If the retail or service establishment meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of § 779.227, it may enter into the following arrangements without becoming a part of the larger enterprise, that is, without losing its status as a “separate and distinct enterprise” to which section 3(s) would not otherwise apply:
(a) Any arrangement, whether by agreement, franchise or otherwise, that it will sell, or sell only certain goods specified by a particular manufacturer, distributor, or advertiser.
(b) Any such arrangement that it will have the exclusive right to sell the goods or use the brand name of a manufacturer, distributor, or advertiser within a specified area.
(c) Any such arrangement by which it will join with other similar retail or service establishments in the same industry for the purpose of collective purchasing. Where an agreement for “collective purchasing” is involved, further requirements are imposed, namely, that all of the other establishments joining in the agreement must be retail or service establishments under independent ownership, and that all of the establishments joining in the collective purchasing arrangement must be “in the same industry.” This has reference to such arrangements by a group of grocery stores, or by some other trade group in the retail industry.
(d) Any arrangement whereby the establishment's premises are leased from a person who also leases premises to other retail or service establishments. In connection with this rental arrangement, the Senate Report cites as an example the retail establishment which rents its premises from a shopping center operator (S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 41). It is clear that this exception was not intended to apply to the usual leased department in an establishment, which is specifically included within the larger enterprise under the definition of section 3(r). (See discussion under § 779.225.)