Notification of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Pummelo From Thailand Into the Continental United States

• Published date: 10 November 2021
• Record Number: 2021-24490
• Section: Rules and Regulations
• Court: Agriculture Department,Animal And Plant Health Inspection Service

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

62465

Vol. 86, No. 215

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

1

To view the proposed rule, supporting

documents, and the comments we received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov and enter APHIS–2016–

0034 in the Search field.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. APHIS–2016–0034]

Notification of Decision To Authorize

the Importation of Pummelo From

Thailand Into the Continental United

States

AGENCY

: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, Department of

Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION

: Final rulemaking action;

notification of decision to import.

SUMMARY

: We are advising the public of

our decision to authorize the

importation into the continental United

States of fresh pummelo fruit from

Thailand. Based on the findings of a

pest risk analysis, which we made

available to the public for review and

comment, we have determined that the

application of one or more designated

phytosanitary measures will be

sufficient to mitigate the risks of

introducing or disseminating plant pests

or noxious weeds via the importation of

fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand.

DATES

: The articles covered by this

notification may be authorized for

importation after November 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: Ms.

Claudia A. Ferguson, M.S., Senior

Regulatory Policy Coordinator, Imports,

Regulations, and Manuals, Regulatory

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ,

APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–

2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

Background

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart L–

Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–

1 through 319.56–12, referred to below

as the regulations), the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

of the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or

restricts the importation of fruits and

vegetables into the United States from

certain parts of the world to prevent the

introduction and dissemination of plant

pests.

On March 29, 2018, we published in

the Federal Register (83 FR 13433–

13436, Docket No. APHIS–2016–0034) a

proposal

1

to amend the regulations by

allowing for the importation of

commercially produced fresh pummelo

(Citrus maxima (Berm.) Merr.) fruit from

Thailand into the continental United

States.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending May 29,

2018. We received seven comments by

that date. They were from producers,

industry groups, private citizens, and a

State department of agriculture. They

are discussed below by topic.

Comments on the Pest Risk Assessment

We prepared a pest risk assessment

and a risk management document

(RMD) in connection with our proposal.

Based on the findings of the pest risk

assessment, we determined that

measures beyond standard port of entry

inspection would be required to

mitigate the risks posed by these pests.

These measures are identified in the

RMD and were used as the basis for the

requirements included in the proposed

rule.

One commenter, from the Florida

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Division of Plant

Industry, stated that U.S. stakeholders

from those areas potentially affected by

any pest or disease outbreak from

imported commodities should be

invited to participate in site visits prior

to the issuance of any proposals such as

the one finalized by this document.

APHIS is committed to a transparent

process and an inclusive role for

stakeholders in our risk analysis

process. However, since this comment

relates to the structure of APHIS’ overall

risk analysis process, and not to the

importation of fresh pummelo fruit from

Thailand, it is outside the scope of the

current action.

The same commenter observed that

the pest risk assessment as a whole is

based upon the assumption that the

required post-harvest irradiation

treatment may occur either in Thailand

or upon arrival in the United States. The

commenter went on to point out an

inconsistency in the way in which we

assessed the phytosanitary risk

associated with Tephritidae species

(Bactrocera correcta Bezzi, Bactrocera

cucurbitae Coquillett, Bactrocera

dorsalis Hendel, Bactrocera papayae

Drew & Hancock, Bactrocera tau

Walker, and Monacrostichus citricola

Bezzi in the list of actionable pests). The

commenter pointed out that the

likelihood of these pests surviving post-

harvest processing before shipment was

rated as negligible due to the required

irradiation treatment, but that the

likelihood of the pests surviving

transport and storage conditions of the

consignment was marked not

applicable, which indicated to the

commenter that the risk associated with

Tephritidae species was analyzed using

the assumption that the fresh pummelo

fruit would be treated with irradiation

in Thailand only and not upon arrival

in the United States after transport. The

commenter recommended that the

analysis be updated with any risk

associated transit and storage of those

shipments treated upon arrival or that it

be altered to specify that risk was

considered based on the presumption of

irradiation treatment in Thailand only.

We agree with the commenter’s point

and have updated the pest risk

assessment to reflect the risk presented

by pests potentially surviving transport

and storage conditions of the

consignment in the event that post-

harvest irradiation treatment is not

performed in Thailand. This change

may be found on page 23 of the updated

pest risk assessment.

Comments on Phytosanitary Issues

We proposed to require that fresh

pummelo fruit from Thailand be subject

to a systems approach that includes

irradiation treatment, packinghouse

processing requirements, and port of

entry inspection. We also proposed that

the fruit be imported only in

commercial consignments and be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the national plant

protection organization (NPPO) of

Thailand. One commenter said that

these measures are not 100 percent

effective in preventing the entry of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM 10NOR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

62466

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

actionable pests. Another commenter

requested that fresh pummelo fruit from

Thailand not be allowed into the State

of Florida and other ports of entry south

of the 39th parallel given that the

climate in those areas is conducive to

the establishment of the listed pests and

the State of Florida’s history of

damaging incursions by invasive pests

associated with the importation of

foreign commodities.

We have determined, for the reasons

described in the RMD that accompanied

the proposed rule, that the measures

specified in the RMD will effectively

mitigate the risk associated with the

importation of fresh pummelo fruit from

Thailand. The commenters did not

provide any evidence suggesting that

the mitigations are not effective.

Therefore, we are not taking the action

requested by the commenters.

The pest risk assessment identified 21

actionable pests that could be

introduced into the United States in

consignments of fresh pummelo fruit

from Thailand. We provided a list of

those pests in the proposed rule and its

supporting documentation. One

commenter said that the proposed rule

did not mention invasive species,

focusing only on actionable pests. The

commenter argued that we should

provide a full list of potentially invasive

species associated with this action.

Another commenter argued that the pest

risk assessment we prepared was too

narrow in scope, and should take into

account the potential adverse effects of

actionable pests on all known and

potential hosts of those pests.

The term ‘‘actionable pest’’ includes

those species known to be invasive, but

also includes a larger group of pests

since a species does not have to be

recognized as invasive in order to cause

harm. Actionable pests include

quarantine pests, regulated non-

quarantine pests, pests considered for or

under official control, and pests that

require evaluation for regulatory action.

The wider scope described by the

second commenter was therefore built

into the pest risk assessment and RMD.

Actionable pests in this case are those

known to be associated with fresh

pummelo fruit and present in Thailand.

Fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand

will be required to be treated with a

minimum absorbed irradiation dose of

400 Gy in accordance with § 305.9 of the

phytosanitary treatment regulations in 7

CFR part 305. This is the established

generic dose for all insect pests except

pupae and adults of the order

Lepidoptera. A commenter cited the

presence of three Lepidopteran pests

(Citripestis sagittiferella Moore, Prays

citri Millie

`re, and Prays endocarpa

Meyrick) in the list of actionable pests

as an indication that the phytosanitary

risk associated with the importation of

fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand is

too high.

The systems approach includes other

phytosanitary procedures designed to

provide protection from pests against

which irradiation is not effective. In

addition, irradiation in conjunction

with other mitigations against

Lepidopteran pests can provide

phytosanitary protection since it is

lethal to larvae, tends to prevent normal

adult emergence from the pupal stage,

and causes sterility in pupae and

emerged adults.

Two commenters requested assurance

that actionable pests will not be

introduced into the United States in

connection with the pallets used in the

shipment of fresh pummelo fruit from

Thailand or via transshipment through

countries not included in the pest risk

assessment and RMD.

