Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 35191-35195 [E9-17147]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices
National Bank of Akron, Akron,
Colorado.
Applicant also has applied to retain
voting shares of Elite Properties of
America II, Inc.; CB&T Mortgage, LLC;
and CB&T Wealth Management, all of
Colorado Springs, Colorado; CB&T
Trust, LLC, Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
and thereby engage in, extending credit
and servicing of loans, pursuant to
section 225.28(b)(1); financial and
investment advisory activities, pursuant
to sections 225.28(b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(v);
and trust activities, pursuant to section
225.28(b)(5) of Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, July 14, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9–17111 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
Sunshine Act Meeting
Formations of, Acquisitions by, and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied to the Board for approval,
pursuant to the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)
(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part
225), and all other applicable statutes
and regulations to become a bank
holding company and/or to acquire the
assets or the ownership of, control of, or
the power to vote shares of a bank or
bank holding company and all of the
banks and nonbanking companies
owned by the bank holding company,
including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well
as other related filings required by the
Board, are available for immediate
inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank
indicated. The applications also will be
available for inspection at the offices of
the Board of Governors. Interested
persons may express their views in
writing on the standards enumerated in
the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the
proposal also involves the acquisition of
a nonbanking company, the review also
includes whether the acquisition of the
nonbanking company complies with the
standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
noted, nonbanking activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Additional information on all bank
holding companies may be obtained
from the National Information Center
website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
15:18 Jul 17, 2009
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, July 15, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9–17176 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Governors not later than August 14,
2009.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice
President) 230 South LaSalle Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414:
1. C–B–G, Inc., West Liberty, Iowa; to
acquire additional voting shares,
totaling up to 50.01 percent of
Washington Bancorp, and thereby
indirectly acquire additional voting
shares of Federation Bank, both of
Washington, Iowa.
Jkt 217001
Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.
TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Thursday,
July 23, 2009.
PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal
Reserve Board Building, 20th Street
entrance between Constitution Avenue
and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20551.
STATUS: Open.
We ask that you notify us in advance
if you plan to attend the open meeting
and provide your name, date of birth,
and social security number (SSN) or
passport number. You may provide this
information by calling (202) 452–2474
or you may register on–line. You may
pre–register until close of business July
22, 2009. You also will be asked to
provide identifying information,
including a photo ID, before being
admitted to the Board meeting. The
Public Affairs Office must approve the
use of cameras; please call (202) 452–
2955 for further information. If you need
an accommodation for a disability,
please contact Penelope Beattie on (202)
452–3982. For the hearing impaired
only, please use the Telecommunication
Device for the Deaf (TDD) on (202) 263–
4869.
Privacy Act Notice: Providing the
information requested is voluntary;
however, failure to provide your name,
date of birth, and social security number
or passport number may result in denial
of entry to the Federal Reserve Board.
This information is solicited pursuant to
Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal
Reserve Act and will be used to
facilitate a search of law enforcement
databases to confirm that no threat is
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35191
posed to Board employees or property.
It may be disclosed to other persons to
evaluate a potential threat. The
information also may be provided to law
enforcement agencies, courts, and
others, but only to the extent necessary
to investigate or prosecute a violation of
law.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
Discussion Agenda:
1. Proposed Amendments to
Regulation Z (Truth in Lending)
Addressing Mortgage Loans and Home
Equity Lines of Credit.
Note: 1. The staff memo to the Board
will be made available to the public in
paper and the background material will
be made available on a computer disc in
Word format. If you require a paper
copy of the document, please call
Penelope Beattie on (202) 452–3982.
2. This meeting will be recorded for
the benefit of those unable to attend.
Computer discs (CDs) will then be
available for listening in the Board’s
Freedom of Information Office, and
copies can be ordered for $4 per disc by
calling (202) 452–3684 or by writing to:
Freedom of Information Office, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Washington, D.C. 20551.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle A. Smith, Director, or Dave
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office
of Board Members; at 202–452–2955.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may
call (202) 452–3206 for a recorded
announcement of this meeting; or you
may contact the Board’s Web site at
https://www.federalreserve.gov for an
electronic announcement. (The Web site
also includes procedural and other
information about the open meeting.)
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, July 16, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9–17302 Filed 7–16–09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission
(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The FTC plans to conduct a
national study of the accuracy of
consumer reports in connection with
Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Pub.
L.108-159 (2003). This study is a followup to the Commission’s two previous
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
35192
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
pilot studies.1 Before gathering this
information, the FTC is seeking public
comment on its proposed study. The
FTC will consider comments before it
submits a request for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 18, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments
electronically or in paper form.
Comments should refer to ‘‘National
Accuracy Study: Paperwork Comment
(FTC file no. P044804)’’ to facilitate the
organization of the comments. Please
note that your comment—including
your name and your state—will be
placed on the public record of this
proceeding, including on the publicly
accessible FTC Website, at (https://
www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm).
Because comments will be made
public, they should not include any
sensitive personal information, such as
an individual’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. Comments
also should not include any sensitive
health information, such as medical
records or other individually
identifiable health information. In
addition, comments should not 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 Federal Trade
Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C.
46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR
4.10(a)(2). 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), 16 CFR 4.9(c).2
Because paper mail addressed to the
FTC is subject to delay due to
heightened security screening, please
1Reports to Congress Under Sections 318 and 319
of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of
2003, Federal Trade Commission, December 2006
and 2008. The reports may be accessed at the FTC’s
Web site. December 2006 Report: (https://
www.ftc.gov/reports/FACTACT/FACT_Act_Report_
2006.pdf); December 2008 Report: (https://
www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/factareport.shtm).
2 The comment must be accompanied by an
explicit request for confidential treatment,
including the factual and legal basis for the request,
and must identify the specific portions of the
comment to be withheld from the public record.
The request will be granted or denied by the
Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with
applicable law and the public interest. See FTC
Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
consider submitting your comments in
electronic form. Comments filed in
electronic form should be submitted by
using the following web link: (https://
secure.commentworks.com/ftcFACTA319study) (and following the
instructions on the web-based form). To
ensure that the Commission considers
an electronic comment, you must file it
on the web-based form at the web link
(https://secure.commentworks.com/ftcFACTA319study). If this Notice appears
at (https://www.regulations.gov/search/
index.jsp), you may also file an
electronic comment through that
website. The Commission will consider
all comments that regulations.gov
forwards to it. You may also visit the
FTC Website at https://www.ftc.gov to
read the Notice and the news release
describing it.
A comment filed in paper form
should include the ‘‘National Accuracy
Study: Paperwork Comment (FTC file
no. P044804)’’ reference both in the text
and on the envelope, and should be
mailed or delivered to the following
address: Federal Trade Commission,
Office of the Secretary, Room H-135
(Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is
requesting that any comment filed in
paper form be sent by courier or
overnight service, if possible, because
U.S. postal mail in the Washington area
and at the Commission is subject to
delay due to heightened security
precautions.
The FTC Act and other laws the
Commission administers permit the
collection of public comments to
consider and use in this proceeding as
appropriate. The Commission will
consider all timely and responsive
public comments that it receives,
whether filed in paper or electronic
form. Comments received will be
available to the public on the FTC
Website, to the extent practicable, at
(https://www.ftc.gov/os/
publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of
discretion, the Commission makes every
effort to remove home contact
information for individuals from the
public comments it receives before
placing those comments on the FTC
Website. More information, including
routine uses permitted by the Privacy
Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy
policy, at (https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/
privacy.shtm).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Vander Nat, Economist, (202) 3263518, Federal Trade Commission,
Bureau of Economics.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 (‘‘FACT Act’’
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
or the ‘‘Act’’), Pub. L.108-159 (2003)
requires the FTC to study the accuracy
and completeness of information in
consumers’ credit reports and to
consider methods for improving the
accuracy and completeness of such
information. Section 319 of the Act also
requires the Commission to issue a
series of biennial reports to Congress
over a period of eleven years. The first
report was submitted to Congress in
December 2004.3 The second report was
submitted to Congress in December
2006 (‘‘December 2006 Report’’),
describing the results of a pilot study.
The third report was submitted in
December 2008 (‘‘December 2008
Report’’), describing the results of a
second pilot study.
In July 2005, OMB approved the
FTC’s request to conduct a pilot study
to evaluate the feasibility of a
methodology that involves direct review
by consumers of the information in their
credit reports (OMB Control Number
3084-0133),4 and the FTC conducted
that pilot study in 2005-2006. As
explained in the December 2006 report,
FTC staff concluded that it was
necessary to conduct a second pilot
study to evaluate additional design
elements prior to carrying out a
nationwide survey. Upon receiving
further OMB approval (reinstatement of
Control No. 3084-0133), the FTC
conducted the second pilot study in
2007-2008. The FTC’s pilot studies used
small samples and did not rely on the
selection of a nationally representative
sample of credit reports; accordingly, no
statistical projections were made. The
FTC now plans to conduct a national
study of the accuracy of consumer
reports in connection with Section 319
of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. L.108159 (2003). This study is a follow-up to
the Commission’s two previous pilot
studies.
Proposed Information Collection
Activities
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521,
federal agencies must obtain approval
from OMB for each collection of
information they conduct or sponsor.
‘‘Collection of information’’ means
agency requests or requirements that
members of the public submit reports,
keep records, or provide information to
a third party. 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3), 5 CFR
3 Report to Congress Under Sections 318 and 319
of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of
2003, Federal Trade Commission, December 2004.
The December 2004 Report is available at (https://
www.ftc.gov/reports/facta/041209factarpt.pdf).
4 See 70 FR 24583 (May 10, 2005) for discussion
of the initial pilot study and related public
comments.
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices
§ 1320.3(c). Because the number of
entities affected by the Commission’s
requests will exceed ten, the
Commission plans to seek OMB
clearance under the PRA. As required
by § 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC
is providing this opportunity for public
comment before requesting that OMB
grant the clearance for the proposed
information collection.
The FTC invites comments on: (1)
whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the FTC,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
the agency’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). More
generally, the FTC invites comment on
the various design elements for a
national study set forth below. All
comments should be filed as prescribed
in the ADDRESSES section above, and
must be received on or before
September 18, 2009.
1. Description of the Collection of
Information and Proposed Use
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
A. Initial Pilot Study (2005-2006)
The goal of the initial pilot study was
to assess the feasibility of directly
engaging consumers in an in-depth
review of their credit reports for the
purpose of identifying alleged material
errors and channeling such errors
through the Fair Credit Report Act
(‘‘FCRA’’) dispute resolution process.
The FTC’s contractor for the initial pilot
study—a research team comprised of
members from the Center for Business
and Industrial Studies (University of
Missouri-St Louis), Georgetown
University Credit Research Center, and
the Fair Isaac Corporation—engaged 30
randomly selected participants in an indepth review of their credit reports.
Study participants obtained their credit
reports and credit scores 5 from each of
5 A credit score is a numerical summary of the
information in a credit report and is designed to be
predictive of the risk of default. Credit scores are
created by proprietary formulas that render the
following result: the higher the credit score, the
lower the risk of default. The contractor in the first
and second pilot studies employed (and the
proposed national study expects to employ) a score
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
the three nationwide consumer
reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian,
TransUnion—hereinafter, the ‘‘CRAs’’).
The contractor reviewed these credit
reports with the participants and after
an evaluation of alleged errors for
materiality by the research team,
consumers were asked to channel
disputed information through the FCRA
dispute resolution process.6
The first pilot study demonstrated the
general feasibility of the consumer
interview methodology, but also
revealed several challenges for a
national study.7 Challenges include
identifying methods for achieving a
more representative sampling frame,
increasing the response rates, and easing
the burden of completing the study.
Compared to the national average for
credit scores, consumers with relatively
low scores were under-represented.
Also, the majority of participants who
alleged errors on their credit reports and
indicated that they would file a dispute
did not follow through with their stated
intention to file. In consideration of
these and other matters, the FTC
conducted a follow-up pilot study.
B. The Second Pilot Study (2007-2008)
The second pilot study combined
successful elements from the first pilot
with new procedures designed to
overcome shortcomings of the first pilot.
Through a variety of recruitment
channels, 4,232 people were invited to
participate. Multiple recruitment
methods were employed and these were
useful in identifying differences in
response rates and credit scores of the
respondents across various methods of
recruitment. Of the 4,232 individuals
that is commonly used in credit reporting, namely
a FICO score.
6 The FCRA dispute resolution process involves
the review of disputed items by data furnishers and
CRAs. The formal dispute process renders a specific
outcome for each alleged error. By direct instruction
of the data furnisher, the following outcomes may
occur: delete the item, change or modify the item
(specifying the change), or maintain the item as
originally reported. A CRA may also delete a
disputed item due to expiration of the statutory
time frame (the FCRA limits the process to 30 days,
but the time may be extended to 45 days if a
consumer submits relevant information during the
30-day period). These possible actions are tracked
by a form called ‘‘Online Solution for Complete and
Accurate Reporting’’ (e-OSCAR) that is used by
CRAs for resolving FCRA disputes. A consumer
may also dispute information directly with a data
furnisher, as provided for by FCRA 623(a)(8). 15
U.S.C.1681s-2(a)(8). (See also, Federal Trade
Commission and Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, Report to Congress on the Fair
Credit Reporting Act Dispute Process, August 2006.
The report is available at (https://www.ftc.gov/os/
comments/fcradispute/
P044808fcradisputeprocessreporttocongress.pdf).
7 The FTC’s December 2006 Report to Congress
contains a more detailed review of the study and
its results.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35193
contacted, 128 (3%) became
participants. The contractor 8 helped
participants obtain their 3 credit reports
and conducted an in-depth review of
the reports with each participant. The
contractor also helped the participants
to identify alleged inaccuracies and gave
advice on the difference between a
small inaccuracy and a material error
that is likely to affect a credit score.
Specific criteria for materiality were
developed in consultation with Fair
Isaac’s analyst on the research team.9 If
the consumer alleged a material error,
the individual was encouraged to file a
formal FCRA dispute so as to obtain a
review of the challenged items by data
furnishers and CRAs. The contractor
prepared a dispute letter for any
consumer who wanted to file and allege
an error, material or not (as the FCRA
permits a consumer to dispute any
credit report information that the person
believes to be inaccurate).
Regarding the results of the study, 88
of the 128 participants (69%) found no
errors in their credit reports. Of the 40
participants who alleged one or more
errors that they wanted to dispute, 15
(or 12% of the 128) alleged a material
error. For 7 of these latter cases, the
FCRA dispute process rendered credit
report changes that were made fully in
keeping with all of the consumer’s
allegations.10
As noted above, the second pilot
study (like the first) used a small sample
and no statistical projections were
made. Accordingly, no extensive
statistical summaries were needed, nor
were any given, in the FTC’s report on
the study. The primary purpose of the
pilot studies was to refine the expert8 Due to the similarity in design (i.e., second pilot
was constructed as a follow-up to first) the FTC
employed the same contractor.
9 December 2008 Report (at 3). The contractor
used the following criteria for materiality: the
consumer had a credit score less than 760 (a cutoff
widely used to identify consumers with lowest
credit risk and for extending credit on most
favorable terms) AND the consumer alleged an error
regarding any of the following matters: (i) negative
items (such as late payments); (ii) public
derogatories (such as bankruptcy); (iii) accounts
sent to collection; (iv) number of inquiries for new
credit; (v) outstanding balances not attributable to
normal monthly reporting variation; (vi) accounts
on the report not belonging to the person who is
the subject of the report; or (vii) duplicate entries
of the same information (e.g., late payments or
outstanding obligations) that were double-counted
in the reported summaries of such items. To
enhance the efficiency of the study process, the
stated criteria modify somewhat the procedure used
in the first pilot study (contractor’s report on
second pilot study at 27). In the proposed national
study, we do not intend to use any cutoff score for
materiality, but plan to retain the stated categories
as indicating a dispute material to creditworthiness.
10 Other cases (i.e., some of the consumer’s
allegations were confirmed while other allegations
were denied) are summarized in the December 2008
Report (at 2 & 8).
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
35194
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
assisted survey approach for studying
credit report information, in preparation
for a national study.
The second pilot study confirmed the
importance of having the contractor
prepare dispute letters for consumers.
This was not done in the first pilot
study. In the first pilot study, only 1 of
the 3 participants who alleged material
errors on their credit reports filed a
dispute. In the follow-up pilot study, all
15 of the participants who alleged
material errors on their credit reports
received dispute letters from the
contractor, and the outcomes of these
disputes are known for 12 of them. This
is a significant improvement over the
first pilot study.
As noted above, multiple recruitment
methods were used to identify
differences in response rates and in
credit scores of respondents across
various methods of recruitment. The
second pilot study confirmed the
difficulties of obtaining adequate
numbers of participants with belowaverage credit scores. Purely random
sampling of potential participants
yielded too few actual participants with
low credit scores.11 A weighted random
sampling approach, whereby more
invitations were extended to groups of
consumers who were likely to have
lower credit scores, produced a sample
closer to national norms.12
The second pilot study indicated that
it would be feasible to base a measure
of the accuracy of credit report
information on confirmed material
errors via the FCRA dispute process.
