Federal Register, Volume 74 Issue 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53243-53247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24992]

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB
Review and Reinstatement of Existing Collection; Comment Request

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

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

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 pilot studies
that were undertaken to evaluate a potential design for a national
study.\1\ This is the second of two notices required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''), and the Commission seeks additional
public comments on its proposed national study before requesting Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') review of, and clearance for, the
collection of information discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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: (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/FACTACT/FACT_Act_Report_2006.pdf); December 2008 Report:
(http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/factareport.shtm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments
electronically or in paper form, by following the instructions in the
Request for Comments to 30-Day Notice part of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below. Comments in electronic form should be
submitted by using the following Web link: (https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc/FACTA319studypra2) (and following the
instructions on the web-based form). Comments in paper form 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, in the manner detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY
SECTION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Vander Nat, Economist, (202)
326-3518, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, 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 1320.3(c).
On July 20, 2009, the FTC sought comment on the information
collection requirements associated with the proposed national study.\2\
As discussed below under (II)(D) - Summary of and Response to Public
Comments to 60-Day Notice, three comments were received (see (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/facta319study/index.shtm) for text of the
comments). Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that
implement the PRA, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for
public comment while seeking OMB approval to reinstate the clearance
for the proposed national study, which is a follow-up to the FTC's two
prior pilot studies (OMB Control No. 3084-0133) that were undertaken to
evaluate a potential design for a national study. All comments should
be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above and in the
Request for Comments to 30-Day Notice (found below at II.E.), and must
be received on or before November 16, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 74 FR 35191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

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
(http://www.ftc.gov/reports/index.htm#2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 53244]]

(``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 (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/index.htm#2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-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

[[Page 53245]]

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. The frozen file would then be re-scored 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 would be 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.

II. Proposed National Study

A. Description of the Collection of Information and the Proposed Use

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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 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

[[Page 53246]]

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.

C. 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.

D. Summary of and Response to Public Comments to Prior 60-Day Notice

The commenters were the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA),
Mr. Chris Hoofnagle of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, and
Privacy Times submitted by Mr. Evan Hendricks (and signed by additional
parties). No comments addressed the cost and hour burden estimates nor
challenged the need or the importance of the study. Overall, the
comments addressed the qualifications of any potential contractor, the
universe of participants to be covered by the study, and some concerns
about specific parts of the methodology of the study.
The comment from the CDIA, submitted by Mr. Stuart Pratt, is
generally supportive while expressing certain concerns. The CDIA (at 2)
believes that the FTC's use of consumer interviews combined with the
FCRA dispute process ``compares favorably to the flawed methodology
employed by consumer groups in their `studies' of credit report
accuracy.'' The CDIA recommends the FTC highlight these differences in
its communications about the study. As discussed above, in its 2004
Report to Congress, the FTC reviewed all prior studies and created a
design for a national study to specifically address certain
shortcomings of prior approaches. In an upcoming report to Congress
about the results of the national study, the FTC will again point out
the ways in which the study has addressed prior shortcomings.
The CDIA (at 1) expresses the concern that the methodology may
over-sample consumers with low credit scores; it recommends the
ultimate study group have credit scores that ``are reflective of the
distribution of scores in the databases of the nationwide consumer
reporting agencies.'' FTC staff agrees with the stated recommendation.
As discussed in the referenced FR notice of July 20, 2009 (at 35194),
the second pilot study confirmed that purely random sampling of
potential participants yields too few actual participants with low
credit scores. In the national study, invitation letters will be sent
in progressive waves, and proportionally more invitation letters will
be sent to groups having lower credit scores. Based on our knowledge of
the second pilot study and also the knowledge that will be gained from
the response rates of the earlier waves of letters in the national
study, FTC staff will be able to adjust subsequent waves of letters to
the potential respondents in certain score ranges so as to achieve a
total set of respondents whose credit scores are indeed in line with
national norms. It is possible, although not very likely, that the
methodology could render a set of respondents having too many people
with low scores. However, since the national distribution of credit
scores is known (with great refinement), there are recognized
statistical procedures to ultimately correct any over-sampling of low
scores (should it occur) and to ensure the statistical reliability of
the results, including the reliability of the results for the
population as a whole.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See, for example, Harnett, Donald L., Statistical Methods
(3\rd\ ed.), Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1984 (pages 253-254).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CDIA (at 1) also expresses a concern for reaching out to
consumers who do not have Internet access. As explained in the FR
notice of July 20, 2009 (at 35195), participants will use the Internet
to register for the study. However, for those who may not have Internet
access, thecontractor will also have a procedure to mail the
appropriate disclosures and the study steps tothe respondent and then
receive enrollment information and the consumer's signed consent
inpaper form. The in-depth review of the credit reports with the
participants will occur over thetelephone and does not require Internet
access.
The CDIA (at 2) recommends that upon assessing errors by a change
in credit score that is attributable to certain errors, the FTC also
include measures on how a change in score wouldimpact a consumer's
interest rate or other credit decisions; e.g., some changes in credit
scorewould keep a consumer in the same ``band of risk'' determined by
the lender, while other changescould place the consumer in a more
favorable band of risk and thus allow the lender to proffer anoticeably
better interest rate. FTC staff agrees with this recommendation. In
reporting theresults of the study to Congress, staff fully intends to
include the type of discussion andassociated measures here indicated.
The comment from the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology,
submitted by Mr. Chris Hoofnagle, strongly supports the FTC's announced
goal of acquiring ``1000 participants who as agroup display a diversity
on credit scores and on major demographic characteristics in line
withnational norms.'' The commenter further recommends, regarding the
qualifications of anypotential contractor, that the entity be highly
qualified to perform consumer surveys and that itbe a neutral entity
(i.e., have no stake in the outcome of the study). FTC staff readily
concurswith the expressed concern. The FTC will publically solicit
competitive bids for performing thestudy in keeping with a detailed
scope of work (to be announced). Staff will carefully review
thecredentials associated with each bid and proposal and will seek a
contractor who is highlyqualified to perform the required work and who
has no stake in the outcome of the study.
The comment letter from Mr. Evan Hendricks of Privacy Times (signed
by additional parties) covers several of the concerns noted above and
addressed there (e.g., qualificationsof the study contractor and the
need for a diverse set of credit scores reflective of national

[[Page 53247]]

norms). The commenter further recommends that the study pay special
attention to the matter ofdata matching procedures, covering such
maters as the use of Social Security Numbers and partial matches on
consumer identifiers. The matter of data matching procedures has been
reviewed in the 2004 Report to Congress, and staff does not anticipate
that this study will specifically address the internal data matching
procedures used by credit bureaus. However, the contractor will keep a
detailed narrative regarding each participant, including specific
errors alleged and their subsequent disposition. In tabulating the
types of confirmed errors via the dispute process, the study will
acquire a great deal of information on the main sources of error in
credit reports.\21\ Further, in regard to an expressed concern from
Mr. Hendricks about recognizing ID theft as an important source of
error, the category of alleged error called ``not mine'' will be
separated into the subcategories of ``mixed file'' and ``ID theft.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See referenced Federal Register Notice at 35193 (note 9)
and at 35194 (note 18) for the types of errors to be tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Request for Comments to Current 30-Day Notice

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 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 Web
site, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm).
Because comments will be made public, they should not include any
sensitive personalinformation, such as an individual's Social Security
Number; date of birth; driver's licensenumber or other state
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport
number;financial account number; or credit or debit card number.
Comments also should not includeany 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 orfinancial 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 Commission 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).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 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 CPR
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/FACTA319studypra2) (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/FACTA319studypra2). If this Notice appears at (http://www.regulations.gov), you may also file an electronic comment through
that Web site. The Commission will consider all comments that
regulations.gov forwards to 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.
Comments on any proposed filing, recordkeeping, or disclosure
requirements that are subject to paperwork burden review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'') should additionally be submitted to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB''), 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.
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the
collection of publiccomments to consider and use in this proceeding as
appropriate. The Commission will considerall 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's
Web site, to the extentpracticable, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of discretion, the Commission makes
every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from
thepublic comments it receives before placing those comments on the
FTC's Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by
the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC'sprivacy policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm).

David C. Shonka,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-24992 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S