Duties of Users of Consumer Reports Regarding Address Discrepancies, 57172-57175 [2020-19141]

Download as PDF 57172 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement. Environmental Review This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final regulatory action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. * * jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS * * Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 8, 2020. Byron Chew, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Federal Trade Commission. Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment. AGENCY: ACTION: * * 16:25 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 The Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) requests public comment on its Duties of Users of Consumer Reports Regarding Address Discrepancies Rule (‘‘Address Discrepancy Rule’’) as part of its systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides. The FTC also proposes to amend the Rule to accord with changes made to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (‘‘FCRA’’) by the Dodd-Frank Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 30, 2020. SUMMARY: Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ‘‘Address Discrepancy Rule, 16 CFR part 641, Project No. P205408’’ on your comment and file your comment online through https://www.regulations.gov by following the instructions on the webbased form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite ADDRESSES: AWP CA E2 Hayward, CA [New] Hayward Executive Airport, CA (Lat. 37°39′32″ N, long. 122°07′18″ W) Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (Lat. 37°43′17″ N, long. 122°13′16″ W) That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 1,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the Hayward Executive Airport, Hayward CA excluding that portion within the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport, Class C airspace. This Class E airspace is effective during the VerDate Sep<11>2014 * Duties of Users of Consumer Reports Regarding Address Discrepancies Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. * * RIN 3084–AB63 AWP CA D Hayward, CA [Amended] Hayward Executive Airport, CA (Lat. 37°39′32″ N, long. 122°07′18″ W) Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (Lat. 37°43′17″ N, long. 122°13′16″ W) That airspace extending upward from the surface to, but not including, 1,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the Hayward Executive Airport, Hayward CA excluding that portion within the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport, Class C airspace. This Class D airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement. * * 16 CFR Part 641 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows: ■ * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: * AWP CA E4 Hayward, CA [New] Hayward Executive Airport, CA (Lat. 37°39′32″ N, long. 122°07′18″ W) That airspace extending upward from the surface 1.2 miles each side of the 120° bearing from the Hayward Executive Airport extending from the Class D and E2 airspace 4-mile radius to 9 miles from the airport. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. * * [FR Doc. 2020–20223 Filed 9–14–20; 8:45 am] 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as follows: ■ § 71.1 Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. CC–5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 Address Discrepancy 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. The FACT Act added section 605(h) to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (‘‘FCRA’’), requiring a national consumer reporting agency (‘‘CRA’’) that receives a request for a consumer report that contains an address substantially different from the address on file for the consumer to notify the requester of the existence of the discrepancy.1 Section 605(h) also required federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration and the FTC to issue regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable policies and procedures that a user of a consumer report should employ when the user receives a notice of such discrepancy.2 In 2007, the agencies issued the Address Discrepancy Rule to satisfy this requirement.3 The Address Discrepancy Rule requires users of consumer reports to develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures designed to enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer report relates to the consumer about whom it has requested a consumer report, when the user receives a notice of address discrepancy.4 Users must also develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures for furnishing an address for the consumer that the user has reasonably confirmed as accurate to the CRA from whom it received the notice when the user (1) can confirm that the consumer report relates to the consumer about whom the user requested the report, (2) establishes a continuing relationship with the consumer, and (3) 1 Section 605 is codified at 15 U.S.C. 1681c. U.S.C. 1681c(h)(2). 3 16 CFR part 641. 4 16 CFR 641.1(c). 2 15 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules regularly furnishes information about the consumer to the CRA.5 B. Dodd-Frank Act jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (‘‘DoddFrank Act’’) was signed into law in 2010.6 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.7 Accordingly, in 2012, the Commission rescinded several of its FCRA rules, which had been replaced by rules issued by the CFPB.8 The FTC retained rulemaking authority for other rules promulgated under the act to the extent the rules apply to motor vehicle dealers described in section 1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act 9 that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both (‘‘motor vehicle dealers’’).10 The rules for which the FTC retains rulemaking authority include the Address Discrepancy Rule, which now applies only to motor vehicle dealers.11 Consumer report users that are not motor vehicle dealers are covered by the CFPB’s rule.12 proposes to modify the Address Discrepancy Rule to reflect its scope. The proposed amendment to section 641.1 narrows the scope of the Address Discrepancy Rule to motor vehicle dealers excluded from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau jurisdiction as described in the Dodd-Frank Act.14 III. Regulatory Review of the Address Discrepancy Rule In addition to proposing the changes described above, the Commission seeks information about the costs and benefits of the Rule, and its regulatory and economic impact. Consistent with its practice of reviewing all of its rules and guides periodically, the Commission seeks to ascertain whether changes in technology, business models, or the law warrant modification or rescission of the Rule. As part of this review the Commission solicits comments on, among other things, the economic impact and benefits of the Address Discrepancy Rule; possible conflict between the Address Discrepancy Rule and state, local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the Address Discrepancy Rule of any technological, economic, or other industry changes. IV. Issues for Comment The Commission requests written comment on any or all of the following II. Technical Changes To Correspond to questions. These questions are designed Statutory Changes Resulting From the to assist the public and should not be Dodd-Frank Act construed as a limitation on the issues The Commission adopted the Address about which public comments may be Discrepancy Rule at a time when it had submitted. The Commission requests rulemaking authority for a broader that responses to its questions be as group of consumer report users. While specific as possible, including a the Dodd-Frank Act did not change the reference to the question being Commission’s enforcement authority for answered, and refer to empirical data or the Address Discrepancy Rule, it did other evidence upon which the narrow the Commission’s rulemaking comment is based whenever available authority with respect to the Rule. It and appropriate. now covers only motor vehicle 1. Is there a continuing need for dealers.13 The amendments in the Dodd- specific provisions of the Address Frank Act necessitate a technical Discrepancy Rule? Why or why not? revision to the Address Discrepancy 2. What benefits has the Address Rule to ensure that the regulation is Discrepancy Rule provided to consistent with the text of the amended consumers? What evidence supports the FCRA. Accordingly, the Commission asserted benefits? 3. What modifications, if any, should 5 16 CFR 641.1(d). be made to the Address Discrepancy 6 Public Law 111–203 (2010). Rule to increase the benefits to 7 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. The Dodd-Frank Act does consumers? not transfer to the CFPB rulemaking authority for a. What evidence supports the section 615(e) of the FCRA (‘‘Red Flag Guidelines proposed modifications? and Regulations Required’’) and section 628 of the FCRA (‘‘Disposal of Records’’). See 15 U.S.C. b. How would these modifications 1681s(e). affect the costs imposed by the Address 8 77 FR 22200 (April 13, 2012). Discrepancy Rule? 9 12 U.S.C. 5519. 4. What significant costs, if any, has 10 77 FR 22200 (April 13, 2012). the Address Discrepancy Rule imposed 11 Id. 12 12 13 15 CFR 1022.82. U.S.C. 1681s(e)(1); 12 U.S.C. 5519. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 14 12 PO 00000 U.S.C. 5519. Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 57173 on consumers? What evidence supports the asserted costs? 5. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Address Discrepancy Rule to reduce any costs imposed on consumers? a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications? b. How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Address Discrepancy Rule? 6. What benefits, if any, has the Address Discrepancy Rule provided to businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted benefits? 7. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Address Discrepancy Rule to increase its benefits to businesses, including small businesses? a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications? b. How would these modifications affect the costs the Address Discrepancy Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses? c. How would these modifications affect the benefits to consumers? 8. What significant costs, if any, including costs of compliance, has the Address Discrepancy Rule imposed on businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted costs? 9. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Address Discrepancy Rule to reduce the costs imposed on businesses, including small businesses? a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications? b. How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Address Discrepancy Rule? 10. What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry compliance with the Address Discrepancy Rule? 11. What modification, if any, should be made to the Address Discrepancy Rule to account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions? What evidence supports the proposed modifications? 12. Does the Address Discrepancy Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, how? a. What evidence supports the asserted conflicts? b. With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Address Discrepancy Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not? 13. The Commission proposes to amend the Rule to reflect that the Commission’s rulemaking authority has been revised by statute to apply exclusively to motor vehicle dealers. Are the proposed modifications E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1 57174 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS appropriate? Should additional amendments be made? Would these amendments create conflicts with any other Federal, State, or local regulations or laws? V. Request for Comment You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 30, 2020. Write ‘‘Address Discrepancy Rule, 16 CFR part 641, Project No. P205408’’ on the comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the https:// www.regulations.gov website. Because of the public health emergency in response to the COVID–19 outbreak and the agency’s heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comment online through the https://www.regulations.gov website. To ensure the Commission considers your online comment, please follow the instructions on the webbased form provided by regulations.gov. If you file your comment on paper, write ‘‘Address Discrepancy Rule, 16 CFR part 641, Project No. P205408’’ on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC– 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service. Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website, https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else’s Social Security number, date of birth, driver’s license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 include any ‘‘trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,’’ as provided by section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2), including in particular, competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names. Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on https://www.regulations.gov, we cannot redact or remove your comment from that website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request. Visit the Commission website at https://www.ftc.gov to read this document and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before November 30, 2020. For information on the Commission’s privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/siteinformation/privacy-policy. VI. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their Advisors Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner’s advisor, will be placed on the public record.15 VII. Paperwork Reduction Act The Address Discrepancy Rule contains information collection requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision within the Office of Management and 15 16 PO 00000 CFR 1.26(b)(5). Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Budget (‘‘OMB’’) regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). OMB has approved the Rule’s existing information collection requirements through December 31, 2021 (OMB Control No. 3084–0137). This proposal would amend 16 CFR part 641. The proposed amendments do not modify or add to information collection requirements that were previously approved by OMB. The proposed amendments do not make any substantive changes to the Rule, other than to narrow the scope to motor vehicle dealers. The existing clearance already reflects that change in scope. Therefore, the Commission does not believe that the proposed amendments would substantially or materially modify any ‘‘collections of information’’ as defined by the PRA. VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to 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.16 The Commission does not expect that the proposed changes to this Rule, if adopted, would have the threshold impact on small entities. The Commission does not expect the proposal to impose costs on small motor vehicle dealers because the amendments are primarily for clarification purposes and should not result in any increased burden on any motor vehicle dealer. Thus, a small entity that complies with current law need not take any different or additional action if the proposal is adopted. Therefore, based on available information, the Commission certifies that amending the Address Discrepancy Rule as proposed will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the proposed amendment would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an IRFA to inquire into the impact of the proposed amendment on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis: 16 5 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM U.S.C. 603–605. 15SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules A. Description of the Reasons for the Proposed Rule To address the Dodd-Frank Act’s changes to the Commission’s rulemaking authority, the Commission proposes to clarify that the Rule applies only to motor vehicle dealers. involving consumer reports may duplicate, satisfy, or potentially conflict with the Rule’s requirements for any covered financial institutions. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY F. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 33 CFR Part 165 B. Succinct Statement of the Objectives, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule The objectives of the proposed Rule are discussed above. The legal basis for the proposed Rule is 15 U.S.C. 1681c(h). The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives because the proposed amendment would not impose any new requirements or compliance costs. Nonetheless, the Commission welcomes comment on any significant alternative consistent with the FCRA that would minimize the impact of the proposed Rule change on small entities. C. Description of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply Determining a precise estimate of the number of small entities 17 is not readily feasible. Financial institutions covered by the Rule include certain motor vehicle dealers. A substantial number of these entities likely qualify as small businesses. The Commission estimates that the proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on small businesses because it imposes no new obligations. D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements, Including Classes of Covered Small Entities and Professional Skills Needed To Comply The proposed amendments would impose no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. The small entities potentially covered by the proposed amendment will include all such entities subject to the Rule. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS E. Identification of Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed amendment. Nonetheless, the Commission requests comment on the extent to which other federal standards 17 The U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS) are generally expressed in either millions of dollars or number of employees. A size standard is the largest that a business can be and still qualify as a small business for Federal Government programs. For the most part, size standards are the annual receipts or the average employment of a firm. New car dealers (NAICS code 441100) are classified as small if they have fewer than 200 employees. Used car dealers (NAICS code 441120) are classified as small if their annual receipts are $27 million or less. Recreational vehicle dealers, boat dealers, motorcycle, ATV and all other motor vehicle dealers (NAICS codes 441210, 441222 and 441228) are classified as small if their annual receipts are $35 million or less. The 2019 Table of Small Business Size Standards is available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:25 Sep 14, 2020 Jkt 250001 List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 641 Consumer protection, Credit, Trade Practices. IX. Proposed Rule Language For the reasons stated above, the Federal Trade Commission proposes to amend part 641 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 641—DUTIES OF USERS OF CONSUMER REPORTS REGARDING ADDRESS DISCREPANCIES 1. Revise the authority section for part 641 to read as follows: ■ Authority: Public Law 108–159, sec. 315; 15 U.S.C. 1681c(h); 12 U.S.C. 5519(d). 2. In § 641.1 revise paragraph 641.1(a) to read as follows: ■ § 641.1 Duties of users of consumer reports regarding address discrepancies. (a) Scope. This section applies to users of consumer reports that are motor vehicle dealers excluded from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau jurisdiction as described in 12 U.S.C. 5519. * * * * * By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Slaughter and Commissioner Wilson not participating. April J. Tabor, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2020–19141 Filed 9–14–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–P PO 00000 57175 Coast Guard [Docket Number USCG–2020–0501] RIN 1625–AA87 Safety Zone; Ocean Cup, Pacific Rum Run, Catalina Island, California Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The U.S. Coast Guard proposes to establish a one-time, temporary safety zone near Ship Rock, Catalina Island, in support of the Ocean Cup Pacific Rum Run. This action is necessary to protect the area near Ship Rock, Catalina Island, public vessels, and the high speed vessels participating in the event. This regulation would prohibit vessels from entering into, transiting through, or remaining within the designated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Los Angeles—Long Beach, or her designated representative. DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 30, 2020. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG– 2020–0501 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. SUMMARY: If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach; telephone (310) 521–3860, email D11-SMBSectorLALB-WWM@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register LLNR Light List Number NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Public Participation and Request for Comments We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM 15SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57172-57175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19141]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 641

RIN 3084-AB63


Duties of Users of Consumer Reports Regarding Address 
Discrepancies

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') 
requests public comment on its Duties of Users of Consumer Reports 
Regarding Address Discrepancies Rule (``Address Discrepancy Rule'') as 
part of its systematic review of all current Commission regulations and 
guides. The FTC also proposes to amend the Rule to accord with changes 
made to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (``FCRA'') by the Dodd-Frank Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 30, 
2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by 
following the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section below. Write ``Address Discrepancy Rule, 16 CFR part 641, 
Project No. P205408'' on your comment and file your comment online 
through https://www.regulations.gov by following the instructions on 
the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail 
your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office 
of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 
Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 
400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 
20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lincicum (202-326-2773), 
Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer 
Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

A. The Address Discrepancy 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. The FACT Act added section 605(h) to the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act (``FCRA''), requiring a national consumer reporting 
agency (``CRA'') that receives a request for a consumer report that 
contains an address substantially different from the address on file 
for the consumer to notify the requester of the existence of the 
discrepancy.\1\ Section 605(h) also required federal banking agencies, 
the National Credit Union Administration and the FTC to issue 
regulations providing guidance regarding reasonable policies and 
procedures that a user of a consumer report should employ when the user 
receives a notice of such discrepancy.\2\ In 2007, the agencies issued 
the Address Discrepancy Rule to satisfy this requirement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 605 is codified at 15 U.S.C. 1681c.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 1681c(h)(2).
    \3\ 16 CFR part 641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Address Discrepancy Rule requires users of consumer reports to 
develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures designed to 
enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer report 
relates to the consumer about whom it has requested a consumer report, 
when the user receives a notice of address discrepancy.\4\ Users must 
also develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures for 
furnishing an address for the consumer that the user has reasonably 
confirmed as accurate to the CRA from whom it received the notice when 
the user (1) can confirm that the consumer report relates to the 
consumer about whom the user requested the report, (2) establishes a 
continuing relationship with the consumer, and (3)

[[Page 57173]]

regularly furnishes information about the consumer to the CRA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 CFR 641.1(c).
    \5\ 16 CFR 641.1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Dodd-Frank Act

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(``Dodd-Frank Act'') was signed into law in 2010.\6\ 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.\7\ Accordingly, in 
2012, the Commission rescinded several of its FCRA rules, which had 
been replaced by rules issued by the CFPB.\8\ The FTC retained 
rulemaking authority for other rules promulgated under the act to the 
extent the rules apply to motor vehicle dealers described in section 
1029(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act \9\ that are predominantly engaged in the 
sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of 
motor vehicles, or both (``motor vehicle dealers'').\10\ The rules for 
which the FTC retains rulemaking authority include the Address 
Discrepancy Rule, which now applies only to motor vehicle dealers.\11\ 
Consumer report users that are not motor vehicle dealers are covered by 
the CFPB's rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Public Law 111-203 (2010).
    \7\ 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).
    \8\ 77 FR 22200 (April 13, 2012).
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5519.
    \10\ 77 FR 22200 (April 13, 2012).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ 12 CFR 1022.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Technical Changes To Correspond to Statutory Changes Resulting From 
the Dodd-Frank Act

    The Commission adopted the Address Discrepancy Rule at a time when 
it had rulemaking authority for a broader group of consumer report 
users. While the Dodd-Frank Act did not change the Commission's 
enforcement authority for the Address Discrepancy Rule, it did narrow 
the Commission's rulemaking authority with respect to the Rule. It now 
covers only motor vehicle dealers.\13\ The amendments in the Dodd-Frank 
Act necessitate a technical revision to the Address Discrepancy Rule to 
ensure that the regulation is consistent with the text of the amended 
FCRA. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to modify the Address 
Discrepancy Rule to reflect its scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 1681s(e)(1); 12 U.S.C. 5519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment to section 641.1 narrows the scope of the 
Address Discrepancy Rule to motor vehicle dealers excluded from 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau jurisdiction as described in the 
Dodd-Frank Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 12 U.S.C. 5519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Regulatory Review of the Address Discrepancy Rule

    In addition to proposing the changes described above, the 
Commission seeks information about the costs and benefits of the Rule, 
and its regulatory and economic impact. Consistent with its practice of 
reviewing all of its rules and guides periodically, the Commission 
seeks to ascertain whether changes in technology, business models, or 
the law warrant modification or rescission of the Rule. As part of this 
review the Commission solicits comments on, among other things, the 
economic impact and benefits of the Address Discrepancy Rule; possible 
conflict between the Address Discrepancy Rule and state, local, or 
other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the Address 
Discrepancy Rule of any technological, economic, or other industry 
changes.

IV. Issues for Comment

    The Commission requests written comment on any or all of the 
following questions. These questions are designed to assist the public 
and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues about which 
public comments may be submitted. The Commission requests that 
responses to its questions be as specific as possible, including a 
reference to the question being answered, and refer to empirical data 
or other evidence upon which the comment is based whenever available 
and appropriate.
    1. Is there a continuing need for specific provisions of the 
Address Discrepancy Rule? Why or why not?
    2. What benefits has the Address Discrepancy Rule provided to 
consumers? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?
    3. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Address 
Discrepancy Rule to increase the benefits to consumers?
    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
    b. How would these modifications affect the costs imposed by the 
Address Discrepancy Rule?
    4. What significant costs, if any, has the Address Discrepancy Rule 
imposed on consumers? What evidence supports the asserted costs?
    5. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Address 
Discrepancy Rule to reduce any costs imposed on consumers?
    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
    b. How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by 
the Address Discrepancy Rule?
    6. What benefits, if any, has the Address Discrepancy Rule provided 
to businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the 
asserted benefits?
    7. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Address 
Discrepancy Rule to increase its benefits to businesses, including 
small businesses?
    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
    b. How would these modifications affect the costs the Address 
Discrepancy Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
    c. How would these modifications affect the benefits to consumers?
    8. What significant costs, if any, including costs of compliance, 
has the Address Discrepancy Rule imposed on businesses, including small 
businesses? What evidence supports the asserted costs?
    9. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Address 
Discrepancy Rule to reduce the costs imposed on businesses, including 
small businesses?
    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
    b. How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by 
the Address Discrepancy Rule?
    10. What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry 
compliance with the Address Discrepancy Rule?
    11. What modification, if any, should be made to the Address 
Discrepancy Rule to account for changes in relevant technology or 
economic conditions? What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
    12. Does the Address Discrepancy Rule overlap or conflict with 
other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, how?
    a. What evidence supports the asserted conflicts?
    b. With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Address 
Discrepancy Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
    13. The Commission proposes to amend the Rule to reflect that the 
Commission's rulemaking authority has been revised by statute to apply 
exclusively to motor vehicle dealers. Are the proposed modifications

[[Page 57174]]

appropriate? Should additional amendments be made? Would these 
amendments create conflicts with any other Federal, State, or local 
regulations or laws?

V. Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to 
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 30, 
2020. Write ``Address Discrepancy Rule, 16 CFR part 641, Project No. 
P205408'' on the comment. Your comment, including your name and your 
state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, 
including the https://www.regulations.gov website.
    Because of the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 
outbreak and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail 
addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly 
encourage you to submit your comment online through the https://www.regulations.gov website. To ensure the Commission considers your 
online comment, please follow the instructions on the web-based form 
provided by regulations.gov.
    If you file your comment on paper, write ``Address Discrepancy 
Rule, 16 CFR part 641, Project No. P205408'' on your comment and on the 
envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 
CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the 
following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 
Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex 
J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment 
to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible 
website, https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for 
making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or 
confidential information. In particular, your comment should not 
include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone 
else's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number 
or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, 
passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card 
number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment 
does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical 
records or other individually identifiable health information. In 
addition, your comment should not include any ``trade secret or any 
commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or 
confidential,'' as provided by section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 
46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2), including in 
particular, competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales 
statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing 
processes, or customer names.
    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is 
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled 
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, 
the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the 
comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and 
must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from 
the public record. Your comment will be kept confidential only if the 
FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and 
the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on https://www.regulations.gov, we cannot redact or remove your comment from that 
website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the 
requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 
Counsel grants that request.
    Visit the Commission website at https://www.ftc.gov to read this 
document and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws 
that the Commission administers permit the collection of public 
comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The 
Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that 
it receives on or before November 30, 2020. For information on the 
Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

VI. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any 
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor, will be 
placed on the public record.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Address Discrepancy Rule contains information collection 
requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision 
within the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') regulations that 
implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). OMB has approved the 
Rule's existing information collection requirements through December 
31, 2021 (OMB Control No. 3084-0137).
    This proposal would amend 16 CFR part 641. The proposed amendments 
do not modify or add to information collection requirements that were 
previously approved by OMB. The proposed amendments do not make any 
substantive changes to the Rule, other than to narrow the scope to 
motor vehicle dealers. The existing clearance already reflects that 
change in scope. Therefore, the Commission does not believe that the 
proposed amendments would substantially or materially modify any 
``collections of information'' as defined by the PRA.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an 
agency to 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.\16\ The Commission does not expect that the proposed changes 
to this Rule, if adopted, would have the threshold impact on small 
entities. The Commission does not expect the proposal to impose costs 
on small motor vehicle dealers because the amendments are primarily for 
clarification purposes and should not result in any increased burden on 
any motor vehicle dealer. Thus, a small entity that complies with 
current law need not take any different or additional action if the 
proposal is adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 5 U.S.C. 603-605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on available information, the Commission certifies 
that amending the Address Discrepancy Rule as proposed will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses. Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the 
proposed amendment would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission has 
determined, nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an IRFA to 
inquire into the impact of the proposed amendment on small entities. 
Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis:

[[Page 57175]]

A. Description of the Reasons for the Proposed Rule

    To address the Dodd-Frank Act's changes to the Commission's 
rulemaking authority, the Commission proposes to clarify that the Rule 
applies only to motor vehicle dealers.

B. Succinct Statement of the Objectives, and Legal Basis for, the 
Proposed Rule

    The objectives of the proposed Rule are discussed above. The legal 
basis for the proposed Rule is 15 U.S.C. 1681c(h).

C. Description of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    Determining a precise estimate of the number of small entities \17\ 
is not readily feasible. Financial institutions covered by the Rule 
include certain motor vehicle dealers. A substantial number of these 
entities likely qualify as small businesses. The Commission estimates 
that the proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on small 
businesses because it imposes no new obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System Codes (NAICS) are generally expressed in 
either millions of dollars or number of employees. A size standard 
is the largest that a business can be and still qualify as a small 
business for Federal Government programs. For the most part, size 
standards are the annual receipts or the average employment of a 
firm. New car dealers (NAICS code 441100) are classified as small if 
they have fewer than 200 employees. Used car dealers (NAICS code 
441120) are classified as small if their annual receipts are $27 
million or less. Recreational vehicle dealers, boat dealers, 
motorcycle, ATV and all other motor vehicle dealers (NAICS codes 
441210, 441222 and 441228) are classified as small if their annual 
receipts are $35 million or less. The 2019 Table of Small Business 
Size Standards is available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements, Including Classes of Covered Small Entities and 
Professional Skills Needed To Comply

    The proposed amendments would impose no new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. The small entities 
potentially covered by the proposed amendment will include all such 
entities subject to the Rule.

E. Identification of Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal 
Rules

    The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, 
rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed amendment. Nonetheless, the Commission requests comment on the 
extent to which other federal standards involving consumer reports may 
duplicate, satisfy, or potentially conflict with the Rule's 
requirements for any covered financial institutions.

F. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption 
or other significant alternatives because the proposed amendment would 
not impose any new requirements or compliance costs. Nonetheless, the 
Commission welcomes comment on any significant alternative consistent 
with the FCRA that would minimize the impact of the proposed Rule 
change on small entities.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 641

    Consumer protection, Credit, Trade Practices.

IX. Proposed Rule Language

    For the reasons stated above, the Federal Trade Commission proposes 
to amend part 641 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 641--DUTIES OF USERS OF CONSUMER REPORTS REGARDING ADDRESS 
DISCREPANCIES

0
1. Revise the authority section for part 641 to read as follows:

    Authority:  Public Law 108-159, sec. 315; 15 U.S.C. 1681c(h); 12 
U.S.C. 5519(d).

0
2. In Sec.  641.1 revise paragraph 641.1(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  641.1  Duties of users of consumer reports regarding address 
discrepancies.

    (a) Scope. This section applies to users of consumer reports that 
are motor vehicle dealers excluded from Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau jurisdiction as described in 12 U.S.C. 5519.
* * * * *

    By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Slaughter and 
Commissioner Wilson not participating.
April J. Tabor,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19141 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P