Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De Minimis Exception, 31697-31702 [2018-14630]
Download as PDF
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(26) Indianapolis-Carmel-Muncie,
IN—consisting of the IndianapolisCarmel-Muncie, IN CSA and also
including Grant County, IN;
(27) Kansas City-Overland ParkKansas City, MO-KS—consisting of the
Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City,
MO-KS CSA and also including Jackson
County, KS, Jefferson County, KS, Osage
County, KS, Shawnee County, KS, and
Wabaunsee County, KS;
(28) Laredo, TX—consisting of the
Laredo, TX MSA;
(29) Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ—
consisting of the Las Vegas-Henderson,
NV-AZ CSA;
(30) Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA—
consisting of the Los Angeles-Long
Beach, CA CSA and also including Kern
County, CA, San Luis Obispo County,
CA, and Santa Barbara County, CA;
(31) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St.
Lucie, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA and
also including Monroe County, FL;
(32) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha,
WI—consisting of the MilwaukeeRacine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(33) Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI—
consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul,
MN-WI CSA;
(34) New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CTPA—consisting of the New YorkNewark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA and also
including all of Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst;
(35) Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville,
FL—consisting of the Palm BayMelbourne-Titusville, FL MSA;
(36) Philadelphia-Reading-Camden,
PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the
Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJDE-MD CSA, except for Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst;
(37) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ—
consisting of the Phoenix-MesaScottsdale, AZ MSA;
(38) Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton,
PA-OH-WV—consisting of the
Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OHWV CSA;
(39) Portland-Vancouver-Salem, ORWA—consisting of the PortlandVancouver-Salem, OR-WA CSA;
(40) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill,
NC—consisting of the Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, NC CSA and also including
Cumberland County, NC, Hoke County,
NC, Robeson County, NC, Scotland
County, NC, and Wayne County, NC;
(41) Richmond, VA—consisting of the
Richmond, VA MSA and also including
Cumberland County, VA, King and
Queen County, VA, and Louisa County,
VA;
(42) Sacramento-Roseville, CA-NV—
consisting of the Sacramento-Roseville,
CA CSA and also including Carson City,
NV, and Douglas County, NV;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
(43) San Antonio-New BraunfelsPearsall, TX—consisting of the San
Antonio-New Braunfels-Pearsall, TX
CSA;
(44) San Diego-Carlsbad, CA—
consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad,
CA MSA;
(45) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland,
CA—consisting of the San Jose-San
Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA and also
including Monterey County, CA;
(46) Seattle-Tacoma, WA—consisting
of the Seattle-Tacoma, WA CSA and
also including Whatcom County, WA;
(47) St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington,
MO-IL—consisting of the St. Louis-St.
Charles-Farmington, MO-IL CSA;
(48) Tucson-Nogales, AZ—consisting
of the Tucson-Nogales, AZ CSA and also
including Cochise County, AZ;
(49) Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC—
consisting of the Virginia BeachNorfolk, VA-NC CSA;
(50) Washington-Baltimore-Arlington,
DC-MD-VA-WV-PA—consisting of the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DCMD-VA-WV-PA CSA and also including
Kent County, MD, Adams County, PA,
York County, PA, King George County,
VA, and Morgan County, WV; and
(51) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those
portions of the United States and its
territories and possessions as listed in 5
CFR 591.205 not located within another
locality pay area.
[FR Doc. 2018–14542 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
RIN 0579–AD44
Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De
Minimis Exception
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
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
requirement of the Lacey Act became
effective on December 15, 2008, and
enforcement of that requirement is being
phased in. We are proposing to establish
an exception to the declaration
requirement for products containing a
minimal amount of plant materials. This
SUMMARY:
Fmt 4702
Ms.
Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist,
Permitting and Compliance
Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 851–2351.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Need for the Regulatory Action
[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0055]
Frm 00004
action would relieve the burden on
importers while continuing to ensure
that the declaration requirement fulfills
the purposes of the Lacey Act. We are
also proposing that all Lacey Act
declarations be submitted within 3
business days of importation.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before September
7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket
Detail;D=APHIS-2013-0055.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2013–0055, 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-2013-0055 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) 799–7039 before
coming.
I. Executive Summary
7 CFR Part 357
PO 00000
31697
Sfmt 4702
Section 3 of the Lacey Act makes it
unlawful to import certain plants,
including plant products, without an
import declaration. The import
declaration serves as a tool for
combatting the illegal trade in timber
and timber products by ensuring
importers provide required information.
Through the declaration requirement,
the importer maintains accountability
for exercising reasonable care regarding
the content of the shipment before it
arrives in the United States. Information
from the declaration is also used to
monitor implementation of Lacey Act
requirements. 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.
However, the Act does not explicitly
address whether the declaration
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
31698
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
requirement is intended to apply to
imported products that contain minimal
plant material. This proposed rule
would establish limited exceptions to
the declaration requirement for entries
of products containing minimal plant
material. This action would relieve the
burden on importers while ensuring that
the declaration requirement continues
to fulfill the purposes of the Lacey Act.
Legal Authority for the Regulatory
Action
The Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act by
expanding its protections to a broader
range of plants and plant products than
was previously provided by the Act.
The requirement that importers of
plants and plant products file a
declaration upon importation is set forth
in 16 U.S.C. 3372(f). In 16 U.S.C.
3376(a)(1), the statute further provides
rulemaking authority to the Secretary of
Agriculture with respect to the
declaration requirement: ‘‘the Secretary,
after consultation with the Secretary of
the Treasury, is authorized to issue such
regulations . . . as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of Section[s]
3372(f) of this title.’’
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Major Provisions of the
Regulatory Action
This proposed rule would establish
certain exceptions from the requirement
that a declaration be filed when
importing certain plants and plant
products. Specifically, it would
establish an exception to the declaration
requirement for products with minimal
amounts of plant material. The
proposed rule would also establish a
new section to specify the conditions
under which a plant import declaration
must be filed and what information it
must include. These conditions reflect
the provisions of the Act and would
provide additional context for the
proposed exceptions.
Costs and Benefits
To the extent that the proposed rule
would provide exceptions from the
provisions of the Act, it would benefit
U.S. importers. Establishing a de
minimis exception from the declaration
requirement for products with minimal
amounts of plant material would relieve
importers of the burden of identifying
very small amounts of plant material,
while continuing to ensure that the
declaration requirement fulfills the
purposes of the Lacey Act.
II. Background
The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et
seq.), first enacted in 1900 and
significantly amended in 1981, is the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
United States’ oldest wildlife protection
statute. The Act combats trafficking in
illegally taken 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, among other things, ‘‘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 any
law, treaty, or regulation of the United
States or in violation of any Indian tribal
law,’’ or in violation of any State or
foreign law that protects plants or that
regulates certain specified plant-related
activities. 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, made it unlawful,
beginning December 15, 2008, to import
certain plants, including plant products,
without an import declaration. The
import declaration serves as a tool for
combatting the illegal trade in timber
and timber products by ensuring
importers provide required information.
Through the declaration requirement,
the importer maintains accountability
for exercising reasonable care regarding
the content of the shipment before it
arrives in the United States. Information
from the declaration is also used to
monitor implementation of Lacey Act
requirements. 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 June 30, 2011, we published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR) in the Federal Register (76 FR
38330, Docket No. APHIS–2010–0129),1
soliciting public comment on several
regulatory options to address certain
issues that have arisen with the
implementation of the declaration
requirement. These options included
establishing certain exceptions to the
declaration requirement for products
with minimal amounts of plant material
and for products containing composite
plant materials. We solicited comments
on these options for 60 days ending on
August 29, 2011, and received 37
comments by that date. The comments
received were from academics,
1 To view the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking and the comments we received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
APHIS-2010-0129.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
environmental groups, importers and
exporters, industry associations, a trade
union, representatives of foreign
governments, and private citizens. We
discuss the comments received on the
approaches for composite plant
materials in a new ANPR published
today in the Federal Register, in which
we invite comment on additional
questions regarding implementation of
the declaration requirement for these
products.
Most of the commenters on the 2011
ANPR supported establishing
exceptions to the declaration
requirement for products with minimal
amounts of plant material and suggested
a range of possible levels at which the
threshold for exceptions could be set.
We took those comments into
consideration when developing this
proposed rule. We are proposing to
establish an exception to the declaration
requirement for products containing a
minimal amount of plant materials. We
are also proposing that all Lacey Act
declarations be submitted within 3
business days of importation.
Purpose and Scope
As a result of the changes proposed in
this document, it is necessary to amend
the statement of purpose and scope in
7 CFR 357.1. At the time this section
was established, part 357 contained
only definitions. However, because this
proposed rule would add more sections
to the regulations, containing provisions
that address the declaration requirement
of the Act, we would amend the
statement to remove the third sentence,
which references the declaration
requirement, and add a new final
sentence that acknowledges that the
regulations in part 357 address the
declaration requirement of the Act.
Definitions
We are proposing to define the terms
import and person, and to amend the
definition for plant so that all three
definitions in the regulations conform to
the definitions in the statute. We would
define import as meaning to land on,
bring into, or introduce into, any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, whether or not such landing,
bringing, or introduction constitutes an
importation within the meaning of the
customs laws of the United States. We
would define person as any individual,
partnership, association, corporation,
trust, or any officer, employee, agent,
department, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government or of any State or
political subdivision thereof, or any
other entity subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States. These definitions are
the same as those in the Act and will
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
help ensure that the declaration
requirement continues to fulfill the
purposes of the Lacey Act without
unduly burdening commerce.
For the same reason we are proposing
to amend the definition of plant to
include the exception provision of the
statute. The definition currently in the
regulations, while consistent with the
definition in the Act, does not include
the exclusions for common cultivars
and common food crops, scientific
specimens, and plants for planting that
are included in the definition in the Act.
The definition currently in the
regulations also does not include the
exceptions to the application of
exclusions for plants 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), or 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
proposing to amend the definition in the
regulations to add the exclusions for
common cultivars, common food crops,
scientific specimens used only for
laboratory or field research, and any
plant that is to remain planted or to be
planted or replanted, and also to add the
exceptions to the application of those
exclusions so that the proposed
definition conforms with the statutory
definition.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Declaration Requirement
We are proposing to add a new
§ 357.3, ‘‘Declaration Requirement,’’ to
specify the conditions under which a
plant import declaration must be filed
and what information it must include.
These conditions reflect the provisions
of the Act and would provide additional
context for the proposed exceptions.
Exception From Declaration
Requirement for Entries Containing
Minimal Plant Materials
The requirement that importers of
plants and plant products file a
declaration upon importation is set forth
in 16 U.S.C. 3372(f). The Lacey Act does
not explicitly address whether the
declaration requirement is intended to
apply to products containing minimal
amounts of plant materials, but it is
questionable whether the regulatory
objectives of the Lacey Act are furthered
by applying this requirement to minimal
amounts of non-listed (i.e., not of
conservation concern) plant materials
contained in an otherwise non-plant
product. We believe that this issue
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
would be efficiently addressed by
establishing a level at which the
declaration requirement does not apply.
We seek public comment on two
options with respect to a de minimis
exception to the declaration
requirement. Under the first option, we
propose to adopt an exception from the
declaration requirement for products
containing plant material that represents
no more than 5 percent of the total
weight of the individual product unit,
provided that the total weight of the
plant material in an entry of such
products (at the entry line level) does
not exceed 2.9 kilograms. Alternatively,
as a second option, we propose an
exception from the declaration
requirement for products containing
plant material that represents no more
than 5 percent of the total weight of the
individual product unit, provided that
the total weight of the plant material in
an individual product unit does not
exceed some amount of plant material
by weight or board feet. Under this
second option, we invite comment on
what would be an appropriate
maximum amount allowable by weight
or board feet under the de minimis
exception. The figure of 2.9 kilograms in
the first option was selected based on
the weight of a board-foot of lignum
vitae (Guaiacum officinale and
Guaiacum sanctum) as an appropriately
minimal amount of plant material. A
board-foot (that is, 12 x 12 x 1 inches
or 30.48 x 30.48 x 2.54 centimeters) is
a common unit of volume in the timber
industry, and the woods of these species
are among the densest known, weighing
1.23 grams per cubic centimeter.
In the event that the weight of the
plant material in an individual product
unit cannot be determined, then we
propose an exception from the
declaration requirement for products
containing plant material that represents
no more than 10 percent of the declared
value of the individual product unit,
provided that the total quantity of the
plant material in an entry of such
products (at the entry line level) has a
volume of less than 1 board-foot.
Alternatively, as a second option in the
event that the weight of the plant
material in an individual product unit
cannot be determined, we propose an
exception from the declaration
requirement for products containing
plant material that represents no more
than 10 percent of the declared value of
the individual product unit, provided
that the total quantity of the plant
material in an individual product unit
does not exceed some amount of plant
material by weight or board feet. Under
this second option, we invite comment
on what would be an appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31699
maximum amount allowable by value or
board feet under the de minimis
exception. In either case, the exception
would not apply to products containing
plant material from species of
conservation concern that are 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. All other
requirements of the Lacey Act would
still apply to entries or persons claiming
this exception.
We invite comment on the method of
determining de minimis content.
Specifically, we would appreciate
information on whether it is feasible to
set the threshold for the maximum
amount of plant material at the entry
line level, and invite comment on the
thresholds that are proposed, including
2.9 kilograms in total weight or volume
of less than 1 board foot per entry line
level of the plant product.
We also seek comment on whether the
de minimis threshold should be
calculated on a per product unit basis,
at least for certain products, and if so
what would be an appropriate amount
of plant material on a per product basis,
by weight or by board foot.
We also invite comment on whether
the 5 percent threshold should be higher
or lower, and why. For example, a
number of commenters on the ANPR
suggested setting the threshold at 10
percent. Additional data from
commenters in support of either the 5
percent threshold or an alternative
threshold would be useful for the
rulemaking process. We also solicit
comment on whether the 5 percent
threshold or any alternative threshold
proposed by commenters is appropriate
as a de minimis exception and
consistent with the statute.
Time Limit for Submission of
Declarations
While the majority of importers
submit their Lacey Act declarations at
the time of formal customs entry, there
has been some confusion about the time
frame in which declarations should be
submitted, with some importers
submitting declarations up to a year
after importation. While the
declarations are required pursuant to
the language of the statute ‘‘upon
importation,’’ that is, upon landing in
United States jurisdiction, we are
proposing to allow importers to file
Lacey Act declarations within 3
business days of importation without
facing any enforcement action or
penalty for late filing. This would
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
31700
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
accommodate the needs of industry
while ensuring that declarations are
submitted in a timely manner for the
purposes of the statute.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been
determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,
therefore, has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. This
proposed rule, if finalized as proposed,
is expected to be an Executive Order
13771 deregulatory action. Assessment
of the costs and cost savings may be
found in the accompanying economic
analysis.
We have prepared an economic
analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis,
as required by Executive Orders 12866
and 13563, which direct agencies to
assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation
is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and equity). Executive Order
13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. The
economic analysis also provides an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis that
examines the potential economic effects
of this rule on small entities, as required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
economic analysis is summarized
below. Copies of the full analysis are
available by contacting the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov
website (see ADDRESSES above for
instructions for accessing
Regulations.gov).
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
requirement of the Lacey Act became
effective on December 15, 2008, and
enforcement of that requirement is being
phased in. We are proposing to establish
an exception to the declaration
requirement for products containing a
minimal amount of plant materials. We
are also proposing that all Lacey Act
declarations be submitted within 3
business days upon importation.
The proposed rule would benefit
some U.S. importers, large or small. The
provisions of this proposed rule would
relieve importers of the burden of
identifying very small amounts of plant
material incorporated into a product for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
which obtaining declaration information
may be difficult, while continuing to
ensure that the declaration requirement
fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act.
The Lacey Act amendments included
in the 2008 Farm Bill were effective as
of May 22, 2008. As a practical matter,
this means that enforcement actions
may be taken for any violations
committed on or after that date. The
requirement to provide a declaration
under the amended Act went into effect
May 1, 2009. Declarations serve several
purposes including but not limited to
data acquisition and accountability, and
they assist regulatory and enforcement
authorities in monitoring
implementation of the Lacey Act’s
prohibitions on importing illegally
harvested plants. Enforcement of the
declaration requirement is being phased
in. The phase-in schedule is largely
based on the degree of processing and
complexity of composition of the
affected products. The requirement that
importers file a declaration upon
importation for products in parts of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTS) Chapters 44, 66, 82,
92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97, is currently
being enforced. We are currently
considering products for inclusion in
the next phase of implementation.
If this proposed rule is finalized, some
importers of products containing a
minimal amount of plant material who
are currently required to file
declarations upon importation of their
products would be excepted from that
requirement. The cost savings from not
having to file those declarations is one
measure of the expected benefits of this
proposed rule. From July 2015 through
mid-June 2017, there were about 715
weekly shipments of commodities
currently requiring declarations and
containing amounts of plant material
that potentially would have been
eligible for de minimis status under the
proposed rule. Based on information
available on those shipments, we
estimate that between 10 and 20 percent
of those commodities would have met
the proposed definitions for de minimis
exception. Had those commodity
shipments not needed to be
accompanied by declarations, we
estimate the annual cost savings for
affected producers would have ranged
in total from a low of about $56,700 to
a high of about $407,900 annually, with
annual government processing savings
of between about $1,000 and $1,900. In
accordance with guidance on complying
with Executive Order 13771, the
primary estimate of the annual private
sector cost savings for this rule is
$232,300. This value is the mid-point
estimate of cost savings annualized in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
perpetuity using a 7 percent discount
rate.
The total cost of compliance with the
declaration requirement of the Act as
currently enforced is estimated to be
between $11.6 million and $50.3
million. The estimated reduction in
compliance costs of about $56,700 to
$407,900 would represent a cost savings
of between 0.1 and 3.5 percent.
Both the declaration costs and the
cost savings expected with this
proposed rule are small when compared
to the value of the commodities
imported. In 2016, the value of U.S.
imports of products currently requiring
a declaration totaled about $20.4 billion,
and the value of U.S. imports of such
commodities as umbrellas, walking
sticks, and handguns that may include
small amounts of plant material was
$2.7 billion.
The full schedule for enforcement of
the declaration requirement has not yet
been determined. Because enforcement
of the declaration requirement in the
Act is being phased in, some products
that would meet the de minimis criteria
do not currently require a declaration;
their importation would not be initially
affected. For example, apparel articles
such as shirts with wood buttons may
be considered to have minimal plant
material, but the declaration
requirement for products in that HTS
code are not part of the current
enforcement schedule. While the
volume of imported commodities for
which the exceptions would be
applicable could be large, the cost
savings for affected importers are
expected to be small relative to the
value of the commodities.
We are also proposing to require that
Lacey Act declarations be submitted
within 3 business days of importation.
This change should have little impact
on importers. Over 90 percent of current
declarations are already submitted at the
time of arrival and there is no reason to
believe that the burden associated with
submitting a declaration within 3
business days would be significantly
greater than the burden associated with
submitting a declaration more than 3
business days of importation. An
importer reasonably knows the contents
of a shipment before it arrives in the
United States, and the information
necessary for submitting a declaration
should be available easily within 3
business days upon importation.
This action would result in some cost
savings for importing businesses, most
of which are small entities. Based on
our review of available information,
APHIS does not expect the proposed
rule to have a significant economic
impact on small entities. We have
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
government-to-government basis on
policies that have Tribal implications,
including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and
other policy statements or actions that
have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
APHIS has assessed the impact of this
rule on Indian tribes and determined
that this rule does not, to our
knowledge, have Tribal implications
that require Tribal consultation under
E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests
consultation, APHIS will work with the
Office of Tribal Relations to ensure
meaningful consultation is provided
where changes, additions, and
modifications identified herein are not
expressly mandated by Congress.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is
adopted: (1) All State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with
this rule will be preempted; (2) no
retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings
will not be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis because the information used
in this analysis may not address all
possible economic effects of this
proposed rule on small entities. The
savings are likely to represent a very
small share of the overall value of the
imported goods, and are not expected to
significantly affect most importers of
goods covered by the Lacey Act,
whether large or small.
Average annual receipts of small,
potentially affected entities under the
proposed thresholds range from
$843,000 to $1.4 million. We estimate
that the average cost savings for an
affected entity from not needing to file
a single declaration may range between
about $15 and $55. For the cost savings
to equal 5 percent of average annual
receipts and thereby reasonably be
considered a significant effect would
require that an affected entity have from
about 770 to nearly 4,600 exempted
declarations in a year, a range that is
highly unlikely.
APHIS has considered alternative
thresholds for determining the criteria
for a de minimis exception from the
declaration requirement, including the
specific percentage of total weight of an
individual product unit that is plant
material in an entry, the maximum total
weight of that plant material, and the
maximum total volume of that plant
material. We are inviting comment on
the specific threshold levels in this
proposal, alternative thresholds, and
their impact. To the extent that
alternative thresholds result in broader
or narrower de minimis criteria, the cost
savings associated with such de
minimis designation would be
expanded or constrained. However,
regardless the number of exemptions for
which an entity qualifies, they would be
beneficial and small entities would not
be disadvantaged.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 357
Endangered and threatened species,
Plants (Agriculture).
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7
CFR part 357 as follows:
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order (E.O.) 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments.’’ E.O. 13175
requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the reporting
requirements included in this proposed
rule have been approved under Office of
Management and Budget control
number 0579–0349.
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 proposed rule, please contact Ms.
Kimberly Hardy, APHIS’ Information
Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–
2483.
PART 357—CONTROL OF ILLEGALLY
TAKEN PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 357
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. Section 357.1 is revised to read as
follows:
■
§ 357.1
Purpose and scope.
The Lacey Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
3371 et seq.), makes it unlawful to,
among other things, import, export,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31701
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 any
Federal or Tribal law, or in violation of
a State or foreign law that protects
plants or that regulates certain specified
plant-related activities. The Lacey Act
also makes it unlawful to make or
submit any false record, account, or
label for, or any false identification of,
any plant covered by the Act. Common
cultivars (except trees) and common
food crops are among the categorical
exclusions to the provisions of the Act.
The Act does not define the terms
‘‘common cultivar’’ and ‘‘common food
crop’’ but instead authorizes the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Department of the Interior to define
these terms by regulation. The
regulations in this part provide the
required definitions. Additionally, the
regulations in this part address the
declaration requirement of the Act.
■ 3. Section 357.2 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By adding definitions for Import
and Person in alphabetical order; and
■ b. By revising the definition for Plant.
The additions and revision read as
follows:
§ 357.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Import. To land on, bring into, or
introduce into, any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States,
whether or not such landing, bringing,
or introduction constitutes an
importation within the meaning of the
customs laws of the United States.
Person. Any individual, partnership,
association, corporation, trust, or any
officer, employee, agent, department, or
instrumentality of the Federal
Government or of any State or political
subdivision thereof, or any other entity
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
Plant. Any wild member of the plant
kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts
or products thereof, and including trees
from either natural or planted forest
stands. The term plant excludes:
(1) Common cultivars, except trees,
and common food crops (including
roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof);
(2) A scientific specimen of plant
genetic material (including roots, seeds,
germplasm, parts, or products thereof)
that is to be used only for laboratory or
field research; and
(3) Any plant that is to remain planted
or to be planted or replanted.
(4) A plant is not eligible for these
exclusions if it is listed:
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
31702
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(i) In an appendix to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27
UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(ii) As an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(iii) Pursuant to any State law that
provides for the conservation of species
that are indigenous to the State and are
threatened with extinction.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 357.3 is added to read as
follows:
§ 357.3
Declaration requirement.
(a) Any person importing any plant
shall file upon importation a declaration
that contains:
(1) The scientific name of any plant
(including the genus and species of the
plant) contained in the importation;
(2) A description of the value of the
importation and the quantity, including
the unit of measure, of the plant; and
(3) The name of the country from
which the plant was taken.
(b) The declaration relating to a plant
product shall also contain:
(1) If the species of plant used to
produce the plant product that is the
subject of the importation varies, and
the species used to produce the plant
product is unknown, the name of each
species of plant that may have been
used to produce the plant product;
(2) If the species of plant used to
produce the plant product that is the
subject of the importation is commonly
taken from more than one country, and
the country from which the plant was
taken and used to produce the plant
product is unknown, the name of each
country from which the plant may have
been taken; and
(3) If a paper or paperboard plant
product includes recycled plant
product, the average percent recycled
content without regard for the species or
country of origin of the recycled plant
product, in addition to the information
for the non-recycled plant content
otherwise required by this section.
(b) The plant material in a product
represents no more than 5 percent of the
total weight of the individual product
unit, provided that the total weight of
the plant material in [an entry of such
products][a product unit] does not
exceed [2.9 kilograms] [or other
amount]; or, if the weight cannot be
determined, the value of the plant
material in the individual product unit
represents no more than 10 percent of
the declared value of the product,
provided that the total quantity of plant
material in [an entry of such products][a
product unit] has a volume of less than
[1 board foot (that is, 12 x 12 x 1 inches
or 30.48 x 30.48 x 2.54 centimeters)] [or
other amount].
(c) A product will not be eligible for
an exception under paragraph (b) of this
section if it contains plant material
listed:
(1) In an appendix to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27
UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2) As an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(3) Pursuant to any State law that
provides for the conservation of species
that are indigenous to the State and are
threatened with extinction.
■ 6. Section 357.5 is added to read as
follows:
§ 357.5 Time limit for submission of plant
declarations.
In the case of commodities for which
a plant declaration is required, the
declaration must be submitted within 3
business days of importation.
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of
July 2018.
Greg Ibach,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018–14630 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 0579–0349)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
5. Section 357.4 is added to read as
follows:
7 CFR Part 357
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 357.4 Exceptions from the declaration
requirement.
Plants and products containing plant
materials are excepted from the
declaration requirement if:
(a) The plant is used exclusively as
packaging material to support, protect,
or carry another item, unless the
packaging material itself is the item
being imported; or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:21 Jul 06, 2018
Jkt 244001
[Docket No. APHIS–2018–0017]
RIN 0579–AE36
Lacey Act Implementation Plan:
Composite Plant Materials
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking and request for comments.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 for
composite plant materials.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before September
7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket
Detail;D=APHIS-2018-0017.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2018–0017, 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-2018-0017 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) 799–7039 before
coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist,
Permitting and Compliance
Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road, Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 851–2351.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
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, among other
things, trafficking in illegally taken
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 than were previously covered.
(Section 8204, Prevention of Illegal
Logging Practices). The Lacey Act now
makes it unlawful to import, export,
transport, sell, receive, acquire, or
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31697-31702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14630]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 357
[Docket No. APHIS-2013-0055]
RIN 0579-AD44
Lacey Act Implementation Plan: De Minimis Exception
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 requirement of the Lacey Act became effective
on December 15, 2008, and enforcement of that requirement is being
phased in. We are proposing to establish an exception to the
declaration requirement for products containing a minimal amount of
plant materials. This action would relieve the burden on importers
while continuing to ensure that the declaration requirement fulfills
the purposes of the Lacey Act. We are also proposing that all Lacey Act
declarations be submitted within 3 business days of importation.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
September 7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0055.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2013-0055, 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-2013-
0055 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) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Parul Patel, Senior
Agriculturalist, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2351.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
Need for the Regulatory Action
Section 3 of the Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import certain
plants, including plant products, without an import declaration. The
import declaration serves as a tool for combatting the illegal trade in
timber and timber products by ensuring importers provide required
information. Through the declaration requirement, the importer
maintains accountability for exercising reasonable care regarding the
content of the shipment before it arrives in the United States.
Information from the declaration is also used to monitor implementation
of Lacey Act requirements. 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. However, the
Act does not explicitly address whether the declaration
[[Page 31698]]
requirement is intended to apply to imported products that contain
minimal plant material. This proposed rule would establish limited
exceptions to the declaration requirement for entries of products
containing minimal plant material. This action would relieve the burden
on importers while ensuring that the declaration requirement continues
to fulfill the purposes of the Lacey Act.
Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey
Act by expanding its protections to a broader range of plants and plant
products than was previously provided by the Act. The requirement that
importers of plants and plant products file a declaration upon
importation is set forth in 16 U.S.C. 3372(f). In 16 U.S.C. 3376(a)(1),
the statute further provides rulemaking authority to the Secretary of
Agriculture with respect to the declaration requirement: ``the
Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is
authorized to issue such regulations . . . as may be necessary to carry
out the provisions of Section[s] 3372(f) of this title.''
Summary of Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
This proposed rule would establish certain exceptions from the
requirement that a declaration be filed when importing certain plants
and plant products. Specifically, it would establish an exception to
the declaration requirement for products with minimal amounts of plant
material. The proposed rule would also establish a new section to
specify the conditions under which a plant import declaration must be
filed and what information it must include. These conditions reflect
the provisions of the Act and would provide additional context for the
proposed exceptions.
Costs and Benefits
To the extent that the proposed rule would provide exceptions from
the provisions of the Act, it would benefit U.S. importers.
Establishing a de minimis exception from the declaration requirement
for products with minimal amounts of plant material would relieve
importers of the burden of identifying very small amounts of plant
material, while continuing to ensure that the declaration requirement
fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act.
II. 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 illegally taken
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, among other things, ``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 any law, treaty, or regulation of the United
States or in violation of any Indian tribal law,'' or in violation of
any State or foreign law that protects plants or that regulates certain
specified plant-related activities. 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, made it
unlawful, beginning December 15, 2008, to import certain plants,
including plant products, without an import declaration. The import
declaration serves as a tool for combatting the illegal trade in timber
and timber products by ensuring importers provide required information.
Through the declaration requirement, the importer maintains
accountability for exercising reasonable care regarding the content of
the shipment before it arrives in the United States. Information from
the declaration is also used to monitor implementation of Lacey Act
requirements. 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 June 30, 2011, we published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register (76 FR 38330, Docket No.
APHIS-2010-0129),\1\ soliciting public comment on several regulatory
options to address certain issues that have arisen with the
implementation of the declaration requirement. These options included
establishing certain exceptions to the declaration requirement for
products with minimal amounts of plant material and for products
containing composite plant materials. We solicited comments on these
options for 60 days ending on August 29, 2011, and received 37 comments
by that date. The comments received were from academics, environmental
groups, importers and exporters, industry associations, a trade union,
representatives of foreign governments, and private citizens. We
discuss the comments received on the approaches for composite plant
materials in a new ANPR published today in the Federal Register, in
which we invite comment on additional questions regarding
implementation of the declaration requirement for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the advance notice of proposed rulemaking and the
comments we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the commenters on the 2011 ANPR supported establishing
exceptions to the declaration requirement for products with minimal
amounts of plant material and suggested a range of possible levels at
which the threshold for exceptions could be set. We took those comments
into consideration when developing this proposed rule. We are proposing
to establish an exception to the declaration requirement for products
containing a minimal amount of plant materials. We are also proposing
that all Lacey Act declarations be submitted within 3 business days of
importation.
Purpose and Scope
As a result of the changes proposed in this document, it is
necessary to amend the statement of purpose and scope in 7 CFR 357.1.
At the time this section was established, part 357 contained only
definitions. However, because this proposed rule would add more
sections to the regulations, containing provisions that address the
declaration requirement of the Act, we would amend the statement to
remove the third sentence, which references the declaration
requirement, and add a new final sentence that acknowledges that the
regulations in part 357 address the declaration requirement of the Act.
Definitions
We are proposing to define the terms import and person, and to
amend the definition for plant so that all three definitions in the
regulations conform to the definitions in the statute. We would define
import as meaning to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such
landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within
the meaning of the customs laws of the United States. We would define
person as any individual, partnership, association, corporation, trust,
or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government or of any State or political subdivision thereof, or
any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
These definitions are the same as those in the Act and will
[[Page 31699]]
help ensure that the declaration requirement continues to fulfill the
purposes of the Lacey Act without unduly burdening commerce.
For the same reason we are proposing to amend the definition of
plant to include the exception provision of the statute. The definition
currently in the regulations, while consistent with the definition in
the Act, does not include the exclusions for common cultivars and
common food crops, scientific specimens, and plants for planting that
are included in the definition in the Act. The definition currently in
the regulations also does not include the exceptions to the application
of exclusions for plants 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), or 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 proposing to amend the definition in
the regulations to add the exclusions for common cultivars, common food
crops, scientific specimens used only for laboratory or field research,
and any plant that is to remain planted or to be planted or replanted,
and also to add the exceptions to the application of those exclusions
so that the proposed definition conforms with the statutory definition.
Declaration Requirement
We are proposing to add a new Sec. 357.3, ``Declaration
Requirement,'' to specify the conditions under which a plant import
declaration must be filed and what information it must include. These
conditions reflect the provisions of the Act and would provide
additional context for the proposed exceptions.
Exception From Declaration Requirement for Entries Containing Minimal
Plant Materials
The requirement that importers of plants and plant products file a
declaration upon importation is set forth in 16 U.S.C. 3372(f). The
Lacey Act does not explicitly address whether the declaration
requirement is intended to apply to products containing minimal amounts
of plant materials, but it is questionable whether the regulatory
objectives of the Lacey Act are furthered by applying this requirement
to minimal amounts of non-listed (i.e., not of conservation concern)
plant materials contained in an otherwise non-plant product. We believe
that this issue would be efficiently addressed by establishing a level
at which the declaration requirement does not apply.
We seek public comment on two options with respect to a de minimis
exception to the declaration requirement. Under the first option, we
propose to adopt an exception from the declaration requirement for
products containing plant material that represents no more than 5
percent of the total weight of the individual product unit, provided
that the total weight of the plant material in an entry of such
products (at the entry line level) does not exceed 2.9 kilograms.
Alternatively, as a second option, we propose an exception from the
declaration requirement for products containing plant material that
represents no more than 5 percent of the total weight of the individual
product unit, provided that the total weight of the plant material in
an individual product unit does not exceed some amount of plant
material by weight or board feet. Under this second option, we invite
comment on what would be an appropriate maximum amount allowable by
weight or board feet under the de minimis exception. The figure of 2.9
kilograms in the first option was selected based on the weight of a
board-foot of lignum vitae (Guaiacum officinale and Guaiacum sanctum)
as an appropriately minimal amount of plant material. A board-foot
(that is, 12 x 12 x 1 inches or 30.48 x 30.48 x 2.54 centimeters) is a
common unit of volume in the timber industry, and the woods of these
species are among the densest known, weighing 1.23 grams per cubic
centimeter.
In the event that the weight of the plant material in an individual
product unit cannot be determined, then we propose an exception from
the declaration requirement for products containing plant material that
represents no more than 10 percent of the declared value of the
individual product unit, provided that the total quantity of the plant
material in an entry of such products (at the entry line level) has a
volume of less than 1 board-foot. Alternatively, as a second option in
the event that the weight of the plant material in an individual
product unit cannot be determined, we propose an exception from the
declaration requirement for products containing plant material that
represents no more than 10 percent of the declared value of the
individual product unit, provided that the total quantity of the plant
material in an individual product unit does not exceed some amount of
plant material by weight or board feet. Under this second option, we
invite comment on what would be an appropriate maximum amount allowable
by value or board feet under the de minimis exception. In either case,
the exception would not apply to products containing plant material
from species of conservation concern that are 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. All other requirements of the Lacey Act
would still apply to entries or persons claiming this exception.
We invite comment on the method of determining de minimis content.
Specifically, we would appreciate information on whether it is feasible
to set the threshold for the maximum amount of plant material at the
entry line level, and invite comment on the thresholds that are
proposed, including 2.9 kilograms in total weight or volume of less
than 1 board foot per entry line level of the plant product.
We also seek comment on whether the de minimis threshold should be
calculated on a per product unit basis, at least for certain products,
and if so what would be an appropriate amount of plant material on a
per product basis, by weight or by board foot.
We also invite comment on whether the 5 percent threshold should be
higher or lower, and why. For example, a number of commenters on the
ANPR suggested setting the threshold at 10 percent. Additional data
from commenters in support of either the 5 percent threshold or an
alternative threshold would be useful for the rulemaking process. We
also solicit comment on whether the 5 percent threshold or any
alternative threshold proposed by commenters is appropriate as a de
minimis exception and consistent with the statute.
Time Limit for Submission of Declarations
While the majority of importers submit their Lacey Act declarations
at the time of formal customs entry, there has been some confusion
about the time frame in which declarations should be submitted, with
some importers submitting declarations up to a year after importation.
While the declarations are required pursuant to the language of the
statute ``upon importation,'' that is, upon landing in United States
jurisdiction, we are proposing to allow importers to file Lacey Act
declarations within 3 business days of importation without facing any
enforcement action or penalty for late filing. This would
[[Page 31700]]
accommodate the needs of industry while ensuring that declarations are
submitted in a timely manner for the purposes of the statute.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule, if finalized
as proposed, is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Assessment of the costs and cost savings may be found in the
accompanying economic analysis.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis
also provides an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that examines
the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or
on the Regulations.gov website (see ADDRESSES above for instructions
for accessing Regulations.gov).
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 requirement of the Lacey Act became effective on December
15, 2008, and enforcement of that requirement is being phased in. We
are proposing to establish an exception to the declaration requirement
for products containing a minimal amount of plant materials. We are
also proposing that all Lacey Act declarations be submitted within 3
business days upon importation.
The proposed rule would benefit some U.S. importers, large or
small. The provisions of this proposed rule would relieve importers of
the burden of identifying very small amounts of plant material
incorporated into a product for which obtaining declaration information
may be difficult, while continuing to ensure that the declaration
requirement fulfills the purposes of the Lacey Act.
The Lacey Act amendments included in the 2008 Farm Bill were
effective as of May 22, 2008. As a practical matter, this means that
enforcement actions may be taken for any violations committed on or
after that date. The requirement to provide a declaration under the
amended Act went into effect May 1, 2009. Declarations serve several
purposes including but not limited to data acquisition and
accountability, and they assist regulatory and enforcement authorities
in monitoring implementation of the Lacey Act's prohibitions on
importing illegally harvested plants. Enforcement of the declaration
requirement is being phased in. The phase-in schedule is largely based
on the degree of processing and complexity of composition of the
affected products. The requirement that importers file a declaration
upon importation for products in parts of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTS) Chapters 44, 66, 82, 92, 93, 94,
95, 96 and 97, is currently being enforced. We are currently
considering products for inclusion in the next phase of implementation.
If this proposed rule is finalized, some importers of products
containing a minimal amount of plant material who are currently
required to file declarations upon importation of their products would
be excepted from that requirement. The cost savings from not having to
file those declarations is one measure of the expected benefits of this
proposed rule. From July 2015 through mid-June 2017, there were about
715 weekly shipments of commodities currently requiring declarations
and containing amounts of plant material that potentially would have
been eligible for de minimis status under the proposed rule. Based on
information available on those shipments, we estimate that between 10
and 20 percent of those commodities would have met the proposed
definitions for de minimis exception. Had those commodity shipments not
needed to be accompanied by declarations, we estimate the annual cost
savings for affected producers would have ranged in total from a low of
about $56,700 to a high of about $407,900 annually, with annual
government processing savings of between about $1,000 and $1,900. In
accordance with guidance on complying with Executive Order 13771, the
primary estimate of the annual private sector cost savings for this
rule is $232,300. This value is the mid-point estimate of cost savings
annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount rate.
The total cost of compliance with the declaration requirement of
the Act as currently enforced is estimated to be between $11.6 million
and $50.3 million. The estimated reduction in compliance costs of about
$56,700 to $407,900 would represent a cost savings of between 0.1 and
3.5 percent.
Both the declaration costs and the cost savings expected with this
proposed rule are small when compared to the value of the commodities
imported. In 2016, the value of U.S. imports of products currently
requiring a declaration totaled about $20.4 billion, and the value of
U.S. imports of such commodities as umbrellas, walking sticks, and
handguns that may include small amounts of plant material was $2.7
billion.
The full schedule for enforcement of the declaration requirement
has not yet been determined. Because enforcement of the declaration
requirement in the Act is being phased in, some products that would
meet the de minimis criteria do not currently require a declaration;
their importation would not be initially affected. For example, apparel
articles such as shirts with wood buttons may be considered to have
minimal plant material, but the declaration requirement for products in
that HTS code are not part of the current enforcement schedule. While
the volume of imported commodities for which the exceptions would be
applicable could be large, the cost savings for affected importers are
expected to be small relative to the value of the commodities.
We are also proposing to require that Lacey Act declarations be
submitted within 3 business days of importation. This change should
have little impact on importers. Over 90 percent of current
declarations are already submitted at the time of arrival and there is
no reason to believe that the burden associated with submitting a
declaration within 3 business days would be significantly greater than
the burden associated with submitting a declaration more than 3
business days of importation. An importer reasonably knows the contents
of a shipment before it arrives in the United States, and the
information necessary for submitting a declaration should be available
easily within 3 business days upon importation.
This action would result in some cost savings for importing
businesses, most of which are small entities. Based on our review of
available information, APHIS does not expect the proposed rule to have
a significant economic impact on small entities. We have
[[Page 31701]]
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis because the
information used in this analysis may not address all possible economic
effects of this proposed rule on small entities. The savings are likely
to represent a very small share of the overall value of the imported
goods, and are not expected to significantly affect most importers of
goods covered by the Lacey Act, whether large or small.
Average annual receipts of small, potentially affected entities
under the proposed thresholds range from $843,000 to $1.4 million. We
estimate that the average cost savings for an affected entity from not
needing to file a single declaration may range between about $15 and
$55. For the cost savings to equal 5 percent of average annual receipts
and thereby reasonably be considered a significant effect would require
that an affected entity have from about 770 to nearly 4,600 exempted
declarations in a year, a range that is highly unlikely.
APHIS has considered alternative thresholds for determining the
criteria for a de minimis exception from the declaration requirement,
including the specific percentage of total weight of an individual
product unit that is plant material in an entry, the maximum total
weight of that plant material, and the maximum total volume of that
plant material. We are inviting comment on the specific threshold
levels in this proposal, alternative thresholds, and their impact. To
the extent that alternative thresholds result in broader or narrower de
minimis criteria, the cost savings associated with such de minimis
designation would be expanded or constrained. However, regardless the
number of exemptions for which an entity qualifies, they would be
beneficial and small entities would not be disadvantaged.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order (E.O.) 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments.'' E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to
consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis
on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
APHIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal
implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a
Tribe requests consultation, APHIS will work with the Office of Tribal
Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes,
additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly
mandated by Congress.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the reporting requirements included
in this proposed rule have been approved under Office of Management and
Budget control number 0579-0349.
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 proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly
Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 357
Endangered and threatened species, Plants (Agriculture).
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 357 as follows:
PART 357--CONTROL OF ILLEGALLY TAKEN PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 357 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.2(d).
0
2. Section 357.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 357.1 Purpose and scope.
The Lacey Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), makes it
unlawful to, among other things, 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 any Federal or Tribal law, or in violation of a
State or foreign law that protects plants or that regulates certain
specified plant-related activities. The Lacey Act also makes it
unlawful to make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or
any false identification of, any plant covered by the Act. Common
cultivars (except trees) and common food crops are among the
categorical exclusions to the provisions of the Act. The Act does not
define the terms ``common cultivar'' and ``common food crop'' but
instead authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Department of the Interior to define these terms by regulation. The
regulations in this part provide the required definitions.
Additionally, the regulations in this part address the declaration
requirement of the Act.
0
3. Section 357.2 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding definitions for Import and Person in alphabetical order;
and
0
b. By revising the definition for Plant.
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 357.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Import. To land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such
landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within
the meaning of the customs laws of the United States.
Person. Any individual, partnership, association, corporation,
trust, or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality
of the Federal Government or of any State or political subdivision
thereof, or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
Plant. Any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots,
seeds, parts or products thereof, and including trees from either
natural or planted forest stands. The term plant excludes:
(1) Common cultivars, except trees, and common food crops
(including roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof);
(2) A scientific specimen of plant genetic material (including
roots, seeds, germplasm, parts, or products thereof) that is to be used
only for laboratory or field research; and
(3) Any plant that is to remain planted or to be planted or
replanted.
(4) A plant is not eligible for these exclusions if it is listed:
[[Page 31702]]
(i) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(ii) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(iii) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation
of species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with
extinction.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 357.3 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 357.3 Declaration requirement.
(a) Any person importing any plant shall file upon importation a
declaration that contains:
(1) The scientific name of any plant (including the genus and
species of the plant) contained in the importation;
(2) A description of the value of the importation and the quantity,
including the unit of measure, of the plant; and
(3) The name of the country from which the plant was taken.
(b) The declaration relating to a plant product shall also contain:
(1) If the species of plant used to produce the plant product that
is the subject of the importation varies, and the species used to
produce the plant product is unknown, the name of each species of plant
that may have been used to produce the plant product;
(2) If the species of plant used to produce the plant product that
is the subject of the importation is commonly taken from more than one
country, and the country from which the plant was taken and used to
produce the plant product is unknown, the name of each country from
which the plant may have been taken; and
(3) If a paper or paperboard plant product includes recycled plant
product, the average percent recycled content without regard for the
species or country of origin of the recycled plant product, in addition
to the information for the non-recycled plant content otherwise
required by this section.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0349)
0
5. Section 357.4 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 357.4 Exceptions from the declaration requirement.
Plants and products containing plant materials are excepted from
the declaration requirement if:
(a) The plant is used exclusively as packaging material to support,
protect, or carry another item, unless the packaging material itself is
the item being imported; or
(b) The plant material in a product represents no more than 5
percent of the total weight of the individual product unit, provided
that the total weight of the plant material in [an entry of such
products][a product unit] does not exceed [2.9 kilograms] [or other
amount]; or, if the weight cannot be determined, the value of the plant
material in the individual product unit represents no more than 10
percent of the declared value of the product, provided that the total
quantity of plant material in [an entry of such products][a product
unit] has a volume of less than [1 board foot (that is, 12 x 12 x 1
inches or 30.48 x 30.48 x 2.54 centimeters)] [or other amount].
(c) A product will not be eligible for an exception under paragraph
(b) of this section if it contains plant material listed:
(1) In an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249);
(2) As an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or
(3) Pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of
species that are indigenous to the State and are threatened with
extinction.
0
6. Section 357.5 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 357.5 Time limit for submission of plant declarations.
In the case of commodities for which a plant declaration is
required, the declaration must be submitted within 3 business days of
importation.
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of July 2018.
Greg Ibach,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-14630 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P