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

31937 

Vol. 87, No. 102 

Thursday, May 26, 2022 

1To view the proposed rule, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, and enter APHIS–2016–0099 

in the Search field. 

2To view the PRA, RMD, and the comments that 

we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, and 

enter APHIS–2016–0099 in the Search field. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2016–0099] 

Decision To Authorize the Importation 

of Fresh Avocado Fruit From 

Continental Ecuador 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 of fresh avocado fruit from 

continental Ecuador into the continental 

United States. 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 avocado fruit from continental 

Ecuador. 

DATES: The articles covered by this 

notification may be authorized for 

importation after May 26, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory 

Policy Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, Imports, 

Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 

4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, 

MD 20737–1231; (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. 

Section 319.56–4 contains a 

performance-based process for 

approving the importation of fruits and 

vegetables that, based on the findings of 

a pest risk analysis, can be safely 

imported subject to one or more of the 

five designated phytosanitary measures 

listed in paragraph (b) of that section. 

On June 15, 2018, APHIS published in 

the Federal Register (83 FR 27918– 

27922, Docket No. APHIS–2016–0099) a 

proposed rule 1 to authorize the 

importation of fresh avocado from 

continental Ecuador into the continental 

United States. 

The proposed rule was based on a 

pest risk assessment (PRA) that found 

four quarantine pests to be candidates 

for pest risk management. The 

quarantine pests were the fruit flies 

Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann), 

Anastrepha serpentina (Wiedemann), 

Anastrepha striata (Schiner), and 

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). All 

avocado varieties except the Hass 

variety are hosts for these quarantine 

pests. Consequently, APHIS proposed to 

allow the importation of avocados from 

Ecuador into the United States under a 

systems approach that included 

phytosanitary measures to safeguard 

against these pests for all varieties of 

avocado except the Hass variety. 

During the public comment period, 

we received information from a 

commenter that led us to add the 

avocado seed pest, Stenoma catenifer, to 

a revised PRA. The revised PRA 

determined that Stenoma catenifer was 

a candidate for pest risk management for 

all varieties of avocado imported from 

continental Ecuador. In light of this 

change, we revised the risk management 

document (RMD) to include pest risk 

management measures for Stenoma 

catenifer for all avocado varieties. We 

made the revised PRA and the revised 

RMD available for public review and 

reopened the comment period until May 

17, 2021, in a document published in 

the Federal Register on April 16, 2021 

(86 FR 20037–20038, Docket No. 

APHIS–2016–0099).2

We received 10 comments by the end 

of the original comment period on 

August 14, 2018, and 4 additional 

comments by the end of the reopened 

comment period on May 17, 2021. The 

comments were from two State 

departments of agriculture, Ecuador’s 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO), two trade associations, and 

private individuals. 

The issues raised by the commenters 

are addressed below. 

One commenter requested that the 

required buffer zone around pest-free 

places of production for Stenoma 

catenifer be 500 meters instead of 1 

kilometer. The commenter noted that, 

according to the cited literature, 

Stenoma catenifer can fly 67 meters per 

night, implying that adults could only 

move 469 meters during their lifespan. 

While it is true that the cited study 

found that males flew an average of 67 

meters in one night, the study also 

noted that this is likely an 

underestimate of the distance that male 

moths are capable of flying in a single 

night. Therefore, it should not be 

assumed based on the study that 469 

meters is the maximum distance a male 

moth could fly in its life. Stenoma 

catenifer is a significant pest of 

avocados and the buffer zone is a key 

component of the systems approach. 

Additionally, we require a buffer zone 

of 1 kilometer for the importation of 

avocados from Colombia under a 

systems approach and have found this 

measure to be effective. APHIS will 

continue to require a buffer zone of 1 

kilometer around pest-free places of 

production for avocados imported from 

Ecuador. 

The commenter also asked that we 

replace the term ‘‘place of production’’ 

in the RMD with the term ‘‘production 

site’’ to better reflect the nature of the 

growing sites in Ecuador. 

The International Plant Protection 

Convention glossary defines a place of 

production as any premises or 

collection of fields operated as a single 

production or farming unit, and a 

production site as a defined part of a 

place of production, that is managed as 

a separate unit for phytosanitary 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
31938 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

3To view the glossary, go to https://assets.ippc.

int/static/media/files/publication/en/2021/05/ 

ISPM_05_2021_En_Glossary_2021-05-27_PostCPM15_Fixed.pdf. 

purposes.3 Substituting one term for the 

other does not substantively change the 

RMD. APHIS has made the requested 

change. 

The same commenter, along with 

another commenter, also asked us to 

replace the term ‘‘municipality’’ with 

the term ‘‘parroquia rural,’’ or ‘‘rural 

parish,’’ to reflect Ecuador’s 

administrative divisions more 

accurately. 

We understand the commenters’ 

concerns and have replaced the term 

‘‘municipality’’ with the term ‘‘rural 

parish’’ in the RMD. 

Two commenters stated that there 

should be more pest control measures 

for Hass avocados. 

Since Stenoma catenifer was added to 

the PRA, significant additions have been 

made to the pest mitigation measures 

outlined in the RMD, such as survey 

programs and pest-free sites of 

production. These measures apply to all 

avocado varieties, including Hass. Other 

requisite phytosanitary measures that 

apply to all avocado varieties include 

registered sites of production, regular 

inspections of sites of production and 

packinghouses, and the removal of 

fallen fruit. 

One commenter encouraged USDA to 

develop molecular diagnostics for the 

Anastrepha fraterculus group to better 

identify fruit fly larvae during 

inspections. 

In recent years, APHIS has invested 

significant resources in molecular 

diagnostic technology, which allows 

APHIS to identify almost any 

interception in commercial fruit 

commodities to the species level. 

However, if any Anastrepha spp. fruit 

flies are intercepted in a consignment 

and identification at the species level is 

not possible, the consignment will be 

refused entry into the United States 

regardless. 

One commenter stated that cold 

treatment is not an effective pest 

mitigation measure because fruit fly 

larvae can survive in untreated 

shipments. 

APHIS is not proposing to use cold 

treatment as a pest mitigation measure 

for avocado fruit from Ecuador. Rather, 

avocados from Ecuador will be imported 

under the systems approach outlined in 

the RMD. 

The commenter also claimed that 

Ecuador does not have a point-of-origin 

protocol for fruit inspection. 

The systems approach requires the 

NPPO of Ecuador to conduct 

inspections of sites of production, 

packinghouses, and samples of avocado 

following post-harvest processing. 

Details of what these inspections must 

entail are included in the RMD, and the 

inspection protocol will be expanded 

upon further in the operational 

workplan the NPPO will enter into with 

APHIS. 

The same commenter expressed 

concern that internal feeders, including 

fruit flies, are difficult to detect during 

inspections at ports of entry. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

inspects commercial fruit at U.S. ports 

of entry from all over the world and has 

significant experience in detecting 

pests, including fruit fly larvae. 

Moreover, most avocado varieties are 

poor fruit fly hosts, and Hass avocados 

are considered non-hosts by APHIS. The 

systems approach detailed in the RMD 

includes multiple mitigation measures 

in addition to inspections, including 

pest-free sites of production, trapping 

for fruit flies, removal of fallen fruit, and 

insect-exclusionary packinghouses. 

APHIS is confident that the systems 

approach is sufficient to mitigate any 

remaining risk of fruit flies following 

the pathway of avocados from Ecuador. 

The commenter also suggested that 

avocados should only be considered for 

importation into States that do not have 

climates conducive to the establishment 

of fruit flies. 

APHIS is confident that the systems 

approach outlined in the RMD is 

sufficient to mitigate risk of introducing 

pests to climates conducive to the 

establishment of fruit flies. The 

commenter did not provide any 

evidence suggesting that the mitigation 

measures are not effective. Therefore, 

we are not taking the action requested 

by the commenter. 

The same commenter requested 

access to trapping records to better 

assess the threat of fruit fly 

introduction, and access to quality 

control records from Ecuador to verify 

that traps are being baited and checked 

at appropriate intervals. The commenter 

also expressed a desire to participate in 

site visits. 

APHIS is committed to a transparent 

process and an inclusive role for 

stakeholders in our risk analysis 

process. To that end, we are currently 

considering ways to facilitate further 

stakeholder involvement during the 

initial stages of the development of 

PRAs and RMDs. However, at this time, 

APHIS does not routinely provide 

trapping records to stakeholders, nor 

does it involve stakeholders in site 

visits. APHIS based its PRA on scientific 

literature, port-of-entry pest interception 

data, and information from the 

Government of Ecuador. The 

methodology we used to assess the 

threat of pest introduction is 

summarized in the PRA. 

The systems approach outlined in the 

RMD includes multiple quality control 

measures to ensure that trapping is 

carried out appropriately. The NPPO of 

Ecuador must visit and inspect the 

production sites monthly, and the 

personnel conducting the trapping and 

pest surveys must be hired, trained, and 

supervised by the NPPO. APHIS will be 

directly involved with the NPPO in 

monitoring and auditing 

implementation of the systems 

approach. The commenter did not 

provide any evidence suggesting that 

the pest risk analysis is inaccurate or 

that trapping will not be carried out 

effectively. 

Another commenter asked for more 

mitigation measures for Linda, Bola, and 

Tonashe avocado varieties, stating that 

there is insufficient research regarding 

these varieties as potential fruit fly 

hosts. 

As noted earlier, APHIS expects that 

the mitigation measures in the systems 

approach will be sufficient to remove 

any fruit flies from the pathway of all 

varieties of avocado fruit from Ecuador. 

If APHIS finds that any avocados have 

fruit fly larvae, the places of production 

will be suspended pending 

investigation, and will remain 

suspended until the risk has been 

mitigated. APHIS will consider 

suspending varieties, places of 

production, and packinghouses, as well 

as modifying the systems approach, if 

there are fruit fly interceptions. 

The same commenter also suggested 

that the PRA should address the 

potential risk of introducing strains of 

the pest, Xylella fastidiosa, not 

currently found in the United States, 

such as the subspecies pauca. 

Phytosanitary surveillance conducted 

by the NPPO of Ecuador has found no 

evidence of Xylella fastidiosa in 

Ecuador, and the bacteria is officially 

declared absent from that country. 

Additionally, APHIS has no record of 

Xylella fastidiosa subspecies pauca 

affecting avocados. For these reasons, 

the bacteria was not included in the 

PRA, which only considers pests that 

are evidenced to be associated with 

avocado and present in Ecuador. 

Another commenter asked that, in 

lieu of the requirement that no fruit fly 

hosts be grown within 100 meters of the 

edge of the production site, growers 

should be able to control the fruit flies 

via methods such as the elimination of 

overripe fruit, burial of fallen fruits, and 

installation of bait stations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31939 

4 83 FR 46627 (September 14, 2018). To view the 

final rule, go to www.regulations.gov and enter 

APHIS–2010–0082 in the Search field. 

This requirement prevents the 

attraction of fruit flies to hosts adjacent 

to the avocado crop, creating a barrier 

that helps protect the avocados from 

pests. APHIS considers it a crucial part 

of the systems approach. Therefore, we 

are not removing this requirement. 

The commenter also appeared to state 

that the NPPO of Ecuador will not 

include details of the trapping program 

in the operational workplan they 

provide to APHIS because they will 

approve the production sites as pest free 

areas. 

APHIS is unclear on the commenter’s 

reasoning. The operational workplan 

will need to include details of the 

trapping program for the fruit flies 

before importations of avocados from 

Ecuador into the United States can 

proceed under a systems approach. This 

is the case whether the trapping occurs 

under the auspices of a program to 

maintain a pest-free area for the fruit 

flies in question or not. 

Finally, a commenter expressed 

concern that imports of avocados from 

Ecuador would reduce imports from 

Michoaca ́n, Mexico, thereby harming 

that country’s economy. 

As a signatory to the World Trade 

Organization’s Agreement on Sanitary 

and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 

Agreement), the United States has 

agreed that any prohibitions it places on 

the importation of fruits and vegetables 

will be based on scientific evidence 

related to phytosanitary measures and 

issues, and will not be maintained 

without sufficient scientific evidence. 

Prohibiting imports based on economic 

considerations such as those brought up 

by the commenter would not be in 

keeping with this agreement. 

That being said, we do not anticipate 

that this action will have a meaningful 

impact on the amount of avocados that 

Mexico exports to the United States. 

Mexico exports approximately 500,000 

metric tons of avocados to the United 

States a year, while Ecuador is 

anticipated to export approximately 1 

percent of that amount. Even if Ecuador 

avocados were to displace some 

Mexican exports of avocados to the 

United States, the disparity between the 

amounts exported by each country 

strongly suggests that any impact on 

Mexico would be negligible. 

Finally, we note that the proposed 

rule was issued prior to the October 15, 

2018, effective date of a final rule 4 that 

revised the regulations in § 319.56–4 by 

broadening an existing performance 

standard to provide that all revisions to 

existing requirements for the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States will use 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 database (FAVIR). With 

those changes to the regulations, we 

cannot issue the final regulations as 

contemplated in our June 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 of commercial 

consignments of fresh avocado fruit 

from continental Ecuador into the 

continental United States subject to the 

following phytosanitary measures, 

which will be listed in FAVIR, available 

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

manual. 

Phytosanitary measures for all 

varieties of Ecuador avocados: 

• The NPPO of Ecuador must provide 

an operational workplan to APHIS that 

details the activities that the NPPO of 

Ecuador will, subject to APHIS’ 

approval of the workplan, carry out to 

meet the requirements of the systems 

approach. 

• Avocados must be grown in sites of 

production that are registered with the 

NPPO of Ecuador. The NPPO of Ecuador 

must visit and inspect registered sites of 

production monthly, starting at least 2 

months before harvest and continuing 

until the end of the shipping season. 

• The NPPO must register 

packinghouses that intend to export 

avocados to the United States, as well as 

inspect and monitor the operations of 

the packinghouses. 

• If the NPPO of Ecuador finds that a 

site of production or packinghouse is 

not complying with the requirements of 

the systems approach, no fruit from the 

production site or packinghouse will be 

eligible for export to the United States 

until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador 

conduct an investigation and 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. 

• The NPPO of Ecuador must review 

and maintain all forms and documents 

related to export program activities in 

sites of production and packinghouses 

for at least 1 year and, if requested, 

provide them to APHIS for review. 

• Avocados must be grown in pestfree sites of production for the avocado 

seed pest, Stenoma catenifer, 

established and maintained in 

accordance with international 

standards. APHIS must approve the 

survey protocol used by the NPPO of 

Ecuador to determine and maintain pest 

free status. 

• If the avocados are grown in a rural 

parish free of Stenoma catenifer, the 

rural parish must be surveyed every 6 

months (twice a year) for the pest. 

Representative areas of the rural parish 

where there are avocado trees, including 

production sites and urban areas, must 

be sampled. 

• If the avocados are grown in a rural 

parish not completely free of Stenoma 

catenifer, the NPPO of Ecuador can 

certify individual sites of production as 

pest free. The surveys for pest-free sites 

of production must include 

representative areas from all parts of 

each registered site of production and a 

buffer zone of 1 kilometer. The sites of 

production and buffer zone must be 

surveyed monthly for Stenoma catenifer 

from 2 months before harvest until 

harvest is completed. 

• If one or more Stenoma catenifer 

are detected during a survey or during 

any other monitoring or inspection 

activity, the site of production will be 

prohibited from exporting avocados to 

the continental United States until 

APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly 

agree that the risk has been mitigated. 

• The NPPO of Ecuador must keep 

records of Stenoma catenifer detections 

for each site of production, and update 

the records each time the sites of 

production are surveyed. The records 

must be maintained for at least 1 year 

and provided for APHIS’ review, if 

requested. 

• Avocado fruit that has fallen from 

the trees must be removed from the 

production site at least once every 7 

days, starting 2 months before harvest 

and continuing through the end of the 

harvest, and may not be included in 

field containers of fruit to be packed for 

export. 

• Harvested avocados must be placed 

in field cartons or containers that are 

marked to show the official registration 

number of the production site. The site 

of production where the avocados were 

grown must remain identifiable when 

the fruit leaves the grove, at the 

packinghouse, and throughout the 

export process. The fruit must be moved 

to the packinghouse within 3 hours of 

harvest or must be protected from fruit 

fly infestation until moved. 

• Avocados must be packed within 24 

hours of harvest in an insectexclusionary packinghouse registered 

with the NPPO of Ecuador. The fruit 

must be safeguarded by an insect-proof 

screen or plastic tarpaulin while in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
31940 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Public Law 

111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1955–2113 (2010). 

2 12 U.S.C. 5481(14), (12). 

3As defined in 12 U.S.C. 5481(27), ‘‘[t]he term 

‘State’ means any State, territory, or possession of 

the United States, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American 

Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands or any 

federally recognized Indian tribe, as defined by the 

Secretary of the Interior under section 5131(a) of 

title 25.’’ 

4S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 16 (2010), https://

www.congress.gov/congressional-report/111thcongress/senate-report/176/1. 

transit to the packinghouse and while 

awaiting packing. Fruit must be packed 

in insect-proof cartons or containers, or 

covered with insect-proof mesh or a 

plastic tarpaulin for transport to the 

United States. During the time the 

packinghouse is in use for exporting 

avocado fruit to the United States, the 

packinghouse may only accept fruit 

from registered, approved production 

sites. 

• A sample of avocado fruit from each 

site of production must be inspected by 

the NPPO of Ecuador following any 

post-harvest processing. 

• Fruit presented for inspection at the 

port of entry to the United States must 

be identified in the shipping documents 

accompanying each lot of fruit to 

specify the production site or sites, in 

which the fruit was produced, and the 

packing shed or sheds, in which the 

fruit was processed. 

• Each consignment of avocados must 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by NPPO of Ecuador 

and providing an additional declaration 

stating that the fruit in the consignment 

has been produced in compliance with 

the requirements of the systems 

approach. 

Additional phytosanitary measures 

for varieties of Ecuador avocados other 

than Hass: 

• No other host of Anastrepha 

fraterculus, A, serpentina, A, striata, or 

Ceratitis capitata can be grown within 

100 meters of the edge of the avocado 

site of production. 

• The registered production sites 

must conduct trapping for Anastrepha 

spp. and Ceratitis capitata fruit flies in 

accordance with the operational 

workplan. 

• The NPPO must keep records of 

fruit fly detections for each trap, update 

the records each time the traps are 

checked, and make the records available 

to APHIS upon request. The records 

must be maintained for at least 1 year. 

• If Anastrepha spp. or Ceratitis 

capitata fruit flies trapped at a 

registered production site go above the 

threshold specified in the operational 

workplan, the avocados may still be 

exported, but only with an APHISapproved quarantine treatment. 

Irradiation treatment at 150 Gy (T105– 

a–1) is approved for all fruit flies. 

These conditions are described in 

further detail in the final RMD. In 

addition to these specific measures, 

fresh avocado fruit from continental 

Ecuador 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 recordkeeping and burden 

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. 

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 notice, please contact Mr. Joseph 

Moxey, APHIS’ Paperwork Reduction 

Act Coordinator, 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 action 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 23rd day of 

May 2022. 

Anthony Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11367 Filed 5–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Chapter X 

Authority of States To Enforce the 

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 

2010 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Interpretive rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 1042 of the Consumer 

Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) 

generally authorizes States to enforce 

the CFPA’s provisions. The Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is 

issuing this interpretive rule to provide 

further clarity regarding the scope of 

State enforcement under section 1042 

and related provisions of the CFPA. 

Specifically, the Bureau is issuing the 

following interpretations: Section 1042 

allows States to enforce any provision of 

the CFPA, including section 

1036(a)(1)(A), a provision that makes it 

unlawful for covered persons or service 

providers to violate the Federal 

consumer financial laws; the limitations 

on the Bureau’s authority in sections 

1027 and 1029 generally do not 

constrain States’ enforcement authority 

under section 1042; and section 1042 

does not restrict States from bringing 

concurrent enforcement actions with the 

Bureau. 

DATES: This interpretive rule is effective 

on May 26, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shiva Nagaraj, Senior Counsel, Legal 

Division, (202) 435–7700. If you require 

this document in an alternative 

electronic format, please contact CFPB_

Accessibility@cfpb.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Consumer Financial Protection 

Act of 2010 (CFPA) establishes the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

as the Federal government’s primary 

regulator of consumer financial 

products and services.1 The Bureau is 

charged with administering, 

interpreting, and enforcing the ‘‘Federal 

consumer financial laws,’’ a category 

that includes the CFPA itself, 18 

enumerated consumer laws (such as the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Truth 

in Lending Act), and the laws for which 

authorities were transferred to the 

Bureau under subtitles F and H of the 

CFPA, as well as rules and orders issued 

by the Bureau under any of these laws.2

However, the Bureau is not the only 

enforcer of these laws. The CFPA 

recognizes the important role that States 

play in overseeing the consumer 

financial marketplace.3 As noted in a 

2010 Senate report on the financial 

crisis that precipitated the CFPA, 

‘‘[w]here [F]ederal regulators refused to 

act, the [S]tates stepped into the 

breach.’’ 4 These efforts were stymied, 

however, because ‘‘rather than 

supporting [States’] anti-predatory 

lending laws, [F]ederal regulators 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES