Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 53243 

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). 2 74 FR 35191. 

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). 

4 See 70 FR 24583 (May 10, 2005) for discussion 

of the initial pilot study and related public 

comments. 

PLACE: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., 

First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, 

DC. 

STATUS: A portion of the meeting will 

be in Open Session and the remainder 

of the meeting will be in Closed Session. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open Session 

1. Discussion of Court of Appeals 

Mandate in Landstar. 

2. Briefing on Conclusion of FY 2009 

Budget. 

Closed Session 

1. World Chance Logistics (Hong 

Kong). 

2. Lindblad Expeditions, Inc.— 

Evidence of Financial Responsibility. 

3. Staff Briefing Regarding Global 

Economic Downturn and Potential 

Impact on Stakeholders. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE

INFORMATION: Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary, (202) 523–5725. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–25065 Filed 10–14–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

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 followup 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
53244 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 

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). 

7 The FTC’s December 2006 Report to Congress 

contains a more detailed review of the study and 

its results. 

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. 

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). 

11 Table III of the December 2008 Report (at 9). 

12 Table 9 of the contractor’s report (appendix to 

the December 2008 Report). 

13 The files are called ‘‘frozen’’ because no new 

credit information was added to the consumer’s 

original credit reports obtained in the study; any 

(‘‘FCRA’’) dispute resolution process. 

The FTC’s contractor for the initial pilot 

study – a research team comprised of 

members from the Center for Business 

and Industrial Studies (University of 

Missouri-St Louis), Georgetown 

University Credit Research Center, and 

the Fair Isaac Corporation – engaged 30 

randomly selected participants in an indepth review of their credit reports. 

Study participants obtained their credit 

reports and credit scores5 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

The first pilot study demonstrated the 

general feasibility of the consumer 

interview methodology, but also 

revealed several challenges for a 

national study.7 Challenges include 

identifying methods for achieving a 

more representative sampling frame, 

increasing the response rates, and easing 

the burden of completing the study. 

Compared to the national average for 

credit scores, consumers with relatively 

low scores were under-represented. 

Also, the majority of participants who 

alleged errors on their credit reports and 

indicated that they would file a dispute 

did not follow through with their stated 

intention to file. In consideration of 

these and other matters, the FTC 

conducted a follow-up pilot study. 

B. The Second Pilot Study (2007-2008) 

The second pilot study combined 

successful elements from the first pilot 

with new procedures designed to 

overcome shortcomings of the first pilot. 

Through a variety of recruitment 

channels, 4,232 people were invited to 

participate. Multiple recruitment 

methods were employed and these were 

useful in identifying differences in 

response rates and credit scores of the 

respondents across various methods of 

recruitment. Of the 4,232 individuals 

contacted, 128 (3%) became 

participants. The contractor 8 helped 

participants obtain their 3 credit reports 

and conducted an in-depth review of 

the reports with each participant. The 

contractor also helped the participants 

to identify alleged inaccuracies and gave 

advice on the difference between a 

small inaccuracy and a material error 

that is likely to affect a credit score. 

Specific criteria for materiality were 

developed in consultation with Fair 

Isaac’s analyst on the research team.9 If 

the consumer alleged a material error, 

the individual was encouraged to file a 

formal FCRA dispute so as to obtain a 

review of the challenged items by data 

furnishers and CRAs. The contractor 

prepared a dispute letter for any 

consumer who wanted to file and allege 

an error, material or not (as the FCRA 

permits a consumer to dispute any 

credit report information that the person 

believes to be inaccurate). 

Regarding the results of the study, 88 

of the 128 participants (69%) found no 

errors in their credit reports. Of the 40 

participants who alleged one or more 

errors that they wanted to dispute, 15 

(or 12% of the 128) alleged a material 

error. For 7 of these latter cases, the 

FCRA dispute process rendered credit 

report changes that were made fully in 

keeping with all of the consumer’s 

allegations.10

As noted above, the second pilot 

study (like the first) used a small sample 

and no statistical projections were 

made. Accordingly, no extensive 

statistical summaries were needed, nor 

were any given, in the FTC’s report on 

the study. The primary purpose of the 

pilot studies was to refine the expertassisted survey approach for studying 

credit report information, in preparation 

for a national study. 

The second pilot study confirmed the 

importance of having the contractor 

prepare dispute letters for consumers. 

This was not done in the first pilot 

study. In the first pilot study, only 1 of 

the 3 participants who alleged material 

errors on their credit reports filed a 

dispute. In the follow-up pilot study, all 

15 of the participants who alleged 

material errors on their credit reports 

received dispute letters from the 

contractor, and the outcomes of these 

disputes are known for 12 of them. This 

is a significant improvement over the 

first pilot study. 

As noted above, multiple recruitment 

methods were used to identify 

differences in response rates and in 

credit scores of respondents across 

various methods of recruitment. The 

second pilot study confirmed the 

difficulties of obtaining adequate 

numbers of participants with belowaverage credit scores. Purely random 

sampling of potential participants 

yielded too few actual participants with 

low credit scores.11 A weighted random 

sampling approach, whereby more 

invitations were extended to groups of 

consumers who were likely to have 

lower credit scores, produced a sample 

closer to national norms.12

The second pilot study indicated that 

it would be feasible to base a measure 

of the accuracy of credit report 

information on confirmed material 

errors via the FCRA dispute process. 

Whenever it appeared that a consumer’s 

credit score could be affected by 

‘‘correcting’’ an alleged material error, 

the contractor marked the credit reports 

(the frozen files)13 with explanations of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 53245 

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. 

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. 

16 December 2008 Report (at 9 &10). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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’’). 

There are several reasons for this twostep process. First, the vast majority of 

the names on the SPC list will not be 

sent invitations to participate and thus 

helps ensure that no CRA will know 

who is participating in the study. 

Further, using the SC list, we plan to 

send proportionally more invitation 

letters to individuals with lower credit 

scores. Use of this weighted random 

sampling approach is designed to obtain 

an ultimate set of participants having 

credit scores (specifically, the lower 

scores) in line with national norms, as 

suggested by the results of the second 

pilot study.16

After some substantial set of 

individuals have agreed to join the 

study (300 - 400 people), we will have 

an initial sample. This sample will be 

compared with the larger SPC list on 

credit scores and geographic diversity. 

Statistically significant differences 

between this initial sample and the 

larger SPC list would reflect the impact 

of non-participation. From this 

information, we can selectively draw 

individuals from the SC list in an effort 

to compensate for these differences as 

necessary. 

As a further check on a potential bias 

in the decision to participate, we plan 

to obtain anonymized (redacted) credit 

reports (and related credit scores)17 for 

the entire class of non-respondents, i.e., 

all the people from the SC list who 

choose not to participate. Using the 

redacted reports and related scores we 

can determine, for example, whether 

non-respondents had significantly 

different credit scores or significantly 

different credit histories from those who 

agreed to participate. 

Upon completion of the study, we 

will have a database with detailed 

demographic information about the 

participants, the type and quantity of 

alleged material errors on their credit 

reports, the type and quantity of 

confirmed material errors via the FCRA 

dispute process, and the impact of any 

such confirmed errors on the 

participants’ credit scores.18 Further, by 

analyzing the redacted credit reports 

and related scores of the nonrespondents, we obtain a final check on 

the degree to which the enhanced 

procedures were effective in achieving a 

nationally representative sample of 

credit reports. 

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). 

For the purpose of calculating burden 

under the PRA regarding the review 

process of the credit reports, FTC staff 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
53246 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 

20 See, for example, Harnett, Donald L., Statistical 

Methods (3rd ed.), Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 

1984 (pages 253-254). 

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 × 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

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 199 / Friday, October 16, 2009 / Notices 53247 

21 See referenced Federal Register Notice at 

35193 (note 9) and at 35194 (note 18) for the types 

of errors to be tabulated. 

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). 

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.’’ 

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

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 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 092 3140] 

Directors Desk LLC; Analysis of 

Proposed Consent Orders To Aid 

Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

draft complaint and the terms of the 

consent order — embodied in the 

consent agreement — that would settle 

these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 5, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Directors 

Desk, File No. 092 3140’’ 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 website, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

an individual’s Social Security Number; 

date of birth; driver’s license number or 

other state identification number, or 

foreign country equivalent; passport 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES