Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions, 38330-38332 [2011-16406]
Download as PDF
38330
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
retrospective review of rules is an
important part of the regulatory process
as long as it does not impose additional
burdens to the agency and to the public.
I urge the Commission as we move
forward with finalizing rules to consider
the goals of the Executive Orders.
[FR Doc. 2011–16430 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 357
Background
[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0129]
RIN 0579–AD44
Implementation of Revised Lacey Act
Provisions
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Food, Conservation and
Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey
Act to provide, among other things, that
importers submit a declaration at the
time of importation for certain plants
and plant products. The declaration
requirements of the Lacey Act became
effective on December 15, 2008, and
enforcement of those requirements is
being phased in. We are soliciting
public comment on regulatory options
that could address certain issues that
have arisen with the implementation of
the declaration requirement. These
options include establishing certain
exceptions to the declaration
requirement and modifying the
Declaration Form PPQ 505 to simplify
the collection of information.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before August 29,
2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-01290001.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2010–0129, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any
comments we receive on this docket
may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0129 or
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Jun 29, 2011
in our reading room, which is located in
room 1141 of the USDA South Building,
14th Street and Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading
Room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except
holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690–2817
before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
George Balady, Staff Officer, Quarantine
Policy, Analysis and Support, PPQ,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–
5783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 223001
The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et
seq.), first enacted in 1900 and
significantly amended in 1981, is the
United States’ oldest wildlife protection
statute. The Act combats trafficking in
‘‘illegal’’ wildlife, fish, or plants. The
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of
2008, effective May 22, 2008, amended
the Lacey Act by expanding its
protection to a broader range of plants
and plant products (Section 8204,
Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices).
The Lacey Act now makes it unlawful
to import, export, transport, sell,
receive, acquire, or purchase in
interstate or foreign commerce any
plant, with some limited exceptions,
taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of the laws of the United
States, a State, an Indian tribe, or any
foreign law that protects plants. The
Lacey Act also now makes it unlawful
to make or submit any false record,
account, or label for, or any false
identification of, any plant.
In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey
Act, as amended, makes it unlawful,
beginning December 15, 2008, to import
certain plants, including plant products,
without an import declaration. The
declaration must contain the scientific
name of the plant, value of the
importation, quantity of the plant, and
name of the country from which the
plant was harvested.
On October 8, 2008, we published a
notice in the Federal Register (73 FR
58925–58927, Docket No. APHIS 2008–
0119) announcing our plans to begin
phased-in enforcement of the
declaration requirement on April 1,
2009, and providing dates and products
covered for the first three phases of
enforcement. We solicited comments on
the proposed plan for phasing in
enforcement for 60 days ending on
December 8, 2008, and received 124
comments by that date. On February 3,
2009, we published a second notice in
the Federal Register (74 FR 5911–5913,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket No. APHIS 2008–0119) and
provided a revised, more detailed
phase-in schedule based on comments
we received in response to the October
notice. We solicited comment on the
revised phase-in plan for 60 days ending
on April 6, 2009, and received 41
comments by that date. The comments
covered a range of topics, including the
scope of the declaration requirement,
the specific products covered in each
phase, definitions of terms, length of
phases, effects on trade and industry,
and enforcement issues. On September
2, 2009, we published a third notice in
the Federal Register (74 FR 45415–
45418, Docket No. APHIS–2008–0119)
and provided a further revised, more
detailed phase-in schedule based on
comments we received in response to
the April notice as well as our
experience with implementation to that
date. We solicited comment on the
revised phase-in plan for 60 days ending
on November 2, 2009, and received 67
comments by that date.
We are publishing this advance notice
of proposed rulemaking in order to seek
information and develop regulatory
options on the following issues:
1. Whether an exception from the
declaration requirement for products
containing minimal amounts of plant
material could be developed that would
be less burdensome while still carrying
out the intent of the Lacey Act
amendments;
2. How importers may comply with
the declaration requirement when
importing composite plant products
whose genus, species, and country of
harvest of some or all of the plant
material may be extremely difficult or
prohibitively expensive to determine;
3. How to accommodate products
made of re-used plant materials, or plant
materials harvested or manufactured
prior to the 2008 Lacey Act
amendments, and for which identifying
country of harvest, and possibly species,
would be difficult if not impossible; and
4. Whether groups of species
commonly used in commercial
production, could be given a separate
name that could be entered on the
declaration form as a type of shorthand
identification of genus and species, such
as the currently recognized ‘‘SPF’’
acronym for ‘‘spruce, pine, and fir.’’
Declaration Requirement for Shipments
Containing Minimal Plant Materials
The Lacey Act does not explicitly
address whether the declaration
requirement is intended to apply to
imported products that contain only
minimal amounts of plant material. It is
not ideal to apply this requirement to
minimal amounts of non-listed (i.e., not
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
of conservation concern) plant materials
contained in an otherwise non-plant
product, such as wooden buttons on a
shirt. Instead this issue might be
efficiently addressed by describing a
level at which the declaration
requirement does not apply. Some
commenters on our previous notices
referred to this as a de minimis
exception from the declaration
requirement. Such a de minimis
exception would be designed to ensure
that the declaration requirement fulfills
the purposes of the Lacey Act without
unduly burdening commerce. Therefore,
the exception would not apply to
products containing plant material from
species of conservation concern that are
listed in an appendix to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES, 27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or pursuant to any
State law that provides for the
conservation of species that are
indigenous to the State and are
threatened with extinction.
We are considering the feasibility of
defining a de minimis exception for
products containing minimal amounts
of plant material. We invite comment on
defining a threshold in terms of the
volume, weight, or value of plant
material in each item being imported, or
using some combination of all three
measures. We also invite comment on
whether the threshold of the plant
material should be set at 2 percent, 5
percent, or 10 percent of a product, and
whether that percentage of the plant
content should be based on volume,
weight, or value of the item being
imported. We also seek public comment
on whether the de minimis exception
should be based on a certain percentage
of just one of these characteristics
(volume, weight, or value) of the entry,
or whether it should be based on a
combination of two or three of these
characteristics.
Declaration Requirement for Goods
With Composite Plant Materials
The Lacey Act’s declaration
requirements do not address the issue of
how to comply with the declaration
requirements when importing goods for
which identifying all of the plant
material in the product by genus and
species is extremely difficult or
prohibitively expensive; however, the
comments received to date demonstrate
that many composite plant products are
manufactured in a manner that makes
identification of the genus and species
of all of the plant content difficult and
perhaps prohibitively expensive.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Jun 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
One approach we are considering is to
define the term ‘‘composite plant
materials’’ and then formally recognize
a de minimis exception from the
declaration requirement for products
containing such materials for the
purposes of Section 3 of the Lacey Act.
Using this approach, we might define
‘‘composite plant materials’’ as plant
products and plant-based components
of products where the original plant
material is mechanically or chemically
broken down and subsequently recomposed or used as an extract in a
manufacturing process. Such a
definition would also need to include
exceptions for species listed in an
appendix to CITES; as an endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973; or
pursuant to any State law that provides
for the conservation of species that are
indigenous to the State and are
threatened with extinction.
We also invite comments on two
possible approaches to incorporating
such a definition into a de minimis
exception from the declaration
requirement for composite plant
materials. In the first approach, if the
plant product being imported is
composed in whole or in part of a
composite plant material, importers
would have to identify the genus,
species, and country of harvest of no
less than a given percentage of the
composite plant material content,
measured on the basis of either weight
or volume.
In the second approach, where the
plant product being imported is
composed in whole or in part of a
composite plant material, the
declaration would have to contain the
average percent composite plant
content, measured on the basis of either
weight or volume, without regard for the
species or country of harvest of the
plant, in addition to information as to
genus, species, and country of harvest
for any non-composite plant content.
We invite comment on the possibility
of defining composite plant products
and implementing either of the
approaches described above. We
particularly invite comment on the
possibility of using the Genus spp.
format (for example, Acer spp.) for
certain composite plant materials in
limited circumstances both as to the
scope of composite plant materials
covered and the scope of the
circumstances in which the format may
be used for those limited materials. We
also invite comment on possible
percentages that could be used as a
threshold for a de minimis exception
from the declaration requirement for
composite plant materials.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38331
Declaration Requirement for Dated
Products
We recognize that it may be difficult
to determine and report the scientific
name and/or country of harvest of
plants in some products made of re-used
plant materials, or harvested or
manufactured prior to the passage of the
Lacey Act Amendments of 2008. We do
not believe that it was the intention of
the amendments to prevent all such
products from entering the United
States. However, the Act as amended,
including the plant import declaration
requirement, applies to all imports of
plants, plant parts, and products thereof
as of the effective date of the
amendments. We currently allow an
importer to declare that the product
being imported was manufactured prior
to May 22, 2008, and that in the exercise
of due care the genus, species, and/or
country of harvest is unknown. The
importer must still provide on the
declaration form all known or
reasonably knowable genus, species,
and country of harvest information, and,
as explained below, the person
completing the declaration must certify
that the declaration is correct to the best
of his or her knowledge. An Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Servicedesignated Special Use Code is
provided to streamline the declaration
of materials manufactured prior to the
amendment. We anticipate that this
approach would allow for trade in
existing inventories and would
diminish in use rapidly, ultimately
applying largely to antique products, or
those being re-sold. We invite comments
on this practice.
Declaration Revision
Public comments and our experience
implementing the declaration to date
have drawn attention to the need to
revise the declaration form to improve
its effectiveness and remove
unnecessary burdens associated with
providing the required information.
Comments on previous notices have
drawn particular attention to the burden
associated with providing scientific
name, country of harvest, and plant
quantity information for each plant
component of products in a shipment,
especially when the declaration is
required for complex products, such as
furniture. In response to these
comments, we simplified the
declaration so that the scientific name
and country of harvest information need
not be reported for each article or
component of an article in an entry but
can instead be provided for the entry as
a whole. That is, the amount of each
species, by country of harvest, is
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
38332
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
required only in total for each
Harmonized Tariff Schedule code.
Importers are still permitted to report
the scientific name information by
article or component of article if that
organizational structure is preferable.
This has significantly reduced the lines
of data entry required while causing
little reduction in the enforcement
utility of the information. However, the
importer of record is still required to
maintain records documenting the
information used to calculate these total
amounts for 5 years, should it be needed
to facilitate an inspection or substantiate
the totals provided.
The declaration could also be revised
to substitute a new term in place of the
term ‘‘country of harvest,’’ which
experience has indicated is so similar to
the Customs term ‘‘country of origin’’ as
to be confusing. We are considering
using the phrase ‘‘harvest location (by
country)’’ to attempt to more clearly
distinguish this information from the
Customs concept of country of origin of
the merchandise.
The declaration form could be further
revised to accommodate the changes
and proposals described above. These
changes could include revision of the
form to collect information required for
composite materials (the percent
composite material in the shipment, for
which it is not possible to identify
species and/or country of harvest). In
addition, the revised form could have a
box that would have to be checked
when an importer needs to report goods
manufactured prior to May 22, 2008, for
which the importer cannot determine,
in the exercise of due care, the genus,
species and/or country of harvest of
those plant products. The box would
state that the plant products were
manufactured prior to May 22, 2008,
and that in the exercise of due care, the
importer has been unable to determine
the genus, species, and/or country of
harvest information that is lacking on
the declaration form.
We are soliciting comments on these
possible changes to the declaration
form.
Declaration of Genus and Species Using
Species Groupings
We also recognize that the declaration
requirement to identify the genus and
species of all plants that may be
contained in covered products may
frequently require declarations to
contain long lists of species. A number
of commenters requested that
recognized groups of common species
often traded in combination in similar
percentages in particular industries be
allowed to be declared under a single
shorthand definition. In a previous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Jun 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
notice we specifically invited comments
on the use of species groups, such as
‘‘SPF’’ for spruce, pine and fir, when
such groups accurately describe the
species that may be contained in the
product(s) covered by the declaration.
We received a number of comments
supporting this approach and no
comments in opposition. Therefore, we
have begun to provide reference codes
for such groups, along with the lists of
species included in each group, on the
APHIS Web site at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/
lacey_act/.
In addition, we invite proposals for
additional groupings to be considered.
Any proposal for a species group should
contain the complete list of species to be
included and additional information
with which we can evaluate the extent
to which the proposed group is
currently represented in goods in
international trade. Only those species
group codes posted on the APHIS Web
site can be used to meet the requirement
to provide genus and species
information on the plant import
declaration.
The Web site also contains the text of
the Lacey Act, as amended, the
declaration form and enforcement
schedule, guidance on compliance with
the provisions of the Act, and links to
previous Federal Register publications.
The Web site will be updated as new
materials become available.
Persons interested in receiving
updates on APHIS’s Lacey Act efforts
should register for our stakeholder
registry at https://
web01.aphis.usda.gov/
PPQStakeWeb2.nsf and select ‘‘Lacey
Act Declaration’’ as a topic of interest.
This action has been determined to be
not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of
June 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–16406 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2011–0649; Directorate
Identifier 2011–NM–076–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model MD–11 and MD–11F
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed
AD would require replacing the rub
strips of the tail fuel tank access door
with new rub strips. This proposed AD
was prompted by a report that the rub
strips of the tail fuel tank access door
were manufactured improperly. We are
proposing this AD to prevent inadequate
electrical bonding between the rub
strips and the fuel access door, which
can contribute to possible ignition of
flammable fuel vapor in the tail fuel
tank as a result of a lightning strike.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by August 15, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
& Services Management, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019,
Long Beach, California 90846–0001;
telephone 206–544–5000, extension 2;
fax 206–766–5683; e-mail
dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38330-38332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16406]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 357
[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0129]
RIN 0579-AD44
Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 amended the
Lacey Act to provide, among other things, that importers submit a
declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant
products. The declaration requirements of the Lacey Act became
effective on December 15, 2008, and enforcement of those requirements
is being phased in. We are soliciting public comment on regulatory
options that could address certain issues that have arisen with the
implementation of the declaration requirement. These options include
establishing certain exceptions to the declaration requirement and
modifying the Declaration Form PPQ 505 to simplify the collection of
information.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
August 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0129-0001.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2010-0129, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2010-
0129 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC. Normal reading Room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Balady, Staff Officer,
Quarantine Policy, Analysis and Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), first enacted in 1900 and
significantly amended in 1981, is the United States' oldest wildlife
protection statute. The Act combats trafficking in ``illegal''
wildlife, fish, or plants. The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of
2008, effective May 22, 2008, amended the Lacey Act by expanding its
protection to a broader range of plants and plant products (Section
8204, Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices). The Lacey Act now makes
it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or
purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, with some limited
exceptions, taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of the
laws of the United States, a State, an Indian tribe, or any foreign law
that protects plants. The Lacey Act also now makes it unlawful to make
or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false
identification of, any plant.
In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey Act, as amended, makes it
unlawful, beginning December 15, 2008, to import certain plants,
including plant products, without an import declaration. The
declaration must contain the scientific name of the plant, value of the
importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from which
the plant was harvested.
On October 8, 2008, we published a notice in the Federal Register
(73 FR 58925-58927, Docket No. APHIS 2008-0119) announcing our plans to
begin phased-in enforcement of the declaration requirement on April 1,
2009, and providing dates and products covered for the first three
phases of enforcement. We solicited comments on the proposed plan for
phasing in enforcement for 60 days ending on December 8, 2008, and
received 124 comments by that date. On February 3, 2009, we published a
second notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 5911-5913, Docket No.
APHIS 2008-0119) and provided a revised, more detailed phase-in
schedule based on comments we received in response to the October
notice. We solicited comment on the revised phase-in plan for 60 days
ending on April 6, 2009, and received 41 comments by that date. The
comments covered a range of topics, including the scope of the
declaration requirement, the specific products covered in each phase,
definitions of terms, length of phases, effects on trade and industry,
and enforcement issues. On September 2, 2009, we published a third
notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 45415-45418, Docket No. APHIS-
2008-0119) and provided a further revised, more detailed phase-in
schedule based on comments we received in response to the April notice
as well as our experience with implementation to that date. We
solicited comment on the revised phase-in plan for 60 days ending on
November 2, 2009, and received 67 comments by that date.
We are publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking in
order to seek information and develop regulatory options on the
following issues:
1. Whether an exception from the declaration requirement for
products containing minimal amounts of plant material could be
developed that would be less burdensome while still carrying out the
intent of the Lacey Act amendments;
2. How importers may comply with the declaration requirement when
importing composite plant products whose genus, species, and country of
harvest of some or all of the plant material may be extremely difficult
or prohibitively expensive to determine;
3. How to accommodate products made of re-used plant materials, or
plant materials harvested or manufactured prior to the 2008 Lacey Act
amendments, and for which identifying country of harvest, and possibly
species, would be difficult if not impossible; and
4. Whether groups of species commonly used in commercial
production, could be given a separate name that could be entered on the
declaration form as a type of shorthand identification of genus and
species, such as the currently recognized ``SPF'' acronym for ``spruce,
pine, and fir.''
Declaration Requirement for Shipments Containing Minimal Plant
Materials
The Lacey Act does not explicitly address whether the declaration
requirement is intended to apply to imported products that contain only
minimal amounts of plant material. It is not ideal to apply this
requirement to minimal amounts of non-listed (i.e., not
[[Page 38331]]
of conservation concern) plant materials contained in an otherwise non-
plant product, such as wooden buttons on a shirt. Instead this issue
might be efficiently addressed by describing a level at which the
declaration requirement does not apply. Some commenters on our previous
notices referred to this as a de minimis exception from the declaration
requirement. Such a de minimis exception would be designed to ensure
that the declaration requirement fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act
without unduly burdening commerce. Therefore, the exception would not
apply to products containing plant material from species of
conservation concern that are listed in an appendix to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES, 27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); as an endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species
that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with extinction.
We are considering the feasibility of defining a de minimis
exception for products containing minimal amounts of plant material. We
invite comment on defining a threshold in terms of the volume, weight,
or value of plant material in each item being imported, or using some
combination of all three measures. We also invite comment on whether
the threshold of the plant material should be set at 2 percent, 5
percent, or 10 percent of a product, and whether that percentage of the
plant content should be based on volume, weight, or value of the item
being imported. We also seek public comment on whether the de minimis
exception should be based on a certain percentage of just one of these
characteristics (volume, weight, or value) of the entry, or whether it
should be based on a combination of two or three of these
characteristics.
Declaration Requirement for Goods With Composite Plant Materials
The Lacey Act's declaration requirements do not address the issue
of how to comply with the declaration requirements when importing goods
for which identifying all of the plant material in the product by genus
and species is extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive; however,
the comments received to date demonstrate that many composite plant
products are manufactured in a manner that makes identification of the
genus and species of all of the plant content difficult and perhaps
prohibitively expensive.
One approach we are considering is to define the term ``composite
plant materials'' and then formally recognize a de minimis exception
from the declaration requirement for products containing such materials
for the purposes of Section 3 of the Lacey Act. Using this approach, we
might define ``composite plant materials'' as plant products and plant-
based components of products where the original plant material is
mechanically or chemically broken down and subsequently re-composed or
used as an extract in a manufacturing process. Such a definition would
also need to include exceptions for species listed in an appendix to
CITES; as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973; or pursuant to any State law that provides for the
conservation of species that are indigenous to the State and are
threatened with extinction.
We also invite comments on two possible approaches to incorporating
such a definition into a de minimis exception from the declaration
requirement for composite plant materials. In the first approach, if
the plant product being imported is composed in whole or in part of a
composite plant material, importers would have to identify the genus,
species, and country of harvest of no less than a given percentage of
the composite plant material content, measured on the basis of either
weight or volume.
In the second approach, where the plant product being imported is
composed in whole or in part of a composite plant material, the
declaration would have to contain the average percent composite plant
content, measured on the basis of either weight or volume, without
regard for the species or country of harvest of the plant, in addition
to information as to genus, species, and country of harvest for any
non-composite plant content.
We invite comment on the possibility of defining composite plant
products and implementing either of the approaches described above. We
particularly invite comment on the possibility of using the Genus spp.
format (for example, Acer spp.) for certain composite plant materials
in limited circumstances both as to the scope of composite plant
materials covered and the scope of the circumstances in which the
format may be used for those limited materials. We also invite comment
on possible percentages that could be used as a threshold for a de
minimis exception from the declaration requirement for composite plant
materials.
Declaration Requirement for Dated Products
We recognize that it may be difficult to determine and report the
scientific name and/or country of harvest of plants in some products
made of re-used plant materials, or harvested or manufactured prior to
the passage of the Lacey Act Amendments of 2008. We do not believe that
it was the intention of the amendments to prevent all such products
from entering the United States. However, the Act as amended, including
the plant import declaration requirement, applies to all imports of
plants, plant parts, and products thereof as of the effective date of
the amendments. We currently allow an importer to declare that the
product being imported was manufactured prior to May 22, 2008, and that
in the exercise of due care the genus, species, and/or country of
harvest is unknown. The importer must still provide on the declaration
form all known or reasonably knowable genus, species, and country of
harvest information, and, as explained below, the person completing the
declaration must certify that the declaration is correct to the best of
his or her knowledge. An Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-
designated Special Use Code is provided to streamline the declaration
of materials manufactured prior to the amendment. We anticipate that
this approach would allow for trade in existing inventories and would
diminish in use rapidly, ultimately applying largely to antique
products, or those being re-sold. We invite comments on this practice.
Declaration Revision
Public comments and our experience implementing the declaration to
date have drawn attention to the need to revise the declaration form to
improve its effectiveness and remove unnecessary burdens associated
with providing the required information. Comments on previous notices
have drawn particular attention to the burden associated with providing
scientific name, country of harvest, and plant quantity information for
each plant component of products in a shipment, especially when the
declaration is required for complex products, such as furniture. In
response to these comments, we simplified the declaration so that the
scientific name and country of harvest information need not be reported
for each article or component of an article in an entry but can instead
be provided for the entry as a whole. That is, the amount of each
species, by country of harvest, is
[[Page 38332]]
required only in total for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule code.
Importers are still permitted to report the scientific name information
by article or component of article if that organizational structure is
preferable. This has significantly reduced the lines of data entry
required while causing little reduction in the enforcement utility of
the information. However, the importer of record is still required to
maintain records documenting the information used to calculate these
total amounts for 5 years, should it be needed to facilitate an
inspection or substantiate the totals provided.
The declaration could also be revised to substitute a new term in
place of the term ``country of harvest,'' which experience has
indicated is so similar to the Customs term ``country of origin'' as to
be confusing. We are considering using the phrase ``harvest location
(by country)'' to attempt to more clearly distinguish this information
from the Customs concept of country of origin of the merchandise.
The declaration form could be further revised to accommodate the
changes and proposals described above. These changes could include
revision of the form to collect information required for composite
materials (the percent composite material in the shipment, for which it
is not possible to identify species and/or country of harvest). In
addition, the revised form could have a box that would have to be
checked when an importer needs to report goods manufactured prior to
May 22, 2008, for which the importer cannot determine, in the exercise
of due care, the genus, species and/or country of harvest of those
plant products. The box would state that the plant products were
manufactured prior to May 22, 2008, and that in the exercise of due
care, the importer has been unable to determine the genus, species,
and/or country of harvest information that is lacking on the
declaration form.
We are soliciting comments on these possible changes to the
declaration form.
Declaration of Genus and Species Using Species Groupings
We also recognize that the declaration requirement to identify the
genus and species of all plants that may be contained in covered
products may frequently require declarations to contain long lists of
species. A number of commenters requested that recognized groups of
common species often traded in combination in similar percentages in
particular industries be allowed to be declared under a single
shorthand definition. In a previous notice we specifically invited
comments on the use of species groups, such as ``SPF'' for spruce, pine
and fir, when such groups accurately describe the species that may be
contained in the product(s) covered by the declaration. We received a
number of comments supporting this approach and no comments in
opposition. Therefore, we have begun to provide reference codes for
such groups, along with the lists of species included in each group, on
the APHIS Web site at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/.
In addition, we invite proposals for additional groupings to be
considered. Any proposal for a species group should contain the
complete list of species to be included and additional information with
which we can evaluate the extent to which the proposed group is
currently represented in goods in international trade. Only those
species group codes posted on the APHIS Web site can be used to meet
the requirement to provide genus and species information on the plant
import declaration.
The Web site also contains the text of the Lacey Act, as amended,
the declaration form and enforcement schedule, guidance on compliance
with the provisions of the Act, and links to previous Federal Register
publications. The Web site will be updated as new materials become
available.
Persons interested in receiving updates on APHIS's Lacey Act
efforts should register for our stakeholder registry at https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/PPQStakeWeb2.nsf and select ``Lacey Act
Declaration'' as a topic of interest.
This action has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.2(d).
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of June 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-16406 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P