 1,111,688 burden hours 
and $41,888,066 in labor costs. GLBA entities are already providing 
notices to their customers so there are no new capital or non-labor 
costs, as this notice may be consolidated into their current notices. 
For non-GLBA entities, the Rule provides for simple and concise model 
forms that institutions may use to comply. Thus, any capital or non-
labor costs associated with compliance for these entities are 
negligible.

C. FTC Share of Burden: 560,609 hours; $21,173,214, labor costs \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Previously stated as 560,179 hours and $20,771,941 in the 
August 27, 2013 Notice, based on pre-corrected inputs, as further 
detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the total burden attributed to the FTC, staff first 
deducted from the total annual burden hours those hours attributed to 
motor vehicle dealers, which are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
FTC. Staff estimates that there are 60,959 motor vehicle dealerships 
subject to the Rule.\20\ Of these, staff estimates that 10% are non-
GLBA entities (6,096), and 90% are GLBA entities (54,863). Applying an 
assumed rate of affiliation of 16.75%, staff estimates that there are 
1,021 \21\ non-GLBA and 9,190 GLBA motor vehicle dealerships in 
affiliated families. Staff further assumes there are an average of 5 
businesses per family or affiliated relationship, leaving approximately 
204 \22\ non-GLBA and 1,838 GLBA motor vehicle dealership families, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This figure consists, in part, of 55,417 car dealers per 
NADA (franchise/new cars) (http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/2011/default) and NIADA data (independents/used cars) 
(http://www.usedcarnews.com/news/2963-niada-survey-shows-more-action-online), respectively, for 2011, multiplied by an added 
factor of 1.10 to cover for an unknown quantity of additional motor 
vehicle dealer types (motorcycles, boats, other recreational 
vehicles) also covered within the definition of motor vehicle dealer 
under section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act. This leaves a total of 
60,959 motor vehicle dealers subject to the Rule.
    \21\ Erroneously stated as 102 non-GLBA entities in the August 
27, 2013 Notice.
    \22\ Erroneously stated as 20 in the August 27, 2013 Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff further estimates that non-GLBA business families will spend 
14 hours in the first year and 0 hours thereafter to comply with the 
Rule, while GLBA business families will spend 6 hours in the first 
year, and 4 hours in each of the following two years. The cumulative 
average annual burden for the non-GLBA and GLBA motor vehicle 
dealership families is 9,529 hours.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 204 non-GLBA families x 4.666667 average hours = 952 hours; 
1,838 GLBA families x 4.666667 average hours = 8,577 hours. The 
total is thus 9,529 hours. In the August 27, 2013 Notice the 
estimated total was 8,670 hours, but that reflected the pre-
corrected input for the estimated number of non-GLBA motor vehicle 
dealership families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the FTC's total shared burden hours, staff deducted 
from the total burden hours (1,111,688 hours) those attributed to motor 
vehicle dealerships (9,529), leaving a total of 1,102,159 hours to 
split between the CFPB and the FTC. The resulting shared burden for the 
CFPB is half that amount, or 551,080 hours. To calculate the total 
burden hours for the FTC, staff added the burden hours associated with 
motor vehicle dealers (9,529 hours), resulting in a total burden of 
560,609 hours.
    Staff used the same approach to estimate the shared costs for the 
FTC. Staff estimated the costs attributed to motor vehicle dealers as 
follows: non-GLBA business families have $35,714 in annualized labor 
costs,\24\ and GLBA business families have $422,648 annualized labor 
costs,\25\ for cumulative annualized costs of $458,362.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ (204 non-GLBA families x $525.20) / 3 = $35,714. Previously 
stated as $3,501 in the August 27, 2013 Notice, but that reflected 
the pre-corrected input for the estimated number of non-GLBA motor 
vehicle dealership families.
    \25\ In the first year, GLBA families have $550,573 costs: 1,838 
x [($52.20 x 5 hours) + ($38.55 x 1 hour)] = $550,573. In each of 
the second and third years, GLBA families have $358,686 in costs: 
1,838 x [($52.20 x 3 hours) + ($38.55 x 1 hour)] = $358,686.
    \26\ Previously stated as $426,149 in the August 27, 2013 
Notice, but that reflected the pre-corrected input for the estimated 
number of non-GLBA motor vehicle dealership families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate, on an annualized basis, the FTC's cumulative share of 
labor cost burden, staff deducted from the overall total ($41,888,066) 
\27\ the labor costs attributed to motor vehicle dealerships 
($458,362), leaving a net amount of $41,429,704 to split between the 
CFPB and the FTC. The resulting shared burden for the CFPB is half that 
amount, or $20,714,852. To calculate the total burden hours for the 
FTC, staff added the costs associated with motor vehicle dealers 
($458,362), resulting in a total cost burden for the FTC of 
$21,173,214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The August 27, 2013 Notice used $41,117,733 as the total 
labor cost estimate from which to apportion between the FTC and 
CFPB, but that amount represented only the non-GLBA labor cost 
estimate while inadvertently excluding the estimate for GLBA-related 
labor cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 January 6, 2014. 
Write ``Affiliate Marketing Disclosure Rule, PRA Comment: FTC File No. 
P0105411'' on your comment. Your comment--including your name and your 
state--will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, 
including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web 
site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 
discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact 
information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web 
site.
    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely 
responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any 
sensitive personal information, like anyone'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 doesn't include any 
sensitive health information, like medical records or other 
individually identifiable health information. In addition, don't 
include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information 
which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or 
confidential,'' as provided in 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). In particular, don't 
include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales 
statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing 
processes, or customer names
    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential 
treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for 
confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained 
in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).\28\ Your comment will be kept 
confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in 
accordance with the law and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 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. See FTC Rule 
4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit 
your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your 
online comment, you must file it at https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/affiliatemarketingpra2 by following the

[[Page 73195]]

instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/# !home, you also may file a comment through that 
Web site.
    If you file your comment on paper, write ``Affiliate Marketing 
Disclosure Rule, PRA Comment: FTC File No. P0105411'' on your comment, 
and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex 
J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, 
submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight 
service.
    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 January 6, 
2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted 
by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.
    Comments on the information collection requirements subject to 
review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent 
by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk 
Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office 
Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, 
DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are 
subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, 
comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5167.

David C. Shonka,
Principal Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-29078 Filed 12-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P