(CBP)
Participants included executives from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Food and Drug Administration; the Food Safety and Inspection Service; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the National Marine Fisheries Service and Department of Homeland Security agencies U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The agency leaders affirmed their commitment to import safety by agreeing to six key principles of import safety, providing a foundation for further collaboration and cooperation among the agencies charged with protecting American consumers from unsafe imports. The principles call for:
1. The creation of an interagency forum of senior representatives dedicated to import safety cooperation;
2. Continued commitment to information sharing across federal agencies involved in import safety concerns;
3. Enhanced efforts to help the private sector comply with import safety requirements;
4. Development of common systems to exchange information;
5. Strong, consistent enforcement measures to deter imports of unsafe products; and
6. The use of risk-management strategies to streamline lawful trade.
In addition to discussing the principles, participating agencies agreed to an interagency memorandum of understanding which will improve targeting and enforcement efforts at the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center, a fusion center for agencies to share targeting resources, analysis and expertise to achieve the common mission of protecting American consumers from unsafe imports.Agency heads and other senior leaders from 10 federal agencies met today [October 21] at the Interagency Import Safety Conference to focus on efforts to protect the health and safety of the American consumer and the environment from unsafe imports.
Showing posts with label APHIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label APHIS. Show all posts
Friday, October 22, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
USDA Seeks Comments on Information Collection for Nursery Stock Imports
(World Trade Interactive)
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is requesting comments by Aug. 11 on an information collection concerning the importation of nursery stock (i.e., living plants, plant parts, seeds, and plant cuttings for planting or propagation).
APHIS requires that some plants or plant products be accompanied by a phytosanitary inspection certificate with a declaration, an export certificate or a special certificate completed by plant health officials in the originating or transiting country. APHIS uses the information on these certificates to determine the pest condition of the shipment at the time of inspection in the foreign country, which in turn is used as a guide to the intensity of the inspection that APHIS must conduct when the shipment arrives.
Source Document
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is requesting comments by Aug. 11 on an information collection concerning the importation of nursery stock (i.e., living plants, plant parts, seeds, and plant cuttings for planting or propagation).
APHIS requires that some plants or plant products be accompanied by a phytosanitary inspection certificate with a declaration, an export certificate or a special certificate completed by plant health officials in the originating or transiting country. APHIS uses the information on these certificates to determine the pest condition of the shipment at the time of inspection in the foreign country, which in turn is used as a guide to the intensity of the inspection that APHIS must conduct when the shipment arrives.
Source Document
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Metric Units Now Required on Lacey Act Declarations
(World Trade Interactive)
The Lacey Act amendments of 2008 require the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to collect information on the importation of plant material using a Plant and Plant Product Declaration (form PPQ-505). This information must include the quantity and unit of measure of the imported plant material.
In an effort to create a uniform dataset, APHIS is requiring that plant material quantities be reported on the declaration using standardized metric units (kilograms, meters, square meters, etc.). These values should reflect the actual plant content in the product and not necessarily the product as a whole. While this requirement took effect May 1, APHIS is allowing a two-month grace period (ending July 1) to allow industry to make the needed changes to declaration procedures.
As a result of this change, APHIS will no longer accept counts of items (pieces, boxes, etc.) as valid units of measure on the declaration. APHIS states that item counts do not allow for differences in size or weight between items and do not accurately reflect the actual plant content in a shipment.
The Lacey Act amendments of 2008 require the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to collect information on the importation of plant material using a Plant and Plant Product Declaration (form PPQ-505). This information must include the quantity and unit of measure of the imported plant material.
In an effort to create a uniform dataset, APHIS is requiring that plant material quantities be reported on the declaration using standardized metric units (kilograms, meters, square meters, etc.). These values should reflect the actual plant content in the product and not necessarily the product as a whole. While this requirement took effect May 1, APHIS is allowing a two-month grace period (ending July 1) to allow industry to make the needed changes to declaration procedures.
As a result of this change, APHIS will no longer accept counts of items (pieces, boxes, etc.) as valid units of measure on the declaration. APHIS states that item counts do not allow for differences in size or weight between items and do not accurately reflect the actual plant content in a shipment.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Import Requirements for Bedding Plants and Nursery Stock from Canada
(CBP)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection would like to remind all travelers wishing to import live bedding plants and nursery stock from Canada that certain certificates are required to accompany purchased plants and nursery stock.
Travelers are reminded to purchase live bedding plants from certified greenhouses in Canada that have authority to issue a CFIA 4702. The CFIA 4702 is a yellow sticker that is attached to an invoice with all the plants purchased from the certified greenhouses. The CFIA yellow sticker only applies to plants meeting U.S. entry requirements. Nursery stock (potted trees and shrubs) and homegrown plants will require a Canadian phytosanitary certificate for entry into the United States. Failure to have the correct certification when crossing the border into the United States will result in the abandonment and destruction of the plants.
For more detailed information on the importation of live plants please download the Canadian Border Agricultural Clearance Manual from the APHIS/USDA website.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection would like to remind all travelers wishing to import live bedding plants and nursery stock from Canada that certain certificates are required to accompany purchased plants and nursery stock.
Travelers are reminded to purchase live bedding plants from certified greenhouses in Canada that have authority to issue a CFIA 4702. The CFIA 4702 is a yellow sticker that is attached to an invoice with all the plants purchased from the certified greenhouses. The CFIA yellow sticker only applies to plants meeting U.S. entry requirements. Nursery stock (potted trees and shrubs) and homegrown plants will require a Canadian phytosanitary certificate for entry into the United States. Failure to have the correct certification when crossing the border into the United States will result in the abandonment and destruction of the plants.
For more detailed information on the importation of live plants please download the Canadian Border Agricultural Clearance Manual from the APHIS/USDA website.
Monday, April 26, 2010
CBP, CPSC Sign Agreement to Promote Consumer Safety
(CBP)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Inez Tenenbaum today [April 26] signed a memorandum of understanding for CBP’s Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center. The MOU will allow CPSC personnel to access CBP commercial automated systems for import safety risk assessments.
“This is an important first step in strengthening our ability to promote consumer well-being and safety,” said Commissioner Bersin. “With this memorandum of understanding, CBP and the Consumer Products Safety Commission will be able to further protect consumers against the importation of dangerous goods into the U.S.”
The MOU gives CPSC the capability to conduct import safety risk assessments and perform targeting work using CBP’s Automated Commercial System.
“This cooperation between federal partners is making U.S. consumers more safe. By identifying and checking consumer products at our ports, we can reduce the flow of dangerous products into our homes,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum.
The Import Safety CTAC reflects the three core principles announced by President Obama’s Food Safety Working Group in July 2009: prevention, surveillance and response. Created in March 2009, the Working Group was tasked with advising President Obama on how to upgrade the U.S. food safety system for the 21st Century.
CBP established the CTAC Oct. 1, 2009, as a fusion center for agencies to share targeting resources, analysis, and expertise to achieve the common mission of protecting U.S. citizens from unsafe imports. In addition to CBP, the government agencies represented at CTAC include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service.
Related: Lawmakers Consider Bill to Address Problems with Product Safety Law (World Trade Interactive)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Inez Tenenbaum today [April 26] signed a memorandum of understanding for CBP’s Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center. The MOU will allow CPSC personnel to access CBP commercial automated systems for import safety risk assessments.
“This is an important first step in strengthening our ability to promote consumer well-being and safety,” said Commissioner Bersin. “With this memorandum of understanding, CBP and the Consumer Products Safety Commission will be able to further protect consumers against the importation of dangerous goods into the U.S.”
The MOU gives CPSC the capability to conduct import safety risk assessments and perform targeting work using CBP’s Automated Commercial System.
“This cooperation between federal partners is making U.S. consumers more safe. By identifying and checking consumer products at our ports, we can reduce the flow of dangerous products into our homes,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum.
The Import Safety CTAC reflects the three core principles announced by President Obama’s Food Safety Working Group in July 2009: prevention, surveillance and response. Created in March 2009, the Working Group was tasked with advising President Obama on how to upgrade the U.S. food safety system for the 21st Century.
CBP established the CTAC Oct. 1, 2009, as a fusion center for agencies to share targeting resources, analysis, and expertise to achieve the common mission of protecting U.S. citizens from unsafe imports. In addition to CBP, the government agencies represented at CTAC include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service.
Related: Lawmakers Consider Bill to Address Problems with Product Safety Law (World Trade Interactive)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
New Exemptions to APHIS Inspection Fees on Imports from Canada
(World Trade Interactive)
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is adopting as a final rule, with changes, an August 2006 interim rule that removed the exemptions from inspection for imported fruits and vegetables grown in Canada and the exemptions from user fees for commercial vessels, trucks, railroad cars and aircraft, as well as international air passengers, entering the U.S. from Canada. As a result of that rule, all agricultural products imported from Canada are subject to inspection and all commercial conveyances arriving from Canada are subject to user fees.
New Exemptions:
This final rule establishes new user fee exemptions for the following.
• commercial railroad cars that are part of a train that originates and terminates in Canada and no passengers board or disembark and no cargo is loaded or unloaded while the train is in the U.S.
• vessels that travel to Canada only to refuel, upon their return to the U.S.
• barges (i.e., non-self-propelled vessels transporting cargo that is not contained in shipping containers) traveling solely between the U.S. and Canada that carry bulk cargo that originates only in the U.S. or Canada, do not carry any plants or plant products or animals or animal products, and do not carry soil or quarry products from areas in Canada listed as being infested with gypsy moth
Exemptions Denied:
APHIS is not providing a user fee exemption for members of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. “C-TPAT does not have an agricultural component that specifically addresses sanitary or phytosanitary risks,” APHIS states, and “C-TPAT members’ shipments are subject to agricultural inspection regardless of the reduced inspection benefits granted by membership in the program.”
APHIS has also declined to provide an exemption for trucks that originate and terminate in the U.S. and do not load or unload cargo in Canada or that originate and terminate in Canada and do not load or unload cargo in the U.S. Unlike railroad cars, APHIS states, trucks are not bound to a fixed track where stops and loading or unloading may only feasibly occur at designated stations.
Read more and view the source document here.
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is adopting as a final rule, with changes, an August 2006 interim rule that removed the exemptions from inspection for imported fruits and vegetables grown in Canada and the exemptions from user fees for commercial vessels, trucks, railroad cars and aircraft, as well as international air passengers, entering the U.S. from Canada. As a result of that rule, all agricultural products imported from Canada are subject to inspection and all commercial conveyances arriving from Canada are subject to user fees.
New Exemptions:
This final rule establishes new user fee exemptions for the following.
• commercial railroad cars that are part of a train that originates and terminates in Canada and no passengers board or disembark and no cargo is loaded or unloaded while the train is in the U.S.
• vessels that travel to Canada only to refuel, upon their return to the U.S.
• barges (i.e., non-self-propelled vessels transporting cargo that is not contained in shipping containers) traveling solely between the U.S. and Canada that carry bulk cargo that originates only in the U.S. or Canada, do not carry any plants or plant products or animals or animal products, and do not carry soil or quarry products from areas in Canada listed as being infested with gypsy moth
Exemptions Denied:
APHIS is not providing a user fee exemption for members of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. “C-TPAT does not have an agricultural component that specifically addresses sanitary or phytosanitary risks,” APHIS states, and “C-TPAT members’ shipments are subject to agricultural inspection regardless of the reduced inspection benefits granted by membership in the program.”
APHIS has also declined to provide an exemption for trucks that originate and terminate in the U.S. and do not load or unload cargo in Canada or that originate and terminate in Canada and do not load or unload cargo in the U.S. Unlike railroad cars, APHIS states, trucks are not bound to a fixed track where stops and loading or unloading may only feasibly occur at designated stations.
Read more and view the source document here.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
CBP Agriculture Specialists Enforce Christmas Tree Importation Rules
(CBP)
With the Christmas holiday fast approaching, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists working at U.S. ports of entry are busy making sure that imported Christmas trees are free from insects and pests that could harm trees in America’s national forests and neighborhood backyards.
Importing a Christmas tree from British Columbia into Washington State now requires certification from the grower that their holiday tree was grown in an area of Canada where gypsy moth and pine shoot beetle are not known to occur. Without such certification the holiday tree may be prohibited and the travelers must return their tree back to Canada. A holiday tree of any type that is found to be harboring harmful insects must also be returned to Canada.
“Although your Christmas trees may appear to be harmless, there could be hidden threats that could seriously harm our natural resources and economy,” said Chief Charles Cunningham, Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialist in Blaine, Wash.
“Our best advice to anyone wondering if they may import their Christmas tree is to please speak with a CBP agriculture specialist at (360) 332-1640 (Blaine, Wash.) or (360) 988-2971 (Sumas, Wash.) for details.” Importations of Christmas trees grown outside of British Columbia or destined to other areas of the U.S. are subject to additional regulations.
With the Christmas holiday fast approaching, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists working at U.S. ports of entry are busy making sure that imported Christmas trees are free from insects and pests that could harm trees in America’s national forests and neighborhood backyards.
Importing a Christmas tree from British Columbia into Washington State now requires certification from the grower that their holiday tree was grown in an area of Canada where gypsy moth and pine shoot beetle are not known to occur. Without such certification the holiday tree may be prohibited and the travelers must return their tree back to Canada. A holiday tree of any type that is found to be harboring harmful insects must also be returned to Canada.
“Although your Christmas trees may appear to be harmless, there could be hidden threats that could seriously harm our natural resources and economy,” said Chief Charles Cunningham, Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialist in Blaine, Wash.
“Our best advice to anyone wondering if they may import their Christmas tree is to please speak with a CBP agriculture specialist at (360) 332-1640 (Blaine, Wash.) or (360) 988-2971 (Sumas, Wash.) for details.” Importations of Christmas trees grown outside of British Columbia or destined to other areas of the U.S. are subject to additional regulations.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
USDA Withdraws Increase in Fees for Quarantine and Inspection Services
(USDA APHIS)
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has withdrawn an interim rule that would have imposed an approximately 10% increase in the fees charged for certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services provided in connection with certain commercial vessels, trucks, railroad cars and aircraft arriving at ports in the U.S. customs territory. These fees had been slated to take effect November 1, but APHIS has decided to withdraw them in order to explore other regulatory alternatives. As a result, the subject user fees will remain as follows.
• commercial vessels - $494
• commercial trucks - $5.25 for a single border crossing and $105 for a transponder
• commercial railroad cars - $7.75 per car
• commercial aircraft - $70.50 per aircraft
Read the complete release here.
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has withdrawn an interim rule that would have imposed an approximately 10% increase in the fees charged for certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services provided in connection with certain commercial vessels, trucks, railroad cars and aircraft arriving at ports in the U.S. customs territory. These fees had been slated to take effect November 1, but APHIS has decided to withdraw them in order to explore other regulatory alternatives. As a result, the subject user fees will remain as follows.
• commercial vessels - $494
• commercial trucks - $5.25 for a single border crossing and $105 for a transponder
• commercial railroad cars - $7.75 per car
• commercial aircraft - $70.50 per aircraft
Read the complete release here.
Monday, October 5, 2009
APHIS Delays Fee Hike
(Journal of Commerce Online – R.G.Edmonson)
Postponement until Nov.1 to give companies time to prepare
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service announced that an inspection fee increase will be delayed until November 1. The agency previously announced that the increase would take effect October 1. The delay will give companies that pay the fees more time to prepare for the new fees, APHIS said.
Last week APHIS announced agricultural quarantine and inspection fee increases averaging 10%. The agency said the increases were necessary to offset the loss of revenue due to reduced traffic volume at the border.
The announcement is in last week’s Federal Register.
Postponement until Nov.1 to give companies time to prepare
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service announced that an inspection fee increase will be delayed until November 1. The agency previously announced that the increase would take effect October 1. The delay will give companies that pay the fees more time to prepare for the new fees, APHIS said.
Last week APHIS announced agricultural quarantine and inspection fee increases averaging 10%. The agency said the increases were necessary to offset the loss of revenue due to reduced traffic volume at the border.
The announcement is in last week’s Federal Register.
CTA Decries Proposed APHIS Fee Hikes
(Canadian Transportation & Logistics)
Another day, another dollar due at the border. That’s the way it seems these days at the Canada/U.S. border and the Canadian Trucking Trucking Alliance is now taking aim at a proposed 14% increase to the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Fee.
The CTA referred to the U.S. APHIS fee increase as “ludicruous.” Under the proposal, commercial truck user fees will go from US$5.25 to $6 per trip and the commercial truck transponders will rise in cost from US$105 per year to $120.
The changes were initially slated to kick in October 1, but have been delayed until November 1. The U.S. is justifying the fee increases by saying they’re necessary to offset lost revenue due to declining border traffic. It would mark the first fee hike since 2005, the U.S. points out.
“Introducing APHIS fees in the first place on all trucks entering the United States whether they are carrying agricultural products or not was nothing but a cash grab,” countered CTA chief David Bradley.
“This increase and the rationale for the increase are both ludicrous.”
“To acknowledge that trade is down, you would think that the folks at APHIS might have also acknowledged that this is a reflection of the recession and the impact of the thickening of the border for legitimate trade,” added Bradley. “Instead they increase their fees; incredible.”
Bradley is urging the rest of the trade community to join CTA in opposing the fee increases.
Another day, another dollar due at the border. That’s the way it seems these days at the Canada/U.S. border and the Canadian Trucking Trucking Alliance is now taking aim at a proposed 14% increase to the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Fee.
The CTA referred to the U.S. APHIS fee increase as “ludicruous.” Under the proposal, commercial truck user fees will go from US$5.25 to $6 per trip and the commercial truck transponders will rise in cost from US$105 per year to $120.
The changes were initially slated to kick in October 1, but have been delayed until November 1. The U.S. is justifying the fee increases by saying they’re necessary to offset lost revenue due to declining border traffic. It would mark the first fee hike since 2005, the U.S. points out.
“Introducing APHIS fees in the first place on all trucks entering the United States whether they are carrying agricultural products or not was nothing but a cash grab,” countered CTA chief David Bradley.
“This increase and the rationale for the increase are both ludicrous.”
“To acknowledge that trade is down, you would think that the folks at APHIS might have also acknowledged that this is a reflection of the recession and the impact of the thickening of the border for legitimate trade,” added Bradley. “Instead they increase their fees; incredible.”
Bradley is urging the rest of the trade community to join CTA in opposing the fee increases.
Monday, September 28, 2009
USDA Increasing Fees for Quarantine and Inspection Services
(World Trade Interactive)
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued an interim rule that, effective October 1, will increase by about 10% the fees charged for certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services provided in connection with certain commercial vessels, trucks, railroad cars and aircraft arriving at ports in the U.S. customs territory.
APHIS states that while the recent downturn in the U.S. economy has negatively impacted user fee collections, inspection and related support services continue to be provided at their existing levels, so a fee increase is needed to meet expenses that have not decreased. Comments on the higher fees are due by November 27.
• commercial vessels – $544, up from $494
• commercial trucks – $6.00 for a single border crossing, up from $5.25, and $120 for a transponder, up from $105
• commercial railroad cars – $8.75 per car, up from $7.75
• commercial aircraft – $78.00 per aircraft, up from $70.50
The Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has issued an interim rule that, effective October 1, will increase by about 10% the fees charged for certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services provided in connection with certain commercial vessels, trucks, railroad cars and aircraft arriving at ports in the U.S. customs territory.
APHIS states that while the recent downturn in the U.S. economy has negatively impacted user fee collections, inspection and related support services continue to be provided at their existing levels, so a fee increase is needed to meet expenses that have not decreased. Comments on the higher fees are due by November 27.
• commercial vessels – $544, up from $494
• commercial trucks – $6.00 for a single border crossing, up from $5.25, and $120 for a transponder, up from $105
• commercial railroad cars – $8.75 per car, up from $7.75
• commercial aircraft – $78.00 per aircraft, up from $70.50
Friday, September 4, 2009
Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions
(USDA/APHIS via World Trade Interactive)
Declaration Enforcement Postponed for Numerous Products
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has issued a notice modifying the schedule of enforcement of the import declaration requirement under the Lacey Act amendments. This modification postpones enforcement for numerous products. Comments on this action are due by Nov. 2 (refer to APHIS-2008-0119 for contact details).
Under the Lacey Act amendments included in the 2008 Farm Bill, imports of certain plants and plant products must be accompanied by an import declaration that contains, among other things, the scientific name of the plant, the value of the importation, the quantity of the plant and the name of the country from where the plant was harvested. For paper and paperboard products containing recycled content, the declaration also must include the average percent of recycled content without regard for species or country of harvest. USDA began phasing in its enforcement of this requirement in December 2008.
After a review of comments received, further internal consideration and experience with implementation of the first phase of enforcement of the declaration requirement, the USDA has revised the phase-in schedule as follows. USDA emphasizes, however, that Lacey Act amendment provisions other than the import declaration are already effective and that actions to enforce those provisions may be taken at any time.
Revised List for Phase III
Phase III, which is scheduled to begin Oct. 1, now covers only items classified in the following HTSUS headings.
• 4402 (wood charcoal)
• 4412 (plywood, veneered panels), except 4412.99.06 and 4412.99.57
• 4414 (wooden frames)
• 4419 (tableware and kitchenware)
• 4420 (wood marquetry, caskets, statuettes)
Revised List for Phase IV
Phase IV, scheduled to begin April 1, 2010, has been substantially revised and now covers the following HTSUS headings.
• 4421 (other articles of wood)
• 6602 (walking sticks, whips, crops)
• 8201 (hand tools)
• 9201 (pianos)
• 9202 (other stringed instruments)
• 9302 (revolvers and pistols)
• 9305.10.20 (parts and accessories for revolvers and pistols)
• 9401.69 (seats with wood frames)
• 9504.20 (articles and accessories for billiards)
• 9703 (sculptures)
Future Changes
USDA states that there will be no further additions to phases III or IV and that it intends to provide at least six months’ notice to persons and industries affected by any future changes to facilitate compliance with the new requirements.
In addition, USDA is seeking comments on the following HTSUS headings currently under consideration for subsequent enforcement phases that would be scheduled to begin on or after Sept. 1, 2010.
• 4405 (wood wool [excelsior])
• 4410 (particle board)
• 4411 (fiberboard of wood)
• 4412 (plywood, including 4412.99.06 and 4412.99.57)
• 4413 (densified wood)
• 4415 (packing cases, boxes, crates, drums)
• 4416 (casks, barrels, vats, tubs)
• 4701 (mechanical wood pulp)
• 4702 (chemical wood pulp, dissolving)
• 4703 (chemical wood pulp, sulfate)
• 4704 (chemical wood pulp, sulfite)
• 4705 (combination mechanical and chemical)
• 4801 (newsprint)
• 4802 (uncoated writing paper)
• 4803 (toilet or facial tissue stock)
• 4804 (uncoated kraft paper)
• 4805 (other uncoated paper and board)
• 4806 (vegetable parchment, etc.)
• 4807 (composite paper and board)
• 4808 (corrugated paper and board)
• 4809 (carbon paper)
• 4810 (coated paper and board)
• 4811 (paper coated, etc.)
• 6601 (umbrellas)
• 6603 (umbrella parts)
• 9205 (wind musical instruments)
• 9401 (seats)
• 9403.30 (wooden office furniture)
• 9403.40 (wooden kitchen furniture)
• 9403.50 (wooden bedroom furniture)
• 9403.60 (other wooden furniture)
• 9403.81 (furniture of cane, osier, bamboo, rattan or similar materials)
• 9504 (articles for arcade, table or parlor games)
Finally, USDA continues to consider the applicability of the import declaration requirement to other products not included in the revised phase-in schedule or listed above and seeks comment on how this requirement should be enforced as to additional goods classified under the following HTSUS chapters.
• chapter 48 (paper and articles of)
• chapter 82 (tools, implements)
• chapter 89 (ships, boats and floating structures)
• chapter 93 (arms and ammunition)
• chapter 94 (furniture, etc.)
• chapter 95 (toys, games and sporting equipment)
• chapter 96 (brooms, pencils, buttons)
Enforcement Delayed for Composite, Recycled, Reused Materials
Several commenters contended that identifying composite and recycled or reused materials (e.g., medium density fiberboard, particleboard and scrap wood) to the genus and/or species level would be difficult and in some cases impossible. In response to those comments, USDA has decided to further delay enforcement of the declaration requirement for these products so that it would begin no earlier than Sept. 1, 2010.
Use of Spp. to Identify Species of Imported Plants
Several commenters proposed that USDA allow for importers to provide only the genus name in circumstances where the individual species would be difficult to identify. USDA has responded by stating that in circumstances where the list of possible species in a particular product includes all species in a genus, it is acceptable to use “spp.” following the genus name on the import declaration form. However, when reference to all possible species in a genus is not accurate (based on geographical or other factors), importers are expected to provide either the single genus and species or a specific list on the import declaration form of all possible species that may have been used to produce the plant product.
Federal Register Reference: Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions, September 2, 2009 available here (PDF).
Declaration Enforcement Postponed for Numerous Products
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has issued a notice modifying the schedule of enforcement of the import declaration requirement under the Lacey Act amendments. This modification postpones enforcement for numerous products. Comments on this action are due by Nov. 2 (refer to APHIS-2008-0119 for contact details).
Under the Lacey Act amendments included in the 2008 Farm Bill, imports of certain plants and plant products must be accompanied by an import declaration that contains, among other things, the scientific name of the plant, the value of the importation, the quantity of the plant and the name of the country from where the plant was harvested. For paper and paperboard products containing recycled content, the declaration also must include the average percent of recycled content without regard for species or country of harvest. USDA began phasing in its enforcement of this requirement in December 2008.
After a review of comments received, further internal consideration and experience with implementation of the first phase of enforcement of the declaration requirement, the USDA has revised the phase-in schedule as follows. USDA emphasizes, however, that Lacey Act amendment provisions other than the import declaration are already effective and that actions to enforce those provisions may be taken at any time.
Revised List for Phase III
Phase III, which is scheduled to begin Oct. 1, now covers only items classified in the following HTSUS headings.
• 4402 (wood charcoal)
• 4412 (plywood, veneered panels), except 4412.99.06 and 4412.99.57
• 4414 (wooden frames)
• 4419 (tableware and kitchenware)
• 4420 (wood marquetry, caskets, statuettes)
Revised List for Phase IV
Phase IV, scheduled to begin April 1, 2010, has been substantially revised and now covers the following HTSUS headings.