Wood packaging material, including

pallets, used for the importation of

commodities is governed by the

regulations in 7 CFR 319.40–3(b), which

stipulates treatment and marking. For

the reasons explained in the proposed

rule, the RMD, and this document, we

consider the required provisions

adequate to mitigate the risk associated

with the importation of fresh pummelo

fruit from Thailand. The commenters

did not provide any evidence suggesting

that the mitigations are individually or

collectively ineffective. Failure to

adhere to program standards, including

packaging transshipped fruits, may

result in removal from the export

program.

One commenter observed that fresh

pummelo fruit imported into Canada is

currently not allowed to enter the

United States for phytosanitary reasons

and questioned the wisdom of allowing

the fruit to directly enter the United

States.

Each country determines its own

importation requirements based on a

number of factors, including factors

particular to that country. While there

may be some similarities in each

country’s phytosanitary approach, the

requirements are not always identical.

The requirements established by this

document are country- and commodity-

specific for the importation of fresh

pummelo fruit from Thailand into the

continental United States.

Comments on Trade and Economic

Factors

One commenter expressed concern

that recent APHIS trade and policy

efforts have tended to favor facilitating

import access to the U.S. market.

APHIS’ phytosanitary evaluation

process only begins once a country’s

NPPO has submitted a formal request

for market access for a particular

commodity. APHIS does not solicit such

requests, nor do we control which

countries submit requests. APHIS’

primary responsibility with regard to

international import trade is to identify

and manage the phytosanitary risks

associated with importing commodities.

When we determine that the risk

associated with the importation of a

commodity can be successfully

mitigated, as is the case regarding the

importation of fresh pummelo fruit from

Thailand, it is our responsibility under

the trade agreements to which we are a

signatory, such as the World Trade

Organization’s Agreement on Sanitary

and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS

Agreement), to provide for the

importation of that commodity.

Another commenter said that

allowing for the importation of fresh

pummelo fruit from Thailand may not

produce a positive effect on the U.S.

economy or domestic producers. Two

commenters stated that there is a

sufficient domestically produced supply

of fresh pummelo fruit to meet current

market demand and hypothesized that

the lower cost of imported fresh

pummelo fruit would serve to harm

domestic producers.

APHIS’ statutory authority allows us

to prohibit the importation of a fruit or

vegetable into the United States only if

we determine that the prohibition is

necessary in order to prevent the

introduction or dissemination of a plant

pest or noxious weed within the United

States. As a signatory to the SPS

Agreement, the United States has agreed

to base its decisionmaking process on

evaluation and mitigation of

phytosanitary risk and not on the

economic and trade factors referenced

by the commenter. As we discuss later

in this document, however, available

data does not suggest that fresh

pummelo fruit from Thailand will be

imported at a lower cost than domestic

production.

Two commenters objected to our

requirement that the fresh pummelo

fruit originate from commercial farms

and stated that such a requirement

would effectively exclude the majority

of farmers in Thailand while

encouraging the development of large

scale, monoculture farms. One of the

commenters cited a USDA requirement

of $350,000 net income as the minimum

amount needed for classification as a

commercial farm.

We proposed to allow only

commercial consignments of fresh

pummelo fruit from Thailand to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM 10NOR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

62467

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

2

The $350,000 figure is a standard used by

USDA’s Economic Research Service in the course

of their own research as the dividing line between

small and midsize domestic farms. APHIS does not

use this measure; we instead rely on Small Business

Association standards to identify small entities

potentially affected by our rules.

3

83 FR 46627 (September 14, 2018). To view the

final rule, go to https://www.regulations.gov and

enter APHIS–2010–0082 in the Search field.

accepted for importation into the

continental United States. Commercial

consignments, as defined in § 319.56–2,

are consignments that an inspector

identifies as having been imported for

sale and distribution. Such

identification is based on a variety of

indicators, including, but not limited to:

Quantity of produce, type of packing,

identification of grower or packinghouse

on the packaging, and documents

consigning the fruits or vegetables to a

wholesaler or retailer. The size of the

farm

2

of origin is not a factor in

determining whether or not a given

consignment is commercial.

One commenter stated that Federal

and State resources intended to protect

domestic agriculture production have

not kept pace with the growing volume

of fruit and vegetable imports, placing

strain on the system.

APHIS has reviewed its resources and

consulted with U.S. Customs and

Border Protection and believes there is

adequate coverage across the United

States to ensure compliance with APHIS

regulations, including the importation

of pummelo from Thailand, as

established by this action. The

commenter did not provide any

evidence of shortfalls in State resources

that would prevent APHIS from carrying

out the provisions of this action.

A commenter said that the economic

analysis that accompanied the proposed

rule did not reflect the potential

financial impacts of pummelo producers

in Florida. The commenter said that

allowing for the importation of fresh

pummelo fruit from Thailand at the

same time of year that domestic fruit

comes to market would result in

negative economic impacts for Florida

growers.

The commenter cited the importation

of fresh pummelo fruit from Southeast

Asia into Canada as an example of what

may happen to the U.S. fresh pummelo

market, stating that imported fruit in

Canada has been marketed at a price far

lower than U.S. domestic growers can

achieve. The commenter predicted that

the price of fresh pummelo fruit in the

Canadian market is an indicator of

future U.S. prices for imported

pummelos and consequently greatly

harm domestic growers.

While our trade decisions are made

based on science rather than economic

factors, we note that we stated in the

economic analysis that accompanied the

proposed rule that information on

pummelo production in Arizona,

Florida, and Texas was not available. In

addition, U.S. import and export data

specific to pummelo are also not

available because pummelo is grouped

with grapefruit in Department of

Commerce trade statistics (Harmonized

Tariff Schedule 080540). As always,

APHIS welcomes informed comment on

the size and scope of any industry for

which we do not have data.

In response to the commenter’s

concerns, we examined the market for

fresh pummelo fruit in Canada and

determined that Canada imported an

average of 36,379 metric tons per year

during the period 2017 through 2020. Of

this, 44 percent originated in the United

States, and 0.003 percent (or 124 metric

tons) originated from Thailand. During

that period, the average price Canadian

importers paid overall for fresh

pummelo fruit was $990 per metric ton,

the average price Canadian importers

paid for fresh pummelo fruit from the

United States was $989 per metric ton,

and the average price Canadian

importers paid for fresh pummelo fruit

from Thailand was $2,030 per metric

ton. Based on this data, we do not agree

with the commenter’s claim that U.S.

pummelo fruit is at a competitive price

disadvantage in the Canadian market in

relation to imported fresh pummelo

fruit from Thailand. Our available

Canadian data suggests Thailand’s share

of the domestic pummelo market within

the United States will be minimal,

compared to domestic production, and

Thailand will not be able to market the

fruit at a price point below that of

domestic producers.

Finally, we note that the proposed

rule was issued prior to the October 15,

2018, effective date of a final rule

3

that

revised the regulations in § 319.56–4 by

broadening an existing performance

standard to provide for approval of all

new fruits and vegetables for

importation into the United States using

a notice-based process. That final rule

also specified that region- or

commodity-specific phytosanitary

requirements for fruits and vegetables

would no longer be found in the

regulations, but instead in APHIS’ Fruits

and Vegetables Import Requirements

(FAVIR) database. With those changes to

the regulations, we cannot issue the

final regulations as contemplated in our

March 2018 proposed rule and are

therefore discontinuing that rulemaking

without a final rule. Instead, it is

necessary for us to finalize this action

through the issuance of a notification.

Therefore, in accordance with the

regulations in § 319.56–4(c)(3)(iii), we

are announcing our decision to

authorize the importation into the

continental United States of fresh

pummelo fruit from Thailand subject to

the following phytosanitary measures,

which will be listed in FAVIR, available

at https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/

manual:

•The fresh pummelo fruit must be

shipped in commercial consignments

only.

•The fresh pummelo fruit must be

treated with irradiation in accordance

with 7 CFR part 305.

•Prior to packing, the fresh pummelo

fruit must be washed, brushed,

disinfested, submerged in surfactant,

treated for Xanthomonas citri Gabriel et

al. with an APHIS-approved surface

disinfectant, and treated for Phyllosticta

citriasiana and Phyllosticta citricarpa

with an APHIS-approved fungicide.

•Each shipment of fresh pummelo

fruit must be accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate issued by the

NPPO of Thailand. If the fresh pummelo

fruit was irradiated in Thailand, each

consignment of fruit must be inspected

jointly in Thailand by APHIS and the

NPPO of Thailand, and the

phytosanitary certificate must contain

an additional declaration attesting to

irradiation of the fresh pummelo fruit in

accordance with 7 CFR part 305. If the

fresh pummelo fruit will be irradiated

upon arrival into the continental United

States, joint inspection in Thailand and

an additional declaration on the

phytosanitary certificate are not

required.

•Consignments of fresh pummelo

fruit from Thailand are subject to

inspection at ports of entry in the

continental United States.

In addition to these specific measures,

fresh pummelo fruit from Thailand will

be subject to the general requirements

listed in § 319.56–3 that are applicable

to the importation of all fruits and

vegetables.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.), the burden and recordkeeping

requirements associated with this action

are covered under the Office of

Management and Budget control

number 0579–0049, which is updated

every 3 years during the required

renewal period. We estimate the total

annual burden to be 24 hours.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM 10NOR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

62468

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

1

85 FR 77987 (Dec. 3, 2020).

2

See Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Broken Records

Redux: How Errors by Criminal Background Check

Companies Continue to Harm Consumers Seeking

Jobs and Housing 3 (Dec. 2019), https://

www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/report-

broken-records-redux.pdf; Bureau of Consumer Fin.

Prot., Market Snapshot: Background Screening

Reports: Criminal background checks in

employment 3–4 (Oct. 2019), https://files.consumer

finance.gov/f/documents/201909_cfpb_market-

snapshot-background-screening_report.pdf (CFPB

Background Screening Report); Sharon Dietrich,

Preventing Background Screeners from Reporting

Expunged Criminal Cases, Sargent Shriver Nat’l Ctr.

on Poverty L. (Apr. 2015).

3

See, e.g., Bureau of Consumer Fin. Prot.,

Complaint Bulletin: COVID–19 issues described in

consumer complaints 15 (July 2021), https://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_covid-

19-issues-described-consumer-complaints_

complaint-bulletin_2021-07.pdf (CFPB Complaint

Bulletin) (noting that, in their complaints to the

Bureau, some consumers have reported being

denied applications for housing because

information in their tenant screening reports was

inaccurate, and other consumers reported facing

homelessness because an eviction had negatively

affected their credit, making it more difficult to

secure housing); Kaveh Waddell, How Tenant

Screening Reports Make It Hard for People to

Bounce Back from Tough Times, Consumer Reports

(Mar. 11, 2021), https://www.consumerreports.org/

algorithmic-bias/tenant-screening-reports-make-it-

hard-to-bounce-back-from-tough-times/; Lauren

Kirchner & Matthew Goldstein, How Automated

Background Checks Freeze Out Renters, N.Y. Times

(May 28, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/

28/business/renters-background-checks.html.

4

CFPB Background Screening Report, supra note

2, at 13–14.

5

15 U.S.C. 1681(b).

6

Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info., 45 F.3d

1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1995) (citations omitted).

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service is committed to

compliance with the E-Government Act

to promote the use of the internet and

other information technologies, to

provide increased opportunities for

citizen access to Government

information and services, and for other

purposes. For information pertinent to

E-Government Act compliance related

to this action, please contact Mr. Joseph

Moxey, APHIS’ Paperwork Reduction

Act Specialist, at (301) 851–2483.

Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

designated this rule as not a major rule,

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701–7772, and

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of

November 2021.

Mark Davidson,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 2021–24490 Filed 11–9–21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL

PROTECTION

12 CFR Part 1022

Fair Credit Reporting; Name-Only

Matching Procedures

AGENCY

: Bureau of Consumer Financial

Protection.

ACTION

: Advisory opinion.

SUMMARY

: The Bureau of Consumer

Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing

this advisory opinion to highlight that a

consumer reporting agency that uses

inadequate matching procedures to

match information to consumers,

including name-only matching (i.e.,

matching information to the particular

consumer who is the subject of a

consumer report based solely on

whether the consumer’s first and last

names are identical or similar to the

names associated with the information),

in preparing consumer reports is not

using reasonable procedures to assure

maximum possible accuracy under

section 607(b) of the Fair Credit

Reporting Act (FCRA).

DATES

: This advisory opinion is

effective on November 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Brandy Hood, Courtney Jean, Kristin

McPartland, Amanda Quester, or

Pavneet Singh, Senior Counsels, Office

of Regulations, at (202) 435–7700 or

https://reginquiries.consumer

finance.gov/. If you require this

document in an alternative electronic

format, please contact CFPB_

Accessibility@cfpb.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

: The

Bureau is issuing this advisory opinion

through the procedures for its Advisory

Opinions Policy.

1

Refer to those

procedures for more information.

I. Advisory Opinion

A. Background

Accuracy in consumer reports is of

vital importance to the consumer

reporting system, particularly as

consumer reports play an increasingly

important role in the lives of American

consumers. Consumer reporting

agencies assemble and evaluate credit,

public record, and other consumer

information into consumer reports. The

information in these reports is used by

many different types of businesses, from

creditors and insurers to landlords and

employers, to make eligibility and other

decisions about consumers. Creditors,

for example, use information in

consumer reports to determine whether,

and on what terms, to extend credit to

a particular consumer. The majority of

landlords and employers use

background screening reports to screen

prospective tenants and employees.

2

Inaccurate information in consumer

reports can have significant adverse

impacts on consumers. These impacts

are particularly concerning for

prospective renters and job seekers

struggling to recover from the impacts of

the COVID–19 pandemic. Consumers

with inaccurate information in their

consumer reports may, for example, be

denied credit or housing they would

have otherwise received, or may be

offered less attractive terms than they

would have been offered if their

information had been accurate. For

example, an applicant whose tenant

screening report shows past litigation or

a poor rental payment history may find

it difficult or more expensive to rent

property.

3

Job-seekers with inaccurate

information in their consumer reports

may also be denied employment

opportunities.

4

Inaccurate information

in consumer reports can also harm the

businesses that use such reports by

leading them to incorrect decisions.

Consumer report accuracy relies on the

various parties to the consumer

reporting system: the three nationwide

consumer reporting agencies—Equifax,

Experian, and TransUnion; other

consumer reporting agencies, such as

background screening companies;

entities such as creditors who furnish

information to consumer reporting

agencies (i.e., furnishers); public record

repositories; users of credit reports; and

consumers.

The FCRA, enacted in 1970, regulates

consumer reporting. The statute was

designed to ensure that ‘‘consumer

reporting agencies adopt reasonable

procedures for meeting the needs of

commerce for consumer credit,

personnel, insurance, and other

information in a manner which is fair

and equitable to the consumer, with

regard to the confidentiality, accuracy,

relevancy, and proper utilization of

such information.’’

5

The FCRA was

enacted ‘‘to protect consumers from the

transmission of inaccurate information

about them and to establish credit

reporting practices that utilize accurate,

relevant, and current information in a

confidential and responsible manner.’’

6

Because of the importance of consumer

report accuracy to businesses and

consumers, the structure of the FCRA

creates interrelated legal standards and

requirements to support the policy goal

of accurate credit reporting. Among

these is the requirement that, when

preparing a consumer report, consumer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:55 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM 10NOR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES