Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35191 

National Bank of Akron, Akron, 

Colorado. 

Applicant also has applied to retain 

voting shares of Elite Properties of 

America II, Inc.; CB&T Mortgage, LLC; 

and CB&T Wealth Management, all of 

Colorado Springs, Colorado; CB&T 

Trust, LLC, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 

and thereby engage in, extending credit 

and servicing of loans, pursuant to 

section 225.28(b)(1); financial and 

investment advisory activities, pursuant 

to sections 225.28(b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(v); 

and trust activities, pursuant to section 

225.28(b)(5) of Regulation Y. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, July 14, 2009. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–17111 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The applications also will be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Additional information on all bank 

holding companies may be obtained 

from the National Information Center 

website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than August 14, 

2009. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 

(Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice 

President) 230 South LaSalle Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60690–1414: 

1. C–B–G, Inc., West Liberty, Iowa; to 

acquire additional voting shares, 

totaling up to 50.01 percent of 

Washington Bancorp, and thereby 

indirectly acquire additional voting 

shares of Federation Bank, both of 

Washington, Iowa. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, July 15, 2009. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–17176 Filed 7–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. 

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Thursday, 

July 23, 2009. 

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal 

Reserve Board Building, 20th Street 

entrance between Constitution Avenue 

and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

20551. 

STATUS: Open. 

We ask that you notify us in advance 

if you plan to attend the open meeting 

and provide your name, date of birth, 

and social security number (SSN) or 

passport number. You may provide this 

information by calling (202) 452–2474 

or you may register on–line. You may 

pre–register until close of business July 

22, 2009. You also will be asked to 

provide identifying information, 

including a photo ID, before being 

admitted to the Board meeting. The 

Public Affairs Office must approve the 

use of cameras; please call (202) 452– 

2955 for further information. If you need 

an accommodation for a disability, 

please contact Penelope Beattie on (202) 

452–3982. For the hearing impaired 

only, please use the Telecommunication 

Device for the Deaf (TDD) on (202) 263– 

4869. 

Privacy Act Notice: Providing the 

information requested is voluntary; 

however, failure to provide your name, 

date of birth, and social security number 

or passport number may result in denial 

of entry to the Federal Reserve Board. 

This information is solicited pursuant to 

Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal 

Reserve Act and will be used to 

facilitate a search of law enforcement 

databases to confirm that no threat is 

posed to Board employees or property. 

It may be disclosed to other persons to 

evaluate a potential threat. The 

information also may be provided to law 

enforcement agencies, courts, and 

others, but only to the extent necessary 

to investigate or prosecute a violation of 

law. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Discussion Agenda: 

1. Proposed Amendments to 

Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) 

Addressing Mortgage Loans and Home 

Equity Lines of Credit. 

Note: 1. The staff memo to the Board 

will be made available to the public in 

paper and the background material will 

be made available on a computer disc in 

Word format. If you require a paper 

copy of the document, please call 

Penelope Beattie on (202) 452–3982. 

2. This meeting will be recorded for 

the benefit of those unable to attend. 

Computer discs (CDs) will then be 

available for listening in the Board’s 

Freedom of Information Office, and 

copies can be ordered for $4 per disc by 

calling (202) 452–3684 or by writing to: 

Freedom of Information Office, Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, Washington, D.C. 20551. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle A. Smith, Director, or Dave 

Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office 

of Board Members; at 202–452–2955. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may 

call (202) 452–3206 for a recorded 

announcement of this meeting; or you 

may contact the Board’s Web site at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov for an 

electronic announcement. (The Web site 

also includes procedural and other 

information about the open meeting.) 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, July 16, 2009. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–17302 Filed 7–16–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The FTC plans to conduct a 

national study of the accuracy of 

consumer reports in connection with 

Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate 

Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. 

L.108-159 (2003). This study is a followup to the Commission’s two previous 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
35192 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

1Reports to Congress Under Sections 318 and 319 

of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 

2003, Federal Trade Commission, December 2006 

and 2008. The reports may be accessed at the FTC’s 

Web site. December 2006 Report: (http:// 

www.ftc.gov/reports/FACTACT/FACT_Act_Report_

2006.pdf); December 2008 Report: (http:// 

www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/factareport.shtm). 

2 The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See FTC 

Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

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/facta/041209factarpt.pdf). 

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

of the initial pilot study and related public 

comments. 

pilot studies.1 Before gathering this 

information, the FTC is seeking public 

comment on its proposed study. The 

FTC will consider comments before it 

submits a request for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘National 

Accuracy Study: Paperwork Comment 

(FTC file no. P044804)’’ to facilitate the 

organization of the comments. Please 

note that your comment—including 

your name and your state—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including on the publicly 

accessible FTC Website, at (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 

number; financial account number; or 

credit or debit card number. Comments 

also should not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential. . . .,’’ as provided in 

Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2). Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).2

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 

using the following web link: (https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcFACTA319study) (and following the 

instructions on the web-based form). To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the web-based form at the web link 

(https://secure.commentworks.com/ftcFACTA319study). If this Notice appears 

at (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 ‘‘National Accuracy 

Study: Paperwork Comment (FTC file 

no. P044804)’’ reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 

(Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC 

Website, to the extent practicable, at 

(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 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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Vander Nat, Economist, (202) 326- 

3518, Federal Trade Commission, 

Bureau of Economics. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003 (‘‘FACT Act’’ 

or the ‘‘Act’’), Pub. L.108-159 (2003) 

requires the FTC to study the accuracy 

and completeness of information in 

consumers’ credit reports and to 

consider methods for improving the 

accuracy and completeness of such 

information. Section 319 of the Act also 

requires the Commission to issue a 

series of biennial reports to Congress 

over a period of eleven years. The first 

report was submitted to Congress in 

December 2004.3 The second report was 

submitted to Congress in December 

2006 (‘‘December 2006 Report’’), 

describing the results of a pilot study. 

The third report was submitted in 

December 2008 (‘‘December 2008 

Report’’), describing the results of a 

second pilot study. 

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. 

Proposed Information Collection 

Activities 

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, 

federal agencies must obtain approval 

from OMB for each collection of 

information they conduct or sponsor. 

‘‘Collection of information’’ means 

agency requests or requirements that 

members of the public submit reports, 

keep records, or provide information to 

a third party. 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3), 5 CFR 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35193 

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/os/ 

comments/fcradispute/ 

P044808fcradisputeprocessreporttocongress.pdf). 

7 The FTC’s December 2006 Report to Congress 

contains a more detailed review of the study and 

its results. 

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). 

§ 1320.3(c). Because the number of 

entities affected by the Commission’s 

requests will exceed ten, the 

Commission plans to seek OMB 

clearance under the PRA. As required 

by § 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC 

is providing this opportunity for public 

comment before requesting that OMB 

grant the clearance for the proposed 

information collection. 

The FTC invites comments on: (1) 

whether the proposed collections of 

information are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the FTC, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the agency’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology (e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses). More 

generally, the FTC invites comment on 

the various design elements for a 

national study set forth below. All 

comments should be filed as prescribed 

in the ADDRESSES section above, and 

must be received on or before 

September 18, 2009. 

1. Description of the Collection of 

Information and Proposed Use 

A. Initial Pilot Study (2005-2006) 

The goal of the initial pilot study was 

to assess the feasibility of directly 

engaging consumers in an in-depth 

review of their credit reports for the 

purpose of identifying alleged material 

errors and channeling such errors 

through the Fair Credit Report Act 

(‘‘FCRA’’) dispute resolution process. 

The FTC’s contractor for the initial pilot 

study—a research team comprised of 

members from the Center for Business 

and Industrial Studies (University of 

Missouri-St Louis), Georgetown 

University Credit Research Center, and 

the Fair Isaac Corporation—engaged 30 

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

Study participants obtained their credit 

reports and credit scores 5 from each of 

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 expertVerDate Nov<24>2008 15:18 Jul 17, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
35194 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 

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

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

the December 2008 Report). 

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

credit information was added to the consumer’s 

original credit reports obtained in the study; any 

rescoring would thus apply only to potential 

changes or actual changes that were directly related 

to the contractor’s review. 

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 

assisted survey approach for studying 

credit report information, in preparation 

for a national study. 

The second pilot study confirmed the 

importance of having the contractor 

prepare dispute letters for consumers. 

This was not done in the first pilot 

study. In the first pilot study, only 1 of 

the 3 participants who alleged material 

errors on their credit reports filed a 

dispute. In the follow-up pilot study, all 

15 of the participants who alleged 

material errors on their credit reports 

received dispute letters from the 

contractor, and the outcomes of these 

disputes are known for 12 of them. This 

is a significant improvement over the 

first pilot study. 

As noted above, multiple recruitment 

methods were used to identify 

differences in response rates and in 

credit scores of respondents across 

various methods of recruitment. The 

second pilot study confirmed the 

difficulties of obtaining adequate 

numbers of participants with belowaverage credit scores. Purely random 

sampling of potential participants 

yielded too few actual participants with 

low credit scores.11 A weighted random 

sampling approach, whereby more 

invitations were extended to groups of 

consumers who were likely to have 

lower credit scores, produced a sample 

closer to national norms.12

The second pilot study indicated that 

it would be feasible to base a measure 

of the accuracy of credit report 

information on confirmed material 

errors via the FCRA dispute process. 

Whenever it appeared that a consumer’s 

credit score could be affected by 

‘‘correcting’’ an alleged material error, 

the contractor marked the credit reports 

(the frozen files) 13 with explanations of 

the discrepancies and sent copies of the 

marked reports to Fair Isaac for 

rescoring. If, via the FCRA dispute 

process, changes were subsequently 

made by CRAs and lenders in keeping 

with the consumer’s allegations, these 

changed items were then designated as 

confirmed material errors. We then 

rescore the frozen file to quantify the 

impact of the confirmed error(s) on the 

consumer’s credit score. The difference 

between the rescore of the frozen file 

and the original score is a meaningful 

measure of the impact of inaccurate 

credit report information. We intend to 

use this type of methodology in a 

national study.14

As a final point of this summary of 

the pilot studies, the relatively low 

response rate (i.e., approximately 3% of 

the individuals contacted became 

participants) raises concern for the 

design of a national study regarding a 

potential response bias. This matter is 

addressed below. 

C. Proposed National Study 

The proposed national study seeks to 

use a large representative sample of 

credit reports so that we may draw 

inferences, up to a certain level of 

statistical confidence, about the 

accuracy of credit reports in general. 

The need to employ a representative 

sample makes the initial steps of the 

proposed study different from the 

methodology of the second pilot study; 

in other respects, the methodologies of 

the two studies are largely the same. 

Our goal is to obtain approximately 

1,000 participants who as a group 

display a diversity on credit scores and 

on major demographic characteristics in 

line with national norms. 

The relevant population for the study 

is comprised of adult members of 

households who have credit histories 

with Equifax, Experian, and/or 

TransUnion. To study these credit 

histories we propose, as a first step, to 

obtain a very large random sample (with 

an order of magnitude of 200,000 

names) from one of the consumer 

reporting agencies in order to determine 

a set of individuals selected for possible 

contact (the ‘‘SPC list’’).15 From this 

SPC list, FTC staff will draw a further 

and considerably smaller random 

sample (e.g., 10% sample) of 

individuals selected for contact (the ‘‘SC 

list’’). 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 137 / Monday, July 20, 2009 / Notices 35195 

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. 

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. 

2. Estimated Hours Burden 

Consumer participation in the 

proposed national study would involve 

an initial preparation for the in-depth 

interview and time spent by participants 

to understand, review, and if deemed 

necessary, dispute information in their 

credit reports. Invitation letters will be 

sent in progressive waves in order to 

obtain approximately 1,000 participants. 

The individuals who receive these 

letters are drawn from the SC list 

discussed above and will be asked to go 

directly to a designated Web site for 

enrollment if they wish to participate; 

registration is expected to take at most 

15 minutes per participant.19 The 

registration process thus comes to 

approximately 250 hours (reckoned at 1/ 

4 hour for each of 1,000 consumers). 

For the purpose of calculating burden 

under the PRA regarding the review 

process of the credit reports, FTC staff 

submits the following estimates that are 

based on the contractor’s experience 

with the second pilot study. Some 

participants prepare thoroughly in 

advance of the in-depth interview of 

their credit reports. In such situations, 

even complicated reports may generally 

be finished under 30 minutes. Other 

consumers may not find time for 

significant preparation in advance of the 

in-depth review, and in such cases the 

interview could take up to an hour. The 

participants in the second pilot study 

reported taking an average of 69 minutes 

(median 53 minutes) to prepare for the 

interview, with 90% taking between 10 

and 180 minutes. The interviews 

themselves took an average of 19 

minutes (median 15 minutes) with 90% 

taking between 5 and 45 minutes. 

Overall, the average combined time for 

preparation and the interview was about 

90 minutes (1.5 hours). For a national 

study involving 1,000 consumers, FTC 

staff thus estimates the burden hours for 

the review process to be approximately 

1,500 hours (1,000 consumers x 1.5 

hours). Further adding on the time spent 

for the registration process (0.25 hours 

per participant), the total burden hours 

come to approximately 1,750 hours. 

3. Estimated Cost Burden 

The cost per consumer for their 

participation should be negligible. 

Participation is voluntary and it will not 

require any start-up or capital 

expenditure. There is no labor time 

expenditure beyond the 1.75 hours per 

consumer estimated above. Participants 

may receive an honorarium to 

compensate them for their time. The 

amount will be determined by FTC staff 

in consultation with the contractor 

according to an analysis of customary 

procedures and a consideration of 

response rates within key categories, 

such as, response rates for consumers 

with impaired credit. As with the pilot 

studies, participants will not pay for 

their credit reports or credit scores. 

Willard Tom, 

General Counsel 

[FR Doc. E9–17147 Filed 7–17–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 6750 –01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request; CareerTrac 

Summary: Under the provisions of 

section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, the Fogarty 

International Center (FIC) and National 

Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences (NIEHS), the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request for review and 

approval of the information collection 

listed below. This proposed information 

collection was previously published in 

the Federal Register on May 12, 2009, 

page 22172, and allowed 60-days for 

public comment. No comments were 

received from this notification regarding 

the cost and hour burden estimates. The 

purpose of this announcement is to 

allow an additional 30 days for public 

comment. 

The National Institutes of Health may 

not conduct or sponsor, and the 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, an information collection that has 

been extended, revised, or implemented 

on or after October 1, 1995, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Proposed Collection: Title: 

CareerTrac. Type of Information 

Collection Request: Revision (OMB No.: 

0925–0568 Expiration: Aug. 31, 2009). 

Need and Use of Information Collection: 

This data collection system is being 

developed to track, evaluate and report 

short and long-term outputs, outcomes 

and impacts of international trainees 

involved in health research training 

programs—specifically tracking this for 

at least ten years following training by 

having Principal Investigators enter data 

after trainees have completed the 

program. The data collection system 

provides a streamlined, Web-based 

application permitting principal 

investigators to record career 

achievement progress by trainee on a 

voluntary basis. FIC and NIEHS 

management will use this data to 

monitor, evaluate and adjust grants to 

ensure desired outcomes are achieved, 

comply with OMB part requirements, 

respond to congressional inquiries, and 

as a guide to inform future strategic and 

management decisions regarding the 

grant program. 

Frequency of Response: Annual and 

periodic Affected Public: none Type of 

Respondents: Principal Investigators 

and/or their administrators funded by 

FIC and NIEHS. The annual reporting 

burden is as follows: Estimated Number 

of Respondents: 275; Estimated Number 

of Responses per Respondent: 1; 

Average Burden Hours per Response 7.5 

and Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours Requested: 2063. The annualized 

cost to respondents is estimated at 

$82,500. There are no Capital Costs to 

report. There are no Operating or 

Maintenance Costs to report. 

Request for Comments: Written 

comments and/or suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies are invited 

on one or more of the following points: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the function of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES