More Details on New Lacey Act Declaration Unit of Measure Limitation, Etc.
Broker Power recently reported that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s April 2010 version of its Lacey Act Primer indicates that units of measure such as pieces (pcs) or planks are no longer allowed to be used on the Lacey Act declaration for imported plants and plant products.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
APHIS Says Piece Count Too Vague
APHIS sources state that piece count is too vague a measurement as it does not indicate the quantity of plant material being imported; it only indicates the number of items being imported.
Acceptable units must measure the plant content. The updated Primer indicates that acceptable measures include cubic meters (m3) and kilograms (kg). For example, 0.0426 m3 of red oak and 0.132 kg of maple inlay are acceptable quantities and units of measure.
Metric Units of Measure Preferred
APHIS sources add that board feet (bd. ft. or BF) is also an acceptable unit of measure. However, the preferred units are those that are metric based, such as meters (m), square meters (m2), and cubic meters (m3), as well as kilogram-based units of measure, etc.
APHIS Tightening Up Enforcement of Units of Measure to Better Align with Law
APHIS sources state that declaring the quantity on the declaration is required by the Lacey Act Amendments. They add that APHIS has been lenient with the unit of measure requirement until now, by allowing piece count measurement.
APHIS is now tightening up its standards and wants the actual quantity of the plant (in the importation) to be measured, not just the number of items imported.
If No Plant Material, No Declaration Required
Regarding one change in the April 2010 Primer for paper declarations, APHIS sources note the instruction to enter - no plant material present - when there is no plant content was removed from the Primer, as a declaration is not needed when there is no plant content.
(See ITT’s Online Archives or 05/05/10 news, (Ref: 10050505), for BP summary of ITT’s original announcement of APHIS units of measure limitation, as well as other changes in the April 2010 Primer.)
OMB Review of Proposed Rule on Definitions Could Take Up to 90 Days
APHIS sources added that the Office of Management and Budget is allowed to take up to 90 days to review its proposed rule to establish definitions for the terms “common cultivar” (except trees) and “common food crop”, which are among the categorical exemptions to the Lacey Act Amendments requirements. The proposed rule was submitted to OMB in April 2010.
The proposed definitions are intended clarify which plants and plant products are subject to the provisions of the amended Act, including the declaration requirement for imported plants and plant products.
(See ITT’s Online Archives or 04/28/10 news, (Ref: 10042805), for BP summary of submission of proposed rule to OMB.)
(The Lacey Act (16 USC 3371 et seq.) combats trafficking in illegal wildlife, fish, or plants. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey Act on May 22, 2008, by making it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce a broader range of plants, as well as plant products, with some limited exceptions, taken or traded in violation of the laws of the U.S., a U.S. State, or other countries.
In addition, the amendments made it unlawful to make or submit any false record, account or label for any false identification of, the plants and products covered by the Act. It also introduced the requirement for an import declaration for certain plants and plant products entering the U.S. Lastly, the amendments provide for both civil and criminal penalties for failure to comply.
Enforcement actions may be taken for any violations committed on or after May 22, 2008. However, that the requirement to provide a declaration under the amended Act did not become effective until December 15, 2008. Moreover, enforcement of the declaration requirement is being phased-in. The most recent enforcement phase, Phase IV, took effect on April 1, 2010.)