Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension, 42303-42307 [E9-20141]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices 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 Governors not later than September 17, 2009. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001: 1. Bern Bancshares, Inc., Bern, Kansas; to acquire up to an additional 1.57 percent, for a total of 6.48 percent, of the voting shares of UBT Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of United Bank & Trust, both in Marysville, Kansas. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 18, 2009. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E9–20110 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). ACTION: Notice. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through September 30, 2012, the current PRA clearance requirements contained in the FTC Red Flags/Card Issuers/ Address Discrepancies Rules (‘‘Red Flags Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’). The current clearance expires on September 30, 2009. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2009. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ‘‘Red Flags Rule, PRA Comment, P095406’’ to facilitate the organization of comments. Please note that comments—including VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Aug 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding—including on the publicly accessible FTC website, at (http:// www.ftc.gov/os/publiccoments/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 secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and 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).1 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 weblink: (http:// secure.commentworks.com/ftcRedFlagsPRA) (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 weblink (http://secure.commentworks.com/ftcRedFlagsPRA). If this Notice appears at (http://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 http://www.ftc.gov to read the Notice and the news release describing it. A comment filed in paper form should include the ‘‘Red Flags Rule, PRA Comment, P095406’’ reference both in the text and on the envelope, and 1 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). PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42303 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 (http://www.ftc.gov/os/ publiccoments.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 (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ privacy.shtm). All comments should additionally be submitted to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted via facsimile to (202) 3955167 because U.S. postal mail at the OMB is subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Toporoff, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2252, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 24 2009, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Red Flags Rule, 16 CFR Part 681 (Control Number: 30840137). 74 FR 18709. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 35013521, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before September 21, 2009. E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM 21AUN1 42304 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices I. Overview of the Rule The Rule implements sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (‘‘FACT Act’’). These sections amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (‘‘FCRA’’), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., to require businesses to undertake measures to prevent identity theft and to increase the accuracy of consumer reports. Specifically, section 114 amends section 615 of the FCRA to require creditors and financial institutions to develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs. Section 114 also mandates specific regulations that require credit and debit card issuers to assess the validity of notifications of changes of address under certain circumstances. Section 315 of FACT Act adds section 605(h) to the FCRA and requires regulations that provide guidance on what users of consumer reports must do when they receive a notice of address discrepancy from a nationwide consumer reporting agency (‘‘CRA’’). srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES II. Description of Collections of Information A. Section 114 The Rule requires financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program (‘‘Program’’) to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with existing accounts or the opening of new accounts. Under the Rule, creditors and financial institutions must conduct a periodic risk assessment to determine if they maintain ‘‘covered accounts.’’ The Rule defines that term as either (1) a consumer account that is designed to permit multiple payments or transactions, or (2) any other account for which there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft. Each financial institution and creditor that has covered accounts must create a written Program that contains reasonable policies and procedures to identify relevant indicators of the possible existence of identity theft (‘‘Red Flags’’); detect Red Flags that have been incorporated into the Program; respond appropriately to any Red Flags that are detected to prevent and mitigate identity theft; and update the Program periodically to ensure it reflects changes in risks to customers. The Rule also requires financial institutions and creditors to: (1) obtain approval of the initial written Program by the board of directors, a committee thereof or, if there is no board, an appropriate senior employee; (2) ensure oversight of the development, VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Aug 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 implementation, and administration of the Program; (3) train staff, as needed, to implement the Program; and (4) exercise appropriate and effective oversight of service provider arrangements. In addition, the Rule implements the section 114 requirement that financial institutions or creditors that issue debit or credit cards (‘‘card issuers’’) generally must assess the validity of change of address notifications. Specifically, if the card issuer receives a notice of change of address for an existing account and, within a short period of time (during at least the first 30 days), receives a request for an additional or replacement card for the same account, the issuer must follow reasonable policies and procedures to assess the validity of the change of address through one of three methods. B. Section 315 The Rule also implements section 315 of the FACT Act and requires each user of consumer reports to have reasonable policies and procedures in place to employ when the user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a CRA. Specifically, each user of consumer reports must develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures to: (1) enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer report relates to the consumer about whom it has requested the report, when the user receives a notice of address discrepancy; and (2) furnish an address for the consumer that the user has reasonably confirmed is accurate to the CRA from which it received a notice of address discrepancy if certain conditions are met. III. Burden Estimates Rounded to the nearest thousand, overall estimated burden hours for sections 114 and 315, combined, total 6,151,000 and the associated estimated labor cost is $169,000,000. Staff assumes that affected entities will already have in place, independent of the Rule, equipment and supplies necessary to carry out the tasks necessary to comply with it. A. Section 114 1. Estimated Hours Burden - Red Flags Rule As noted above, the Rule requires financial institutions and creditors with covered accounts to develop and implement a written Program. Under the Rule, a ‘‘financial institution’’ is ‘‘a State or National bank, a State or Federal savings and loan association, a mutual savings bank, a State or Federal credit PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 union, or any other person that, directly or indirectly, holds a transaction account (as defined in section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act) belonging to a consumer.’’2 Under the Rule, ‘‘creditor’’ has the same meaning as in section 702 of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Section 702 defines ‘‘creditor’’ as any person who ‘‘regularly extends, renews or continues credit; any person who regularly arranges for the extension, renewal, or continuation of credit; or any assignee of any original creditor who participates in the decision to extend, renew, of continue credit.’’ ‘‘Credit’’ means an arrangement by which you defer payment of debts or accept deferred payment for the purchase of property or services.3 Given the broad scope of entities covered, it is difficult to determine precisely the number of financial institutions and creditors that are subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction. There are numerous small businesses under the FTC’s jurisdiction, and there is no formal way to track them; moreover, as a whole, the entities under the FTC’s jurisdiction are so varied that there are no general sources that provide a record of their existence. Nonetheless, FTC staff estimates that the Rule’s requirement to have a written Program affects over 57,000 financial institutions4 and almost 2 million creditors.5 This is a revised estimate of the number of covered financial institutions within the FTC’s jurisdiction. In the PRA burden 2 The Rule refers to the definition of ‘‘financial institution’’ that is found in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(t). 3 The Rule defines ‘‘credit’’ and ‘‘creditor’’ by referring to the definition found in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(r)(5) which, in turn, refers to section 702 of the ECOA. 4 As of December 31, 2005, there were 3,302 statechartered federally-insured credit unions and 362 state-chartered nonfederally insured credit unions. See (www.ncua.gov/news/quick_facts/ quick_facts.html) and ‘‘Disclosures for NonFederally Insured Depository Institutions under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA),’’ 70 FR 12823 (Ma. 16, 2005). As of 2007, there were 3,913 property, casualty and life, and health insurance companies. See Insurance Department Resources Report 2007, published by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). As of September 2007, there were 4,733 registered investment companies. See Securities and Exchange Commission, Proposed Regulation S-P, at 13709 (March 13, 2008). As of December 31, 2007, there were 5,561 broker-dealers. See Securities and Exchange Commission, Amendments to Regulation SHO, Release No. 3458773, at 45 (Oct. 14, 2008) (available at www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58773.pdf). As of November 2008, there were 39,408 money service businesses. See Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network MSB Registration List (available at (www.msb.gov/pdf/ msb_registration_list.pdf)). 5 See infra notes 7 and 8 accounting for this sum total. E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM 21AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices estimates set forth in the preamble to the Final Rule, the Commission stated that there were 3,664 financial institutions within the FTC’s jurisdiction, namely 3,664 statechartered credit unions. See 72 FR 63718, 63741 n.61 and accompanying text (Nov. 9, 2007). This estimate misstated the scope of the FTC’s jurisdiction. Under the FCRA, the financial institutions over which the FTC has jurisdiction include not only state-chartered credit unions, but other entities that hold consumer transaction accounts, excluding banks, savings and loan associations, and federal credit unions, which are subject to oversight by the federal bank regulatory agencies and the National Credit Union Administration. In fact, the financial institutions within the FTC’s jurisdiction include, but are not limited to, certain insurance companies, investment companies, broker-dealers, and money service businesses. To estimate burden hours for the Red Flags Rule under section 114, FTC staff divided affected entities into three categories, based on the nature of their businesses: (1) entities that are subject to a high risk of identity theft; (2) entities that are subject to a low risk of identity theft, but have covered accounts that will require them to have a written Program; and (3) entities that are subject to a low risk of identity theft, but do not have covered accounts.6 a. High-Risk Entities srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES FTC staff estimates that high-risk entities will each require 25 hours to create and implement a written Program, with an annual recurring burden of one hour. FTC staff anticipates that these entities will incorporate into their Programs policies and procedures that they likely already have in place. Further, FTC staff estimates that preparation of an annual report will require each high-risk entity four hours initially, with an annual recurring burden of one hour. Finally, FTC staff believes that many of the highrisk entities, as part of their usual and customary business practices, already take steps to minimize losses due to fraud, including conducting employee training. Accordingly, only relevant staff need be trained to implement the Program: for example, staff already 6 In general, high-risk entities may provide consumer financial services or other goods or services of value to identity thieves such as telecommunication services or goods that are easily convertible to cash, whereas low-risk entities may do business primarily with other businesses or provide non-financial services or goods that are not easily convertible in cash, such as healthcare providers. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Aug 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 trained as part of a covered entity’s antifraud prevention efforts do not need to be re-trained except as incrementally needed. FTC staff estimates that training in connection with the implementation of a Program of a high-risk entity will require four hours, and recurring annual training thereafter will require one hour. Thus, estimated hours burden for high-risk entities is as follows: ∑320,217 high-risk entities7 subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction at an average annual burden of 13 hours per entity [average annual burden over 3-year clearance period for creation and implementation of Program ((25+1+1)/ 3), plus average annual burden over 3year clearance period for staff training ((4+1+1)/3), plus average annual burden over 3-year clearance period for preparing annual report ((4+1+1)/3)], for a total of 4,162,821 hours. b. Low-Risk Entities Entities that have a minimal risk of identity theft, but that have covered accounts, must develop a Program; however, they likely will only need a streamlined Program. FTC staff estimates that such entities will require one hour to create such a Program, with an annual recurring burden of five minutes. Training staff of low-risk entities to be attentive to future risks of identity theft should require no more than 10 minutes in an initial year, with an annual recurring burden of five minutes. FTC staff further estimates that these entities will require, initially, 10 minutes to prepare an annual report, with an annual recurring burden of five minutes. The Rule does not require entities that determine that they do not have any covered accounts to create a written Program. Thus, such entities will not incur PRA burden. Thus, the estimated hours burden for low-risk entities is as follows: ∑1,622,029 low-risk entities8 that have covered accounts subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction at an average annual burden of approximately 37 minutes per entity [average annual burden over 3-year 7 This is the number of high-risk entities implementing section 114 as previously reported (266,602) in the preamble to the Rule, 72 FR at 63742, increased by the additional institutions (including insurance and investment companies, broker-dealers, and money service businesses) accounted for herein at note 4 and the accompanying text. 8 This figure is derived from an analysis of a database of U.S. businesses based on NAICS codes for businesses that market goods or services to consumers or other businesses, reduced to the number of creditors subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction (10,813,525), and reduced further by an estimated subset of which comprise anticipated low-risk entities not having covered accounts under the final rule (9,191,496). PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42305 clearance period for creation and implementation of streamlined Program ((60+5+5)/3), plus average annual burden over 3-year clearance period for staff training ((10+5+5)/3), plus average annual burden over 3-year clearance period for preparing annual report ((10+5+5)/3)], for a total of 1,000,251 hours. 2. Estimated Hours Burden - Card Issuers Rule As noted above, section 114 also requires financial institutions and creditors that issue credit or debit cards to establish policies and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request, including notifying the cardholder or using another means of assessing the validity of the change of address. FTC staff estimates that the Rule affects as many as 52,914 card issuers. This is a revised estimate of the number of card issuers within the FTC’s jurisdiction. In the PRA burden estimates set forth in the preamble to the Final Rule, the Commission stated that there were as many as 3,764 card issuers (consisting of state-chartered credit unions and retailers) within the FTC’s jurisdiction. See 72 FR at 63742. This estimate understated the scope of the FTC’s jurisdiction. The FTC has jurisdiction over additional categories of card issuers, including certain universities, money service businesses, and telecommunication companies.9 -FTC staff believes that most of these card issuers already have automated the process of notifying the cardholder or are using another means to assess the validity of the change of address, such that implementation will pose no further burden. Nevertheless, taking a conservative approach, FTC staff estimates that it will take each card issuer 4 hours to develop and implement policy and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request for a total burden of 211,656 hours. 9 In addition to the 3,664 state-chartered credit unions and 100 retailers under the FTC’s jurisdiction, as of 2007, there were 4,314 colleges and universities. See Digest of Education Statistics published by the National Center for Education Statistics (available at (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d07/tables/dt07_255.asp)). As of November 2008, there were 39,408 money service businesses. See Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network MSB Registration List (available at (http://www.msb.gov/pdf/ msb_registration_list.pdf)). Finally, as of November 2006, there were 5,428 telecommunication companies. See Federal Communications Commission, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Trends in Telephone Service, August 2008, Table 5.3 (available at (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.pdf)). E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM 21AUN1 42306 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices Thus, the total average annual estimated burden for Section 114 is 5,377,328 hours. 3. Estimated Cost Burden - Red Flags and Card Issuers Rules FTC staff estimates labor costs by applying appropriate estimated hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. It is difficult to calculate with precision the labor costs associated with compliance with the Rule, as they entail varying compensation levels of management (e.g., administrative services, computer and information systems, training and development) and/or technical staff (e.g., computer support specialists, systems analysts, network and computer systems administrators) among companies of different sizes. FTC staff assumes that for all entities, professional technical personnel and/or management personnel will create and implement the Program, prepare the annual report, and train employees, at an hourly rate of $35.00.10 Based on the above estimates and assumptions, the total annual labor cost for all categories of covered entities under the Red Flags and Card Issuers Rules for Section 114 is $156,615,480 [4,162,821 hours + 1,000,251 hours + 211,656 hours) x $35.00)]. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES B. Section 315 - The Address Discrepancy Rule As discussed above, the Rule’s implementation of section 315 provides guidance on reasonable policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports must employ when a user receives a notice of address discrepancy from a CRA. Given the broad scope of users of consumer reports, it is difficult to determine with precision the number of users of consumer reports that are subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction. As noted above, there are numerous small businesses under the FTC’s jurisdiction, and there is no formal way to track them; moreover, as a whole, the entities under the FTC’s jurisdiction are so varied that there are no general sources that provide a record of their existence. Nonetheless, FTC staff estimates that the Rule’s implementation of section 315 affects approximately 1.66 million users of consumer reports subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction.11 Approximately 10,000 of 10 This estimate is based on (http://www.bls.gov/ ncs/ncswage2007.htm) (National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United States 2007, US Department of Labor released August 2008, Bulletin 2704, Table 3 (‘‘Full-time civilian workers,’’ mean and median hourly wages) for the various managerial and technical staff support exemplified above. 11 This estimate is derived from an analysis of a database of U.S. businesses based on NAICS codes VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:22 Aug 20, 2009 Jkt 217001 these users will, in the course of their usual and customary business practices, have to furnish to CRAs an address confirmation upon notice of a discrepancy.12 FTC staff estimates that the average annual information collection burden during the three-year period for which OMB clearance is sought will be 776,334 hours. The estimated burden is $12,421,344. 1. Estimated Hours Burden Although section 315 created a new obligation for CRAs to provide a notice of address discrepancy to users of consumer reports, prior to the FACT Act enactment, users of consumer reports could compare the address on the consumer report to the address provided by the consumer and discern for themselves any discrepancy. As a result, FTC staff believes that many users of consumer reports have developed methods of reconciling address discrepancies, and the following estimates represent the incremental amount of time users of consumer reports may require to develop and comply with the policies and procedures for when they receive a notice of address discrepancy. Due to the varied nature of the entities under the FTC’s jurisdiction, it is difficult to determine precisely the appropriate burden estimates. Nonetheless, FTC staff estimates that it would require an infrequent user of consumer reports no more than 16 minutes to develop and comply with the policies and procedures that it will employ when it receives a notice of address discrepancy, while a frequent user might require one hour. Similarly, FTC staff estimates that, during the remaining two years of clearance, it may take an infrequent user no more than one minute to comply with the policies and procedures it will employ when it receives a notice of address discrepancy, while a frequent user might require 45 minutes. Taking into account these extremes, FTC staff estimates that, during the first year, it will take users of consumer reports under the jurisdiction of the FTC an average of 38 minutes [the midrange between 16 minutes and 60 minutes] to develop and comply with the policies and procedures that they will employ when for businesses in industries that typically use consumer reports from CRAs described in the Rule, which total 1,658,758 users of consumer reports subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction. 12 Report to Congress Under Sections 318 and 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions of 2003, Federal Trade Commission, 80 (Dec. 2004) available at (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/facta/ 041209factarpt.pdf). PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 they receive a notice of address discrepancy. FTC staff also estimates that the average recurring burden for users of consumer reports to comply with the Rule will be 23 minutes [the midrange between one minute and 45 minutes]. Thus, for these 1.66 million entities, the average annual burden for each of them to perform these collective tasks will be 28 minutes [(38 + 23 + 23) ÷ 3]; cumulatively, 774,667 hours. For the estimated 10,000 users of consumer reports that will additionally have to furnish to CRAs an address confirmation upon notice of a discrepancy, staff estimates that these entities will require 30 minutes to develop related policies and procedures. But, these 10,000 affected entities13 likely will have automated the process of furnishing the correct address in the first year of a three-year PRA clearance cycle. Thus, allowing for 30 minutes in the first year, with no annual recurring burden in the second and third years of clearance, yields an average annual burden of 10 minutes per entity to furnish a correct address to a CRA, for a total of 1,667 hours. 2. Estimated Cost Burden FTC staff assumes that the policies and procedures for compliance with the address discrepancy part of the Rule will be set up by administrative support personnel at an hourly rate of $16.14 Based on the above estimates and assumptions, the total annual labor cost for the two categories of burden under section 315 is $12,421,344 [(774,667 hours + 1,667 hours) x $16.00]. C. Burden Totals for Sections 114 and 315 Cumulatively, then, estimated burden is 6,151,062 hours (5,374,728 hours for section 114 and 776,334 hours for section 315) and $169,036,824 13 Staff further assumes that this estimate is representative of new entrants in any given threeyear PRA clearance cycle. 14 Based generally on the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United States, 2007, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics released August 2008, Bulletin 2704, Table 3 (‘‘Full-time civilian workers,’’ mean and median hourly wages), available at (http:// www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb0300.pdf). Clerical estimates are derived from the above source data, applying roughly a mid-range of mean hourly rates for potentially applicable clerical types, e.g., computer operators, data entry and information processing workers. E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM 21AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 161 / Friday, August 21, 2009 / Notices ($156,615,480 and $12,421,344, respectively)15 in associated labor cost. Willard Tom General Counsel. [FR Doc. E9–20141 Filed 8–20–09: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION A. Purpose NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000–0080] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Integrity of Unit Prices AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of reinstatement request for an information collection requirement regarding an existing OMB clearance. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to reinstate a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Integrity of Unit Prices. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before September 21, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: 15 These figures correct mathematical errors that appeared in the related preceding Federal Register notice. 74 FR at 18712. VerDate Nov<24>2008 20:17 Aug 20, 2009 20503 and a copy to the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward Chambers, Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA, (202) 501–3221 or e-mail Edward.chambers@gsa.gov. Jkt 217001 FAR 15.408(f) and the clause at FAR 52.215–14, Integrity of Unit Prices, require offerors and contractors under Federal contracts that are to be awarded without adequate price competition to identify in their proposals those supplies which they will not manufacture or to which they will not contribute significant value. The policies included in the FAR are required by section 501 of Public Law 98–577 (for the civilian agencies) and section 927 of Public Law 99–500 (for DOD and NASA). The rule contains no reporting requirements on contracts with commercial items. B. Annual Reporting Burden Respondents: 1,000. Responses per Respondent: 10. Annual Responses: 10,000. Hours per Response: 1 hour. Total Burden Hours: 10,000. Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F St., NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0080, Integrity of Unit Prices. Dated: August 14, 2009. Al Matera, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. [FR Doc. E9–20174 Filed 8–20–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS–10174, CMS– 10287 and CMS–R–305] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 42307 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency’s function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden. 1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of the currently approved collection. Title of Information Collection: Collection of Drug Event Data From Contracted Part D Providers for Payment. Use: In December 2003, Congress enacted the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 referred to as the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit program (Part D) was established by section 101 of the MMA and is codified in section 1860D–1 through 1860 D–41 of the Social Security Act. Effective January 1, 2006, the Part D program establishes an optional prescription drug benefit for individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A and/or enrolled in Part B. Part D plans have flexibility in terms of benefit design. This flexibility includes, but is not limited to, authority to establish a formulary that limits coverage to specific drugs within each therapeutic class of drugs, and the ability to have a cost-sharing structure other than the statutorily defined structure (subject to certain actuarial tests). Coverage under the new prescription drug benefit is provided predominately through private at-risk prescription drug plans that offer drug-only coverage (PDPs), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans that offer integrated prescription drug and health care coverage (MA–PD plans) or through Cost Plans that offer prescription drug benefits. The transmission of the data will be in an electronic format. The information users will be Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM), third party administrators and pharmacies and the PDPs, MA–PDs, Fallbacks and other plans that offer coverage of outpatient E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM 21AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 161 (Friday, August 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42303-42307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20141]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


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

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will 
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for 
review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). The FTC 
is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through September 
30, 2012, the current PRA clearance requirements contained in the FTC 
Red Flags/Card Issuers/Address Discrepancies Rules (``Red Flags Rule'' 
or ``Rule''). The current clearance expires on September 30, 2009.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ``Red Flags 
Rule, PRA Comment, P095406'' to facilitate the organization of 
comments. Please note that comments--including your name and your 
state--will be placed on the public record of this proceeding--
including on the publicly accessible FTC website, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccoments/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 secrets and 
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and 
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).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 weblink: (http://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-RedFlagsPRA) (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 weblink (http://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-RedFlagsPRA). If 
this Notice appears at (http://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 http://www.ftc.gov to read 
the Notice and the news release describing it.
    A comment filed in paper form should include the ``Red Flags Rule, 
PRA Comment, P095406'' 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 (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccoments.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 (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm).
    All comments should additionally be submitted to: Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Trade Commission. Comments should 
be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395-5167 because U.S. postal mail 
at the OMB is subject to delays due to heightened security precautions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Toporoff, Attorney, Bureau of 
Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2252, Federal Trade Commission, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 24 2009, the FTC sought comment on 
the information collection requirements associated with the Red Flags 
Rule, 16 CFR Part 681 (Control Number: 3084-0137). 74 FR 18709. No 
comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 
1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the FTC is providing 
this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval 
to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. All comments 
should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must 
be received on or before September 21, 2009.

[[Page 42304]]

I. Overview of the Rule

    The Rule implements sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate 
Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (``FACT Act''). These sections amend 
the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (``FCRA''), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et 
seq., to require businesses to undertake measures to prevent identity 
theft and to increase the accuracy of consumer reports.
    Specifically, section 114 amends section 615 of the FCRA to require 
creditors and financial institutions to develop and implement written 
Identity Theft Prevention Programs. Section 114 also mandates specific 
regulations that require credit and debit card issuers to assess the 
validity of notifications of changes of address under certain 
circumstances. Section 315 of FACT Act adds section 605(h) to the FCRA 
and requires regulations that provide guidance on what users of 
consumer reports must do when they receive a notice of address 
discrepancy from a nationwide consumer reporting agency (``CRA'').

II. Description of Collections of Information

A. Section 114

    The Rule requires financial institutions and creditors to develop 
and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program (``Program'') 
to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with 
existing accounts or the opening of new accounts. Under the Rule, 
creditors and financial institutions must conduct a periodic risk 
assessment to determine if they maintain ``covered accounts.'' The Rule 
defines that term as either (1) a consumer account that is designed to 
permit multiple payments or transactions, or (2) any other account for 
which there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft. Each 
financial institution and creditor that has covered accounts must 
create a written Program that contains reasonable policies and 
procedures to identify relevant indicators of the possible existence of 
identity theft (``Red Flags''); detect Red Flags that have been 
incorporated into the Program; respond appropriately to any Red Flags 
that are detected to prevent and mitigate identity theft; and update 
the Program periodically to ensure it reflects changes in risks to 
customers.
    The Rule also requires financial institutions and creditors to: (1) 
obtain approval of the initial written Program by the board of 
directors, a committee thereof or, if there is no board, an appropriate 
senior employee; (2) ensure oversight of the development, 
implementation, and administration of the Program; (3) train staff, as 
needed, to implement the Program; and (4) exercise appropriate and 
effective oversight of service provider arrangements. In addition, the 
Rule implements the section 114 requirement that financial institutions 
or creditors that issue debit or credit cards (``card issuers'') 
generally must assess the validity of change of address notifications. 
Specifically, if the card issuer receives a notice of change of address 
for an existing account and, within a short period of time (during at 
least the first 30 days), receives a request for an additional or 
replacement card for the same account, the issuer must follow 
reasonable policies and procedures to assess the validity of the change 
of address through one of three methods.

B. Section 315

    The Rule also implements section 315 of the FACT Act and requires 
each user of consumer reports to have reasonable policies and 
procedures in place to employ when the user receives a notice of 
address discrepancy from a CRA. Specifically, each user of consumer 
reports must develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures 
to: (1) enable the user to form a reasonable belief that a consumer 
report relates to the consumer about whom it has requested the report, 
when the user receives a notice of address discrepancy; and (2) furnish 
an address for the consumer that the user has reasonably confirmed is 
accurate to the CRA from which it received a notice of address 
discrepancy if certain conditions are met.

III. Burden Estimates

    Rounded to the nearest thousand, overall estimated burden hours for 
sections 114 and 315, combined, total 6,151,000 and the associated 
estimated labor cost is $169,000,000. Staff assumes that affected 
entities will already have in place, independent of the Rule, equipment 
and supplies necessary to carry out the tasks necessary to comply with 
it.

A. Section 114

1. Estimated Hours Burden - Red Flags Rule
    As noted above, the Rule requires financial institutions and 
creditors with covered accounts to develop and implement a written 
Program. Under the Rule, a ``financial institution'' is ``a State or 
National bank, a State or Federal savings and loan association, a 
mutual savings bank, a State or Federal credit union, or any other 
person that, directly or indirectly, holds a transaction account (as 
defined in section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act) belonging to a 
consumer.''\2\ Under the Rule, ``creditor'' has the same meaning as in 
section 702 of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Section 702 
defines ``creditor'' as any person who ``regularly extends, renews or 
continues credit; any person who regularly arranges for the extension, 
renewal, or continuation of credit; or any assignee of any original 
creditor who participates in the decision to extend, renew, of continue 
credit.'' ``Credit'' means an arrangement by which you defer payment of 
debts or accept deferred payment for the purchase of property or 
services.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Rule refers to the definition of ``financial 
institution'' that is found in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec.  1681a(t).
    \3\ The Rule defines ``credit'' and ``creditor'' by referring to 
the definition found in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec.  1681a(r)(5) which, 
in turn, refers to section 702 of the ECOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the broad scope of entities covered, it is difficult to 
determine precisely the number of financial institutions and creditors 
that are subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. There are numerous small 
businesses under the FTC's jurisdiction, and there is no formal way to 
track them; moreover, as a whole, the entities under the FTC's 
jurisdiction are so varied that there are no general sources that 
provide a record of their existence.
    Nonetheless, FTC staff estimates that the Rule's requirement to 
have a written Program affects over 57,000 financial institutions\4\ 
and almost 2 million creditors.\5\ This is a revised estimate of the 
number of covered financial institutions within the FTC's jurisdiction. 
In the PRA burden

[[Page 42305]]

estimates set forth in the preamble to the Final Rule, the Commission 
stated that there were 3,664 financial institutions within the FTC's 
jurisdiction, namely 3,664 state-chartered credit unions. See 72 FR 
63718, 63741 n.61 and accompanying text (Nov. 9, 2007). This estimate 
misstated the scope of the FTC's jurisdiction. Under the FCRA, the 
financial institutions over which the FTC has jurisdiction include not 
only state-chartered credit unions, but other entities that hold 
consumer transaction accounts, excluding banks, savings and loan 
associations, and federal credit unions, which are subject to oversight 
by the federal bank regulatory agencies and the National Credit Union 
Administration. In fact, the financial institutions within the FTC's 
jurisdiction include, but are not limited to, certain insurance 
companies, investment companies, broker-dealers, and money service 
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As of December 31, 2005, there were 3,302 state-chartered 
federally-insured credit unions and 362 state-chartered nonfederally 
insured credit unions. See (www.ncua.gov/news/quick_facts/quick_facts.html) and ``Disclosures for Non-Federally Insured Depository 
Institutions under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
Improvement Act (FDICIA),'' 70 FR 12823 (Ma. 16, 2005). As of 2007, 
there were 3,913 property, casualty and life, and health insurance 
companies. See Insurance Department Resources Report 2007, published 
by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). As of 
September 2007, there were 4,733 registered investment companies. 
See Securities and Exchange Commission, Proposed Regulation S-P, at 
13709 (March 13, 2008). As of December 31, 2007, there were 5,561 
broker-dealers. See Securities and Exchange Commission, Amendments 
to Regulation SHO, Release No. 34-58773, at 45 (Oct. 14, 2008) 
(available at www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58773.pdf). As of 
November 2008, there were 39,408 money service businesses. See 
Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network MSB 
Registration List (available at (www.msb.gov/pdf/msb_registration_list.pdf)).
    \5\ See infra notes 7 and 8 accounting for this sum total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate burden hours for the Red Flags Rule under section 114, 
FTC staff divided affected entities into three categories, based on the 
nature of their businesses: (1) entities that are subject to a high 
risk of identity theft; (2) entities that are subject to a low risk of 
identity theft, but have covered accounts that will require them to 
have a written Program; and (3) entities that are subject to a low risk 
of identity theft, but do not have covered accounts.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In general, high-risk entities may provide consumer 
financial services or other goods or services of value to identity 
thieves such as telecommunication services or goods that are easily 
convertible to cash, whereas low-risk entities may do business 
primarily with other businesses or provide non-financial services or 
goods that are not easily convertible in cash, such as healthcare 
providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. High-Risk Entities
    FTC staff estimates that high-risk entities will each require 25 
hours to create and implement a written Program, with an annual 
recurring burden of one hour. FTC staff anticipates that these entities 
will incorporate into their Programs policies and procedures that they 
likely already have in place. Further, FTC staff estimates that 
preparation of an annual report will require each high-risk entity four 
hours initially, with an annual recurring burden of one hour. Finally, 
FTC staff believes that many of the high-risk entities, as part of 
their usual and customary business practices, already take steps to 
minimize losses due to fraud, including conducting employee training. 
Accordingly, only relevant staff need be trained to implement the 
Program: for example, staff already trained as part of a covered 
entity's anti-fraud prevention efforts do not need to be re-trained 
except as incrementally needed. FTC staff estimates that training in 
connection with the implementation of a Program of a high-risk entity 
will require four hours, and recurring annual training thereafter will 
require one hour.
    Thus, estimated hours burden for high-risk entities is as follows:
    320,217 high-risk entities\7\ subject to the FTC's 
jurisdiction at an average annual burden of 13 hours per entity 
[average annual burden over 3-year clearance period for creation and 
implementation of Program ((25+1+1)/3), plus average annual burden over 
3-year clearance period for staff training ((4+1+1)/3), plus average 
annual burden over 3-year clearance period for preparing annual report 
((4+1+1)/3)], for a total of 4,162,821 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This is the number of high-risk entities implementing 
section 114 as previously reported (266,602) in the preamble to the 
Rule, 72 FR at 63742, increased by the additional institutions 
(including insurance and investment companies, broker-dealers, and 
money service businesses) accounted for herein at note 4 and the 
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Low-Risk Entities
    Entities that have a minimal risk of identity theft, but that have 
covered accounts, must develop a Program; however, they likely will 
only need a streamlined Program. FTC staff estimates that such entities 
will require one hour to create such a Program, with an annual 
recurring burden of five minutes. Training staff of low-risk entities 
to be attentive to future risks of identity theft should require no 
more than 10 minutes in an initial year, with an annual recurring 
burden of five minutes. FTC staff further estimates that these entities 
will require, initially, 10 minutes to prepare an annual report, with 
an annual recurring burden of five minutes.
    The Rule does not require entities that determine that they do not 
have any covered accounts to create a written Program. Thus, such 
entities will not incur PRA burden.
    Thus, the estimated hours burden for low-risk entities is as 
follows:
    1,622,029 low-risk entities\8\ that have covered accounts 
subject to the FTC's jurisdiction at an average annual burden of 
approximately 37 minutes per entity [average annual burden over 3-year 
clearance period for creation and implementation of streamlined Program 
((60+5+5)/3), plus average annual burden over 3-year clearance period 
for staff training ((10+5+5)/3), plus average annual burden over 3-year 
clearance period for preparing annual report ((10+5+5)/3)], for a total 
of 1,000,251 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This figure is derived from an analysis of a database of 
U.S. businesses based on NAICS codes for businesses that market 
goods or services to consumers or other businesses, reduced to the 
number of creditors subject to the FTC's jurisdiction (10,813,525), 
and reduced further by an estimated subset of which comprise 
anticipated low-risk entities not having covered accounts under the 
final rule (9,191,496).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimated Hours Burden - Card Issuers Rule
    As noted above, section 114 also requires financial institutions 
and creditors that issue credit or debit cards to establish policies 
and procedures to assess the validity of a change of address request, 
including notifying the cardholder or using another means of assessing 
the validity of the change of address. FTC staff estimates that the 
Rule affects as many as 52,914 card issuers. This is a revised estimate 
of the number of card issuers within the FTC's jurisdiction. In the PRA 
burden estimates set forth in the preamble to the Final Rule, the 
Commission stated that there were as many as 3,764 card issuers 
(consisting of state-chartered credit unions and retailers) within the 
FTC's jurisdiction. See 72 FR at 63742. This estimate understated the 
scope of the FTC's jurisdiction. The FTC has jurisdiction over 
additional categories of card issuers, including certain universities, 
money service businesses, and telecommunication companies.\9\ -FTC 
staff believes that most of these card issuers already have automated 
the process of notifying the cardholder or are using another means to 
assess the validity of the change of address, such that implementation 
will pose no further burden. Nevertheless, taking a conservative 
approach, FTC staff estimates that it will take each card issuer 4 
hours to develop and implement policy and procedures to assess the 
validity of a change of address request for a total burden of 211,656 
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition to the 3,664 state-chartered credit unions and 
100 retailers under the FTC's jurisdiction, as of 2007, there were 
4,314 colleges and universities. See Digest of Education Statistics 
published by the National Center for Education Statistics (available 
at (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_255.asp)). 
As of November 2008, there were 39,408 money service businesses. See 
Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network MSB 
Registration List (available at (http://www.msb.gov/pdf/msb_registration_list.pdf)). Finally, as of November 2006, there were 
5,428 telecommunication companies. See Federal Communications 
Commission, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Trends in Telephone Service, August 2008, Table 
5.3 (available at (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284932A1.pdf)).

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

[[Page 42306]]

    Thus, the total average annual estimated burden for Section 114 is 
5,377,328 hours.
3. Estimated Cost Burden - Red Flags and Card Issuers Rules
    FTC staff estimates labor costs by applying appropriate estimated 
hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. It is 
difficult to calculate with precision the labor costs associated with 
compliance with the Rule, as they entail varying compensation levels of 
management (e.g., administrative services, computer and information 
systems, training and development) and/or technical staff (e.g., 
computer support specialists, systems analysts, network and computer 
systems administrators) among companies of different sizes. FTC staff 
assumes that for all entities, professional technical personnel and/or 
management personnel will create and implement the Program, prepare the 
annual report, and train employees, at an hourly rate of $35.00.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This estimate is based on (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2007.htm) (National Compensation Survey: Occupational 
Earnings in the United States 2007, US Department of Labor released 
August 2008, Bulletin 2704, Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' 
mean and median hourly wages) for the various managerial and 
technical staff support exemplified above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above estimates and assumptions, the total annual 
labor cost for all categories of covered entities under the Red Flags 
and Card Issuers Rules for Section 114 is $156,615,480 [4,162,821 hours 
+ 1,000,251 hours + 211,656 hours) x $35.00)].

B. Section 315 - The Address Discrepancy Rule

    As discussed above, the Rule's implementation of section 315 
provides guidance on reasonable policies and procedures that a user of 
consumer reports must employ when a user receives a notice of address 
discrepancy from a CRA. Given the broad scope of users of consumer 
reports, it is difficult to determine with precision the number of 
users of consumer reports that are subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. 
As noted above, there are numerous small businesses under the FTC's 
jurisdiction, and there is no formal way to track them; moreover, as a 
whole, the entities under the FTC's jurisdiction are so varied that 
there are no general sources that provide a record of their existence. 
Nonetheless, FTC staff estimates that the Rule's implementation of 
section 315 affects approximately 1.66 million users of consumer 
reports subject to the FTC's jurisdiction.\11\ Approximately 10,000 of 
these users will, in the course of their usual and customary business 
practices, have to furnish to CRAs an address confirmation upon notice 
of a discrepancy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This estimate is derived from an analysis of a database of 
U.S. businesses based on NAICS codes for businesses in industries 
that typically use consumer reports from CRAs described in the Rule, 
which total 1,658,758 users of consumer reports subject to the FTC's 
jurisdiction.
    \12\ Report to Congress Under Sections 318 and 319 of the Fair 
and Accurate Credit Transactions of 2003, Federal Trade Commission, 
80 (Dec. 2004) available at (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/facta/041209factarpt.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FTC staff estimates that the average annual information collection 
burden during the three-year period for which OMB clearance is sought 
will be 776,334 hours. The estimated burden is $12,421,344.
1. Estimated Hours Burden
    Although section 315 created a new obligation for CRAs to provide a 
notice of address discrepancy to users of consumer reports, prior to 
the FACT Act enactment, users of consumer reports could compare the 
address on the consumer report to the address provided by the consumer 
and discern for themselves any discrepancy. As a result, FTC staff 
believes that many users of consumer reports have developed methods of 
reconciling address discrepancies, and the following estimates 
represent the incremental amount of time users of consumer reports may 
require to develop and comply with the policies and procedures for when 
they receive a notice of address discrepancy.
    Due to the varied nature of the entities under the FTC's 
jurisdiction, it is difficult to determine precisely the appropriate 
burden estimates. Nonetheless, FTC staff estimates that it would 
require an infrequent user of consumer reports no more than 16 minutes 
to develop and comply with the policies and procedures that it will 
employ when it receives a notice of address discrepancy, while a 
frequent user might require one hour. Similarly, FTC staff estimates 
that, during the remaining two years of clearance, it may take an 
infrequent user no more than one minute to comply with the policies and 
procedures it will employ when it receives a notice of address 
discrepancy, while a frequent user might require 45 minutes. Taking 
into account these extremes, FTC staff estimates that, during the first 
year, it will take users of consumer reports under the jurisdiction of 
the FTC an average of 38 minutes [the midrange between 16 minutes and 
60 minutes] to develop and comply with the policies and procedures that 
they will employ when they receive a notice of address discrepancy. FTC 
staff also estimates that the average recurring burden for users of 
consumer reports to comply with the Rule will be 23 minutes [the 
midrange between one minute and 45 minutes].
    Thus, for these 1.66 million entities, the average annual burden 
for each of them to perform these collective tasks will be 28 minutes 
[(38 + 23 + 23) / 3]; cumulatively, 774,667 hours.
    For the estimated 10,000 users of consumer reports that will 
additionally have to furnish to CRAs an address confirmation upon 
notice of a discrepancy, staff estimates that these entities will 
require 30 minutes to develop related policies and procedures. But, 
these 10,000 affected entities\13\ likely will have automated the 
process of furnishing the correct address in the first year of a three-
year PRA clearance cycle. Thus, allowing for 30 minutes in the first 
year, with no annual recurring burden in the second and third years of 
clearance, yields an average annual burden of 10 minutes per entity to 
furnish a correct address to a CRA, for a total of 1,667 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Staff further assumes that this estimate is representative 
of new entrants in any given three-year PRA clearance cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimated Cost Burden
    FTC staff assumes that the policies and procedures for compliance 
with the address discrepancy part of the Rule will be set up by 
administrative support personnel at an hourly rate of $16.\14\ Based on 
the above estimates and assumptions, the total annual labor cost for 
the two categories of burden under section 315 is $12,421,344 [(774,667 
hours + 1,667 hours) x $16.00].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Based generally on the National Compensation Survey: 
Occupational Earnings in the United States, 2007, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics released August 2008, Bulletin 
2704, Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and median 
hourly wages), available at (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb0300.pdf). Clerical estimates are derived from the above source 
data, applying roughly a mid-range of mean hourly rates for 
potentially applicable clerical types, e.g., computer operators, 
data entry and information processing workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Burden Totals for Sections 114 and 315

    Cumulatively, then, estimated burden is 6,151,062 hours (5,374,728 
hours for section 114 and 776,334 hours for section 315) and 
$169,036,824

[[Page 42307]]

($156,615,480 and $12,421,344, respectively)\15\ in associated labor 
cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These figures correct mathematical errors that appeared in 
the related preceding Federal Register notice. 74 FR at 18712.

Willard Tom
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-20141 Filed 8-20-09: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S