Whenever it appeared that a consumer’s
credit score could be affected by
‘‘correcting’’ an alleged material error,
the contractor marked the credit reports
(the frozen files) 13 with explanations of
the discrepancies and sent copies of the
marked reports to Fair Isaac for
rescoring. If, via the FCRA dispute
process, changes were subsequently
made by CRAs and lenders in keeping
with the consumer’s allegations, these
changed items were then designated as
confirmed material errors. We then
rescore the frozen file to quantify the
impact of the confirmed error(s) on the
consumer’s credit score. The difference
between the rescore of the frozen file
and the original score is a meaningful
measure of the impact of inaccurate
credit report information. We intend to
11Table
III of the December 2008 Report (at 9).
9 of the contractor’s report (appendix to
the December 2008 Report).
13 The files are called ‘‘frozen’’ because no new
credit information was added to the consumer’s
original credit reports obtained in the study; any
rescoring would thus apply only to potential
changes or actual changes that were directly related
to the contractor’s review.
12Table
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
use this type of methodology in a
national study.14
As a final point of this summary of
the pilot studies, the relatively low
response rate (i.e., approximately 3% of
the individuals contacted became
participants) raises concern for the
design of a national study regarding a
potential response bias. This matter is
addressed below.
C. Proposed National Study
The proposed national study seeks to
use a large representative sample of
credit reports so that we may draw
inferences, up to a certain level of
statistical confidence, about the
accuracy of credit reports in general.
The need to employ a representative
sample makes the initial steps of the
proposed study different from the
methodology of the second pilot study;
in other respects, the methodologies of
the two studies are largely the same.
Our goal is to obtain approximately
1,000 participants who as a group
display a diversity on credit scores and
on major demographic characteristics in
line with national norms.
The relevant population for the study
is comprised of adult members of
households who have credit histories
with Equifax, Experian, and/or
TransUnion. To study these credit
histories we propose, as a first step, to
obtain a very large random sample (with
an order of magnitude of 200,000
names) from one of the consumer
reporting agencies in order to determine
a set of individuals selected for possible
contact (the ‘‘SPC list’’).15 From this
SPC list, FTC staff will draw a further
and considerably smaller random
sample (e.g., 10% sample) of
individuals selected for contact (the ‘‘SC
list’’).
14 Certain limitations regarding this methodology
are discussed in the December 2008 Report (at 3 &
4). Yet, use of the FCRA dispute process appears
to be the only feasible way of performing a
nationwide survey, in view of the enormous
difficulty and cost of attempting to ascertain the
ultimate accuracy regarding alleged errors.
15 The information in this sample, which would
include names, addresses, and credit scores, is to
be obtained under applicable law and protected
from disclosure by, e.g., Exemption 6 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. That
information, as well as any credit reports that
individual participants give permission to be
analyzed for the study, will be maintained and used
by the FTC and its contractors subject to
appropriate information security procedures and
safeguards (e.g., maintaining credit-related data
separately from personal identifying information,
requiring the FTC’s contractors to execute
confidentiality agreements, and limiting access to
those FTC and contractor staff who have a need to
work with the data). As noted above, the study
methodology is also designed to prevent disclosure
of any individual’s participation in the study to any
credit reporting agency.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
There are several reasons for this twostep process. First, the vast majority of
the names on the SPC list will not be
sent invitations to participate and thus
helps ensure that no CRA will know
who is participating in the study.
Further, using the SC list, we plan to
send proportionally more invitation
letters to individuals with lower credit
scores. Use of this weighted random
sampling approach is designed to obtain
an ultimate set of participants having
credit scores (specifically, the lower
scores) in line with national norms, as
suggested by the results of the second
pilot study.16
After some substantial set of
individuals have agreed to join the
study (300 - 400 people), we will have
an initial sample. This sample will be
compared with the larger SPC list on
credit scores and geographic diversity.
Statistically significant differences
between this initial sample and the
larger SPC list would reflect the impact
of non-participation. From this
information, we can selectively draw
individuals from the SC list in an effort
to compensate for these differences as
necessary.
As a further check on a potential bias
in the decision to participate, we plan
to obtain anonymized (redacted) credit
reports (and related credit scores) 17 for
the entire class of non-respondents, i.e.,
all the people from the SC list who
choose not to participate. Using the
redacted reports and related scores we
can determine, for example, whether
non-respondents had significantly
different credit scores or significantly
different credit histories from those who
agreed to participate.
Upon completion of the study, we
will have a database with detailed
demographic information about the
participants, the type and quantity of
alleged material errors on their credit
reports, the type and quantity of
confirmed material errors via the FCRA
dispute process, and the impact of any
such confirmed errors on the
participants’ credit scores.18 Further, by
December 2008 Report (at 9 &10).
These credit reports and scores will be
generated and maintained without name, address or
personal identifiers other than ID numbers assigned
by the study.
18 Using the methodology of the pilot studies, we
expect to obtain a variety of alleged errors: incorrect
report of late payment; multiple reports of an
account with late payment; paid account reported
as delinquent; closed account reported as
delinquent; incorrect financial account reported
(‘‘not mine’’); incorrect collection balance; incorrect
collection account reported; multiple reports of an
account in bankruptcy; chapter 7 accounts
discharged but reported as delinquent, as well as
further types of alleged errors. For these same
categories we can also tabulate confirmed material
errors via the FCRA dispute process. As explained
16
17
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices
analyzing the redacted credit reports
and related scores of the nonrespondents, we obtain a final check on
the degree to which the enhanced
procedures were effective in achieving a
nationally representative sample of
credit reports.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
2. Estimated Hours Burden
Consumer participation in the
proposed national study would involve
an initial preparation for the in-depth
interview and time spent by participants
to understand, review, and if deemed
necessary, dispute information in their
credit reports. Invitation letters will be
sent in progressive waves in order to
obtain approximately 1,000 participants.
The individuals who receive these
letters are drawn from the SC list
discussed above and will be asked to go
directly to a designated Web site for
enrollment if they wish to participate;
registration is expected to take at most
15 minutes per participant.19 The
registration process thus comes to
approximately 250 hours (reckoned at 1/
4 hour for each of 1,000 consumers).
For the purpose of calculating burden
under the PRA regarding the review
process of the credit reports, FTC staff
submits the following estimates that are
based on the contractor’s experience
with the second pilot study. Some
participants prepare thoroughly in
advance of the in-depth interview of
their credit reports. In such situations,
even complicated reports may generally
be finished under 30 minutes. Other
consumers may not find time for
significant preparation in advance of the
in-depth review, and in such cases the
interview could take up to an hour. The
participants in the second pilot study
reported taking an average of 69 minutes
(median 53 minutes) to prepare for the
interview, with 90% taking between 10
and 180 minutes. The interviews
themselves took an average of 19
minutes (median 15 minutes) with 90%
taking between 5 and 45 minutes.
Overall, the average combined time for
preparation and the interview was about
above, the rescoring of the frozen files will then
provide the impact of any confirmed errors on the
participants’ credit scores.
19 At the registration Web site, a person may take
the time to read several disclosures, including a
privacy disclosure and an outline of the various
steps of the study that every participant agrees to
undertake. The consumer is then asked to enter
basic contact information (e.g., name, address,
telephone number, best time to be contacted further
about the study) and to enter an electronic signature
certifying the consumer’s consent to participate in
the study. For those who may not have Internet
access to register, the contractor would also have a
procedure to mail the appropriate disclosures and
study steps to the respondent and then receive back
enrolment information and the consumer’s signed
consent in paper form.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 17, 2009
Jkt 217001
90 minutes (1.5 hours). For a national
study involving 1,000 consumers, FTC
staff thus estimates the burden hours for
the review process to be approximately
1,500 hours (1,000 consumers x 1.5
hours). Further adding on the time spent
for the registration process (0.25 hours
per participant), the total burden hours
come to approximately 1,750 hours.
3. Estimated Cost Burden
The cost per consumer for their
participation should be negligible.
Participation is voluntary and it will not
require any start-up or capital
expenditure. There is no labor time
expenditure beyond the 1.75 hours per
consumer estimated above. Participants
may receive an honorarium to
compensate them for their time. The
amount will be determined by FTC staff
in consultation with the contractor
according to an analysis of customary
procedures and a consideration of
response rates within key categories,
such as, response rates for consumers
with impaired credit. As with the pilot
studies, participants will not pay for
their credit reports or credit scores.
Willard Tom,
General Counsel
[FR Doc. E9–17147 Filed 7–17–09: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6750 –01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request; CareerTrac
Summary: Under the provisions of
section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the Fogarty
International Center (FIC) and National
Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS), the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request for review and
approval of the information collection
listed below. This proposed information
collection was previously published in
the Federal Register on May 12, 2009,
page 22172, and allowed 60-days for
public comment. No comments were
received from this notification regarding
the cost and hour burden estimates. The
purpose of this announcement is to
allow an additional 30 days for public
comment.
The National Institutes of Health may
not conduct or sponsor, and the
respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection that has
been extended, revised, or implemented
on or after October 1, 1995, unless it
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35195
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Proposed Collection: Title:
CareerTrac. Type of Information
Collection Request: Revision (OMB No.:
0925–0568 Expiration: Aug. 31, 2009).
Need and Use of Information Collection:
This data collection system is being
developed to track, evaluate and report
short and long-term outputs, outcomes
and impacts of international trainees
involved in health research training
programs—specifically tracking this for
at least ten years following training by
having Principal Investigators enter data
after trainees have completed the
program. The data collection system
provides a streamlined, Web-based
application permitting principal
investigators to record career
achievement progress by trainee on a
voluntary basis. FIC and NIEHS
management will use this data to
monitor, evaluate and adjust grants to
ensure desired outcomes are achieved,
comply with OMB part requirements,
respond to congressional inquiries, and
as a guide to inform future strategic and
management decisions regarding the
grant program.
Frequency of Response: Annual and
periodic Affected Public: none Type of
Respondents: Principal Investigators
and/or their administrators funded by
FIC and NIEHS. The annual reporting
burden is as follows: Estimated Number
of Respondents: 275; Estimated Number
of Responses per Respondent: 1;
Average Burden Hours per Response 7.5
and Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours Requested: 2063. The annualized
cost to respondents is estimated at
$82,500. There are no Capital Costs to
report. There are no Operating or
Maintenance Costs to report.
Request for Comments: Written
comments and/or suggestions from the
public and affected agencies are invited
on one or more of the following points:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the function of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35191-35195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17147]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FTC plans to conduct a national study of the accuracy of
consumer reports in connection with Section 319 of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. L.108-159 (2003). This
study is a follow-up to the Commission's two previous
[[Page 35192]]
pilot studies.\1\ Before gathering this information, the FTC is seeking
public comment on its proposed study. The FTC will consider comments
before it submits a request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Reports to Congress Under Sections 318 and 319 of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Federal Trade
Commission, December 2006 and 2008. The reports may be accessed at
the FTC's Web site. December 2006 Report: (https://www.ftc.gov/reports/FACTACT/FACT_Act_Report_2006.pdf); December 2008 Report:
(https://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/factareport.shtm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments
electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ``National
Accuracy Study: Paperwork Comment (FTC file no. P044804)'' to
facilitate the organization of the comments. Please note that your
comment--including your name and your state--will be placed on the
public record of this proceeding, including on the publicly accessible
FTC Website, at (https://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm).
Because comments will be made public, they should not include any
sensitive personal information, such as an individual'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. Comments also
should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical
records or other individually identifiable health information. In
addition, comments should not 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 Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15
U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). 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), 16 CFR 4.9(c).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with
applicable law and the public interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR
4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to
heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments
in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be
submitted by using the following web link: (https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-FACTA319study) (and following the
instructions on the web-based form). To ensure that the Commission
considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form
at the web link (https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-FACTA319study). If
this Notice appears at (https://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp),
you may also file an electronic comment through that website. The
Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to
it. You may also visit the FTC Website at https://www.ftc.gov to read
the Notice and the news release describing it.
A comment filed in paper form should include the ``National
Accuracy Study: Paperwork Comment (FTC file no. P044804)'' reference
both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered
to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in
paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible,
because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission
is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the
collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as
appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive
public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic
form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC
Website, to the extent practicable, at (https://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of discretion, the Commission makes
every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from
the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the
FTC Website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at (https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Vander Nat, Economist, (202)
326-3518, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 (``FACT Act'' or the ``Act''), Pub. L.108-159
(2003) requires the FTC to study the accuracy and completeness of
information in consumers' credit reports and to consider methods for
improving the accuracy and completeness of such information. Section
319 of the Act also requires the Commission to issue a series of
biennial reports to Congress over a period of eleven years. The first
report was submitted to Congress in December 2004.\3\ The second report
was submitted to Congress in December 2006 (``December 2006 Report''),
describing the results of a pilot study. The third report was submitted
in December 2008 (``December 2008 Report''), describing the results of
a second pilot study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Report to Congress Under Sections 318 and 319 of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Federal Trade
Commission, December 2004. The December 2004 Report is available at
(https://www.ftc.gov/reports/facta/041209factarpt.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2005, OMB approved the FTC's request to conduct a pilot
study to evaluate the feasibility of a methodology that involves direct
review by consumers of the information in their credit reports (OMB
Control Number 3084-0133),\4\ and the FTC conducted that pilot study in
2005-2006. As explained in the December 2006 report, FTC staff
concluded that it was necessary to conduct a second pilot study to
evaluate additional design elements prior to carrying out a nationwide
survey. Upon receiving further OMB approval (reinstatement of Control
No. 3084-0133), the FTC conducted the second pilot study in 2007-2008.
The FTC's pilot studies used small samples and did not rely on the
selection of a nationally representative sample of credit reports;
accordingly, no statistical projections were made. The FTC now plans to
conduct a national study of the accuracy of consumer reports in
connection with Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. L.108-159 (2003). This study is a
follow-up to the Commission's two previous pilot studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 70 FR 24583 (May 10, 2005) for discussion of the initial
pilot study and related public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Information Collection Activities
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, federal agencies must obtain
approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or
sponsor. ``Collection of information'' means agency requests or
requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records,
or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3502(3), 5 CFR
[[Page 35193]]
Sec. 1320.3(c). Because the number of entities affected by the
Commission's requests will exceed ten, the Commission plans to seek OMB
clearance under the PRA. As required by Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA,
the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before
requesting that OMB grant the clearance for the proposed information
collection.
The FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collections
of information are necessary for the proper performance of the
functions of the FTC, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses). More generally, the FTC invites
comment on the various design elements for a national study set forth
below. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES
section above, and must be received on or before September 18, 2009.
1. Description of the Collection of Information and Proposed Use
A. Initial Pilot Study (2005-2006)
The goal of the initial pilot study was to assess the feasibility
of directly engaging consumers in an in-depth review of their credit
reports for the purpose of identifying alleged material errors and
channeling such errors through the Fair Credit Report Act (``FCRA'')
dispute resolution process. The FTC's contractor for the initial pilot
study--a research team comprised of members from the Center for
Business and Industrial Studies (University of Missouri-St Louis),
Georgetown University Credit Research Center, and the Fair Isaac
Corporation--engaged 30 randomly selected participants in an in-depth
review of their credit reports. Study participants obtained their
credit reports and credit scores \5\ from each of the three nationwide
consumer reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion--
hereinafter, the ``CRAs''). The contractor reviewed these credit
reports with the participants and after an evaluation of alleged errors
for materiality by the research team, consumers were asked to channel
disputed information through the FCRA dispute resolution process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A credit score is a numerical summary of the information in
a credit report and is designed to be predictive of the risk of
default. Credit scores are created by proprietary formulas that
render the following result: the higher the credit score, the lower
the risk of default. The contractor in the first and second pilot
studies employed (and the proposed national study expects to employ)
a score that is commonly used in credit reporting, namely a FICO
score.
\6\ The FCRA dispute resolution process involves the review of
disputed items by data furnishers and CRAs. The formal dispute
process renders a specific outcome for each alleged error. By direct
instruction of the data furnisher, the following outcomes may occur:
delete the item, change or modify the item (specifying the change),
or maintain the item as originally reported. A CRA may also delete a
disputed item due to expiration of the statutory time frame (the
FCRA limits the process to 30 days, but the time may be extended to
45 days if a consumer submits relevant information during the 30-day
period). These possible actions are tracked by a form called
``Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting'' (e-OSCAR)
that is used by CRAs for resolving FCRA disputes. A consumer may
also dispute information directly with a data furnisher, as provided
for by FCRA 623(a)(8). 15 U.S.C.1681s-2(a)(8). (See also, Federal
Trade Commission and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Report to Congress on the Fair Credit Reporting Act Dispute
Process, August 2006. The report is available at (https://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/fcradispute/P044808fcradisputeprocessreporttocongress.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first pilot study demonstrated the general feasibility of the
consumer interview methodology, but also revealed several challenges
for a national study.\7\ Challenges include identifying methods for
achieving a more representative sampling frame, increasing the response
rates, and easing the burden of completing the study. Compared to the
national average for credit scores, consumers with relatively low
scores were under-represented. Also, the majority of participants who
alleged errors on their credit reports and indicated that they would
file a dispute did not follow through with their stated intention to
file. In consideration of these and other matters, the FTC conducted a
follow-up pilot study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The FTC's December 2006 Report to Congress contains a more
detailed review of the study and its results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Second Pilot Study (2007-2008)
The second pilot study combined successful elements from the first
pilot with new procedures designed to overcome shortcomings of the
first pilot.
Through a variety of recruitment channels, 4,232 people were
invited to participate. Multiple recruitment methods were employed and
these were useful in identifying differences in response rates and
credit scores of the respondents across various methods of recruitment.
Of the 4,232 individuals contacted, 128 (3%) became participants. The
contractor \8\ helped participants obtain their 3 credit reports and
conducted an in-depth review of the reports with each participant. The
contractor also helped the participants to identify alleged
inaccuracies and gave advice on the difference between a small
inaccuracy and a material error that is likely to affect a credit
score. Specific criteria for materiality were developed in consultation
with Fair Isaac's analyst on the research team.\9\ If the consumer
alleged a material error, the individual was encouraged to file a
formal FCRA dispute so as to obtain a review of the challenged items by
data furnishers and CRAs. The contractor prepared a dispute letter for
any consumer who wanted to file and allege an error, material or not
(as the FCRA permits a consumer to dispute any credit report
information that the person believes to be inaccurate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Due to the similarity in design (i.e., second pilot was
constructed as a follow-up to first) the FTC employed the same
contractor.
\9\ December 2008 Report (at 3). The contractor used the
following criteria for materiality: the consumer had a credit score
less than 760 (a cutoff widely used to identify consumers with
lowest credit risk and for extending credit on most favorable terms)
AND the consumer alleged an error regarding any of the following
matters: (i) negative items (such as late payments); (ii) public
derogatories (such as bankruptcy); (iii) accounts sent to
collection; (iv) number of inquiries for new credit; (v) outstanding
balances not attributable to normal monthly reporting variation;
(vi) accounts on the report not belonging to the person who is the
subject of the report; or (vii) duplicate entries of the same
information (e.g., late payments or outstanding obligations) that
were double-counted in the reported summaries of such items. To
enhance the efficiency of the study process, the stated criteria
modify somewhat the procedure used in the first pilot study
(contractor's report on second pilot study at 27). In the proposed
national study, we do not intend to use any cutoff score for
materiality, but plan to retain the stated categories as indicating
a dispute material to creditworthiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the results of the study, 88 of the 128 participants
(69%) found no errors in their credit reports. Of the 40 participants
who alleged one or more errors that they wanted to dispute, 15 (or 12%
of the 128) alleged a material error. For 7 of these latter cases, the
FCRA dispute process rendered credit report changes that were made
fully in keeping with all of the consumer's allegations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Other cases (i.e., some of the consumer's allegations were
confirmed while other allegations were denied) are summarized in the
December 2008 Report (at 2 & 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the second pilot study (like the first) used a
small sample and no statistical projections were made. Accordingly, no
extensive statistical summaries were needed, nor were any given, in the
FTC's report on the study. The primary purpose of the pilot studies was
to refine the expert-
[[Page 35194]]
assisted survey approach for studying credit report information, in
preparation for a national study.
The second pilot study confirmed the importance of having the
contractor prepare dispute letters for consumers. This was not done in
the first pilot study. In the first pilot study, only 1 of the 3
participants who alleged material errors on their credit reports filed
a dispute. In the follow-up pilot study, all 15 of the participants who
alleged material errors on their credit reports received dispute
letters from the contractor, and the outcomes of these disputes are
known for 12 of them. This is a significant improvement over the first
pilot study.
As noted above, multiple recruitment methods were used to identify
differences in response rates and in credit scores of respondents
across various methods of recruitment. The second pilot study confirmed
the difficulties of obtaining adequate numbers of participants with
below-average credit scores. Purely random sampling of potential
participants yielded too few actual participants with low credit
scores.\11\ A weighted random sampling approach, whereby more
invitations were extended to groups of consumers who were likely to
have lower credit scores, produced a sample closer to national
norms.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Table III of the December 2008 Report (at 9).
\12\Table 9 of the contractor's report (appendix to the December
2008 Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second pilot study indicated that it would be feasible to base
a measure of the accuracy of credit report information on confirmed
material errors via the FCRA dispute process. Whenever it appeared that
a consumer's credit score could be affected by ``correcting'' an
alleged material error, the contractor marked the credit reports (the
frozen files) \13\ with explanations of the discrepancies and sent
copies of the marked reports to Fair Isaac for rescoring. If, via the
FCRA dispute process, changes were subsequently made by CRAs and
lenders in keeping with the consumer's allegations, these changed items
were then designated as confirmed material errors. We then rescore the
frozen file to quantify the impact of the confirmed error(s) on the
consumer's credit score. The difference between the rescore of the
frozen file and the original score is a meaningful measure of the
impact of inaccurate credit report information. We intend to use this
type of methodology in a national study.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The files are called ``frozen'' because no new credit
information was added to the consumer's original credit reports
obtained in the study; any rescoring would thus apply only to
potential changes or actual changes that were directly related to
the contractor's review.
\14\ Certain limitations regarding this methodology are
discussed in the December 2008 Report (at 3 & 4). Yet, use of the
FCRA dispute process appears to be the only feasible way of
performing a nationwide survey, in view of the enormous difficulty
and cost of attempting to ascertain the ultimate accuracy regarding
alleged errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a final point of this summary of the pilot studies, the
relatively low response rate (i.e., approximately 3% of the individuals
contacted became participants) raises concern for the design of a
national study regarding a potential response bias. This matter is
addressed below.
C. Proposed National Study
The proposed national study seeks to use a large representative
sample of credit reports so that we may draw inferences, up to a
certain level of statistical confidence, about the accuracy of credit
reports in general. The need to employ a representative sample makes
the initial steps of the proposed study different from the methodology
of the second pilot study; in other respects, the methodologies of the
two studies are largely the same. Our goal is to obtain approximately
1,000 participants who as a group display a diversity on credit scores
and on major demographic characteristics in line with national norms.
The relevant population for the study is comprised of adult members
of households who have credit histories with Equifax, Experian, and/or
TransUnion. To study these credit histories we propose, as a first
step, to obtain a very large random sample (with an order of magnitude
of 200,000 names) from one of the consumer reporting agencies in order
to determine a set of individuals selected for possible contact (the
``SPC list'').\15\ From this SPC list, FTC staff will draw a further
and considerably smaller random sample (e.g., 10% sample) of
individuals selected for contact (the ``SC list'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The information in this sample, which would include names,
addresses, and credit scores, is to be obtained under applicable law
and protected from disclosure by, e.g., Exemption 6 of the Freedom
of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. That information, as well as any
credit reports that individual participants give permission to be
analyzed for the study, will be maintained and used by the FTC and
its contractors subject to appropriate information security
procedures and safeguards (e.g., maintaining credit-related data
separately from personal identifying information, requiring the
FTC's contractors to execute confidentiality agreements, and
limiting access to those FTC and contractor staff who have a need to
work with the data). As noted above, the study methodology is also
designed to prevent disclosure of any individual's participation in
the study to any credit reporting agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several reasons for this two-step process. First, the
vast majority of the names on the SPC list will not be sent invitations
to participate and thus helps ensure that no CRA will know who is
participating in the study. Further, using the SC list, we plan to send
proportionally more invitation letters to individuals with lower credit
scores. Use of this weighted random sampling approach is designed to
obtain an ultimate set of participants having credit scores
(specifically, the lower scores) in line with national norms, as
suggested by the results of the second pilot study.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ December 2008 Report (at 9 &10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After some substantial set of individuals have agreed to join the
study (300 - 400 people), we will have an initial sample. This sample
will be compared with the larger SPC list on credit scores and
geographic diversity. Statistically significant differences between
this initial sample and the larger SPC list would reflect the impact of
non-participation. From this information, we can selectively draw
individuals from the SC list in an effort to compensate for these
differences as necessary.
As a further check on a potential bias in the decision to
participate, we plan to obtain anonymized (redacted) credit reports
(and related credit scores) \17\ for the entire class of non-
respondents, i.e., all the people from the SC list who choose not to
participate. Using the redacted reports and related scores we can
determine, for example, whether non-respondents had significantly
different credit scores or significantly different credit histories
from those who agreed to participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ These credit reports and scores will be generated and
maintained without name, address or personal identifiers other than
ID numbers assigned by the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon completion of the study, we will have a database with detailed
demographic information about the participants, the type and quantity
of alleged material errors on their credit reports, the type and
quantity of confirmed material errors via the FCRA dispute process, and
the impact of any such confirmed errors on the participants' credit
scores.\18\ Further, by
[[Page 35195]]
analyzing the redacted credit reports and related scores of the non-
respondents, we obtain a final check on the degree to which the
enhanced procedures were effective in achieving a nationally
representative sample of credit reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Using the methodology of the pilot studies, we expect to
obtain a variety of alleged errors: incorrect report of late
payment; multiple reports of an account with late payment; paid
account reported as delinquent; closed account reported as
delinquent; incorrect financial account reported (``not mine'');
incorrect collection balance; incorrect collection account reported;
multiple reports of an account in bankruptcy; chapter 7 accounts
discharged but reported as delinquent, as well as further types of
alleged errors. For these same categories we can also tabulate
confirmed material errors via the FCRA dispute process. As explained
above, the rescoring of the frozen files will then provide the
impact of any confirmed errors on the participants' credit scores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Estimated Hours Burden
Consumer participation in the proposed national study would involve
an initial preparation for the in-depth interview and time spent by
participants to understand, review, and if deemed necessary, dispute
information in their credit reports. Invitation letters will be sent in
progressive waves in order to obtain approximately 1,000 participants.
The individuals who receive these letters are drawn from the SC list
discussed above and will be asked to go directly to a designated Web
site for enrollment if they wish to participate; registration is
expected to take at most 15 minutes per participant.\19\ The
registration process thus comes to approximately 250 hours (reckoned at
1/4 hour for each of 1,000 consumers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ At the registration Web site, a person may take the time to
read several disclosures, including a privacy disclosure and an
outline of the various steps of the study that every participant
agrees to undertake. The consumer is then asked to enter basic
contact information (e.g., name, address, telephone number, best
time to be contacted further about the study) and to enter an
electronic signature certifying the consumer's consent to
participate in the study. For those who may not have Internet access
to register, the contractor would also have a procedure to mail the
appropriate disclosures and study steps to the respondent and then
receive back enrolment information and the consumer's signed consent
in paper form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of calculating burden under the PRA regarding the
review process of the credit reports, FTC staff submits the following
estimates that are based on the contractor's experience with the second
pilot study. Some participants prepare thoroughly in advance of the in-
depth interview of their credit reports. In such situations, even
complicated reports may generally be finished under 30 minutes. Other
consumers may not find time for significant preparation in advance of
the in-depth review, and in such cases the interview could take up to
an hour. The participants in the second pilot study reported taking an
average of 69 minutes (median 53 minutes) to prepare for the interview,
with 90% taking between 10 and 180 minutes. The interviews themselves
took an average of 19 minutes (median 15 minutes) with 90% taking
between 5 and 45 minutes. Overall, the average combined time for
preparation and the interview was about 90 minutes (1.5 hours). For a
national study involving 1,000 consumers, FTC staff thus estimates the
burden hours for the review process to be approximately 1,500 hours
(1,000 consumers x 1.5 hours). Further adding on the time spent for the
registration process (0.25 hours per participant), the total burden
hours come to approximately 1,750 hours.
3. Estimated Cost Burden
The cost per consumer for their participation should be negligible.
Participation is voluntary and it will not require any start-up or
capital expenditure. There is no labor time expenditure beyond the 1.75
hours per consumer estimated above. Participants may receive an
honorarium to compensate them for their time. The amount will be
determined by FTC staff in consultation with the contractor according
to an analysis of customary procedures and a consideration of response
rates within key categories, such as, response rates for consumers with
impaired credit. As with the pilot studies, participants will not pay
for their credit reports or credit scores.
Willard Tom,
General Counsel
[FR Doc. E9-17147 Filed 7-17-09: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 6750 -01-S