• 4421 (other articles of wood)
• 6602 (walking sticks, whips, crops)
• 8201 (hand tools)
• 9201 (pianos)
• 9202 (other stringed instruments)
• 9302 (revolvers and pistols)
• 9305.10.20 (parts and accessories for revolvers and pistols)
• 9401.69 (seats with wood frames)
• 9504.20 (articles and accessories for billiards)
• 9703 (sculptures)
Future Changes
USDA states that there will be no further additions to phases III or IV and that it intends to provide at least six months’ notice to persons and industries affected by any future changes to facilitate compliance with the new requirements.
In addition, USDA is seeking comments on the following HTSUS headings currently under consideration for subsequent enforcement phases that would be scheduled to begin on or after Sept. 1, 2010.
• 4405 (wood wool [excelsior])
• 4410 (particle board)
• 4411 (fiberboard of wood)
• 4412 (plywood, including 4412.99.06 and 4412.99.57)
• 4413 (densified wood)
• 4415 (packing cases, boxes, crates, drums)
• 4416 (casks, barrels, vats, tubs)
• 4701 (mechanical wood pulp)
• 4702 (chemical wood pulp, dissolving)
• 4703 (chemical wood pulp, sulfate)
• 4704 (chemical wood pulp, sulfite)
• 4705 (combination mechanical and chemical)
• 4801 (newsprint)
• 4802 (uncoated writing paper)
• 4803 (toilet or facial tissue stock)
• 4804 (uncoated kraft paper)
• 4805 (other uncoated paper and board)
• 4806 (vegetable parchment, etc.)
• 4807 (composite paper and board)
• 4808 (corrugated paper and board)
• 4809 (carbon paper)
• 4810 (coated paper and board)
• 4811 (paper coated, etc.)
• 6601 (umbrellas)
• 6603 (umbrella parts)
• 9205 (wind musical instruments)
• 9401 (seats)
• 9403.30 (wooden office furniture)
• 9403.40 (wooden kitchen furniture)
• 9403.50 (wooden bedroom furniture)
• 9403.60 (other wooden furniture)
• 9403.81 (furniture of cane, osier, bamboo, rattan or similar materials)
• 9504 (articles for arcade, table or parlor games)
Finally, USDA continues to consider the applicability of the import declaration requirement to other products not included in the revised phase-in schedule or listed above and seeks comment on how this requirement should be enforced as to additional goods classified under the following HTSUS chapters.
• chapter 48 (paper and articles of)
• chapter 82 (tools, implements)
• chapter 89 (ships, boats and floating structures)
• chapter 93 (arms and ammunition)
• chapter 94 (furniture, etc.)
• chapter 95 (toys, games and sporting equipment)
• chapter 96 (brooms, pencils, buttons)
Enforcement Delayed for Composite, Recycled, Reused Materials
Several commenters contended that identifying composite and recycled or reused materials (e.g., medium density fiberboard, particleboard and scrap wood) to the genus and/or species level would be difficult and in some cases impossible. In response to those comments, USDA has decided to further delay enforcement of the declaration requirement for these products so that it would begin no earlier than Sept. 1, 2010.
Use of Spp. to Identify Species of Imported Plants
Several commenters proposed that USDA allow for importers to provide only the genus name in circumstances where the individual species would be difficult to identify. USDA has responded by stating that in circumstances where the list of possible species in a particular product includes all species in a genus, it is acceptable to use “spp.” following the genus name on the import declaration form. However, when reference to all possible species in a genus is not accurate (based on geographical or other factors), importers are expected to provide either the single genus and species or a specific list on the import declaration form of all possible species that may have been used to produce the plant product.
Federal Register Reference: Implementation of Revised Lacey Act Provisions, September 2, 2009 available here (PDF).
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
CP Notice: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Lacey Act Blanket Declaration Pilot Program
(CP Rail)
This is further to our Customer Bulletin of March 24, 2009, concerning USDA APHIS implementation of the Revised Lacey Act Provisions.
This update will be of particular interest to Shippers and U.S. Importers who:
a) Ship / Import goods to the U.S. subject to Lacey Act provisions b) Participate in U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (USCBP)
Automated Line Release (ALR) program The USDA is introducing a blanket Declaration Pilot Program for shippers using the USCBP ALR program.
The Pilot Program allows importers and shippers currently using ALR codes to continue doing so provided they participate in the Pilot. Those who do not participate in the program will have their ALR C4 code inactivated effective June 1, 2009.
The Lacey Act Blanket Declaration Pilot Program is open only to those entities currently participating in one of Customs and Border Protection's expedited border release programs, Automated Line Release (ALR) or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity (BRASS). This pilot program will test the feasibility of collecting the information required through the use of a periodic "blanket" declaration, with subsequent reconciliation reports.
Eligible importers who wish to participate in the pilot must send a letter to APHIS (to the address provided below) specifically requesting participation in the program. The letter must contain the importer's C4 code and the name and telephone number of an individual who will serve as a point of contact should APHIS require additional information.
The blanket declaration must be submitted in paper form and mailed to:
Lacey Act c/o U.S. Department of Agriculture
Box 10 4700 River Road • Riverdale, MD 20737
Canadian Pacific strongly encourages shippers and U.S. importers to review the details of this program. Participation will protect your Automated Line Release reporting privileges and help facilitate the cross border fluidity of your Lacey Act eligible goods.
Details on the USDA APHIS Program are available at the USDA website. Specific questions should be directed to your customs broker or the USDA APHIS.
This is further to our Customer Bulletin of March 24, 2009, concerning USDA APHIS implementation of the Revised Lacey Act Provisions.
This update will be of particular interest to Shippers and U.S. Importers who:
a) Ship / Import goods to the U.S. subject to Lacey Act provisions b) Participate in U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (USCBP)
Automated Line Release (ALR) program The USDA is introducing a blanket Declaration Pilot Program for shippers using the USCBP ALR program.
The Pilot Program allows importers and shippers currently using ALR codes to continue doing so provided they participate in the Pilot. Those who do not participate in the program will have their ALR C4 code inactivated effective June 1, 2009.
The Lacey Act Blanket Declaration Pilot Program is open only to those entities currently participating in one of Customs and Border Protection's expedited border release programs, Automated Line Release (ALR) or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity (BRASS). This pilot program will test the feasibility of collecting the information required through the use of a periodic "blanket" declaration, with subsequent reconciliation reports.
Eligible importers who wish to participate in the pilot must send a letter to APHIS (to the address provided below) specifically requesting participation in the program. The letter must contain the importer's C4 code and the name and telephone number of an individual who will serve as a point of contact should APHIS require additional information.
The blanket declaration must be submitted in paper form and mailed to:
Lacey Act c/o U.S. Department of Agriculture
Box 10 4700 River Road • Riverdale, MD 20737
Canadian Pacific strongly encourages shippers and U.S. importers to review the details of this program. Participation will protect your Automated Line Release reporting privileges and help facilitate the cross border fluidity of your Lacey Act eligible goods.
Details on the USDA APHIS Program are available at the USDA website. Specific questions should be directed to your customs broker or the USDA APHIS.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Blanket Declaration Pilot Program for Automated Line Release or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity Programs [Lacey Act]
(CBP)
The government will begin a pilot program on May 1, 2009, initially open to those entities currently participating in one of CBP’s expedited border release programs, Automated Line Release (ALR) or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity (BRASS), and whose products require a Lacey Act declaration during the current phase of enforcement. This pilot program will test the feasibility of collecting the information required through the use of a periodic “blanket” declaration, with subsequent reconciliation reports. Entities currently participating in ALR or BRASS will be able to choose whether to remain active in the expedited program and participate in this pilot program or be removed from the expedited program.
If the participant’s choice is to be removed from the expedited program, no further action is necessary. Effective June 1, 2009, that participant’s C4 code will be inactivated. If the participant’s choice is to remain on the expedited release program and participate in the blanket declaration pilot program, the participant must notify APHIS and CBP that they wish to remain in ALR or BRASS and agree to provide information as required by the pilot program. We currently plan to implement the pilot program using the following two step process.
Step 1
The participant must file with APHIS an advance estimated PPQ 505. Initially, and for purposes of this pilot, the estimated PPQ 505 must be filed on a monthly basis. It must include all data elements required on the PPQ 505. Genus, species, value, and quantity fields should be an estimation of the participant’s planned imports during the next calendar month. The estimated PPQ 505 must be filed on or before the 15th day of the month prior to the reporting period. The deadline for the first estimated PPQ 505 is May 15, 2009, covering expedited release shipments planned for the month of June 2009.
Step 2
The participant must file with APHIS reconciliation within 15 days after the end of the month. This reconciliation will be submitted in a format to be established and made available on the APHIS website. The reconciliation will provide information on the actual shipments made during the previous month. The deadline for the first reconciliation is July 15, 2009.
Please see related guidance at the CBP website.
The government will begin a pilot program on May 1, 2009, initially open to those entities currently participating in one of CBP’s expedited border release programs, Automated Line Release (ALR) or Border Release Advance Screening and Selectivity (BRASS), and whose products require a Lacey Act declaration during the current phase of enforcement. This pilot program will test the feasibility of collecting the information required through the use of a periodic “blanket” declaration, with subsequent reconciliation reports. Entities currently participating in ALR or BRASS will be able to choose whether to remain active in the expedited program and participate in this pilot program or be removed from the expedited program.
If the participant’s choice is to be removed from the expedited program, no further action is necessary. Effective June 1, 2009, that participant’s C4 code will be inactivated. If the participant’s choice is to remain on the expedited release program and participate in the blanket declaration pilot program, the participant must notify APHIS and CBP that they wish to remain in ALR or BRASS and agree to provide information as required by the pilot program. We currently plan to implement the pilot program using the following two step process.
Step 1
The participant must file with APHIS an advance estimated PPQ 505. Initially, and for purposes of this pilot, the estimated PPQ 505 must be filed on a monthly basis. It must include all data elements required on the PPQ 505. Genus, species, value, and quantity fields should be an estimation of the participant’s planned imports during the next calendar month. The estimated PPQ 505 must be filed on or before the 15th day of the month prior to the reporting period. The deadline for the first estimated PPQ 505 is May 15, 2009, covering expedited release shipments planned for the month of June 2009.
Step 2
The participant must file with APHIS reconciliation within 15 days after the end of the month. This reconciliation will be submitted in a format to be established and made available on the APHIS website. The reconciliation will provide information on the actual shipments made during the previous month. The deadline for the first reconciliation is July 15, 2009.
Please see related guidance at the CBP website.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
CN Message: Lacey Act Requirements
(CN via CSCB)
Reminder to all customers shipping plants and plant products to the U.S.: As previously communicated, the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced an amendment to the Lacey Act, part of the 2008 Farm Bill (also known as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008), the enforcement of which will be phased in beginning April 2009.
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 in violation of the laws of a U.S. state or any foreign law that protects plants.
• make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any plant.• import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration. The declaration must contain, among other things, the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from where the plant was harvested. For paper and paperboard products containing recycled content, the declaration also must include the average percent of recycled content without regard for species or country of harvest.
Please ensure you review Lacey Act requirements with your U.S. customs broker. It is your customs broker’s role to ensure all information pertinent to the Lacey Act declaration is provided to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the time that release entry is filed.
Commodities affected by the Lacey Act requirements are broad in scope and include any level of plant product that may be part of the commodity or manufactured into the components of the commodity with no minimum amount exempt.
Preventable customs holds or set-outs at the border due to non-regulatory compliance will be subject to applicable CN tariff items.
The notice is available on the CN website (PDF).
Reminder to all customers shipping plants and plant products to the U.S.: As previously communicated, the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced an amendment to the Lacey Act, part of the 2008 Farm Bill (also known as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008), the enforcement of which will be phased in beginning April 2009.
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 in violation of the laws of a U.S. state or any foreign law that protects plants.
• make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any plant.• import certain plants and plant products without an import declaration. The declaration must contain, among other things, the scientific name of the plant, value of the importation, quantity of the plant, and name of the country from where the plant was harvested. For paper and paperboard products containing recycled content, the declaration also must include the average percent of recycled content without regard for species or country of harvest.
Please ensure you review Lacey Act requirements with your U.S. customs broker. It is your customs broker’s role to ensure all information pertinent to the Lacey Act declaration is provided to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the time that release entry is filed.
Commodities affected by the Lacey Act requirements are broad in scope and include any level of plant product that may be part of the commodity or manufactured into the components of the commodity with no minimum amount exempt.
Preventable customs holds or set-outs at the border due to non-regulatory compliance will be subject to applicable CN tariff items.
The notice is available on the CN website (PDF).
Friday, February 6, 2009
Update Regarding Implementation of Lacey Act Amendments
(Canadian Embassy via IE Canada)
A notice was published in the Federal Register earlier this week with the revised implementation plan for the Lacey Act amendments. A copy of the notice is available here.
Below is a further update provided by the Canadian Embassy regarding a recent meeting with the United States Trade Representative (USTR) with respect to the revised Lacey Act implementation plan. We were asked not to distribute this update until the revised implementation plan was published.
The information provided in this update should be verified against the Federal Register notice.
Canadian Embassy Update
On Thursday, January 15, Kevin Thompson, Counsellor (Trade Policy), Canadian Embassy and a representative from the European Commission Mission in Washington (EC) met with USTR to discuss the respective comments filed by Canada and the EC to the APHIS Lacey Act Implementation Plan Federal Register Notice of October 8. We wanted to use the opportunity to underscore key points in our respective submissions and to seek additional information on the next steps in the Administration’s implementation plan for the import declaration. The following are the key points coming out the meeting:
1. APHIS anticipates issuing a revised implementation plan and schedule early next week. There will be substantial changes to the schedule as it appeared in the October 8 Notice. The USG has revised its approach to identify a positive list of products for which the declaration will be required (as opposed to an all encompassing requirement, subject to exceptions).
From what we were able to gleam, the implementation plan will be broken into three six month phases:
Phase I – April to September 30, 2009, covering
• 4401, 4403, 4404, 4407, 4408, 4409, 4417, 4418
Phase II – October 1 to March 31, 2010, covering
• 4402, 4405, 4410 to 4416, 4419, 4420 and 4701 to 4705
Phase III – April 1 to September 30, 2010
• 4421, 4801 to 4811 and 940169, 9403.03 to 9403.07
You will note the following:
• The 3 phases only apply to wood and wood products. Chapter 44 is divided into Phase I and II.
• Chapter 6 has been dropped off the implementation schedule (will not apply to horticultural plants or Christmas Trees)
• the implementation plan takes the USG to the end of the 2 year period before which a review can taken place under the legislation. Thus, product categories not on this list will likely not be subject to import declaration before the completion of the review. USG intends to conduct studies of whether to include other products beyond what is identified in this revised schedule.
• Chap 4706 and 4707 will not be included because this encompasses recovered (waste and scrap) material. Intention is not to collect information if the answer is already known.
• Import Declaration will only be required for the good that is being imported and that is identified on the implementation schedule (for instance, it will not be required for any manuals or labels that accompany the good being imported).
2. Phase I of the schedule is fixed. However, USG will be eliciting comments on Phases II and III. The USG encourages comments on an ongoing basis describing the process as very fluid.
3. In terms of the electronic entry system, CBP is currently working on modifications to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). Thus, in order to avoid duplication of information, the intention is not to have a completely separate system, but to integrate additional information requirements into existing ACS environment.
4. Ideally, USG would like to have electronic system operational for several weeks (possibly a month) before the declaration requirement becomes enforceable, to enable trade to practice. That’s the plan, although it may not be realistic.
5. Paper Declarations – no declarations have been filed to date. Apparently, APHIS has set up a mailbox for imports to send voluntary declarations.
6. Time of submission – the rules for when the import declaration will have to be submitted will likely be the same as existing rules for other types of customs documentation (time of entry, time of release)
7. Import declaration information will likely be governed by same confidentiality requirements as other types of customs documentation. However, it is anticipated that some form of aggregate information will be publicly released (ENGOs are pushing for this)
8. Database of internationally recognized scientific names. Currently, CBP is contemplating a drop-down menu for specifying scientific names.
9. Use of commercial short-form nomenclature (e.g. SPF). Unlikely at this stage. Statute requires genus and species.
10. Blanket or Simplified Declaration – Discussions are underway regarding the use of a simplified declaration such as that suggested by Canada. However, it appears unlikely that they will be able to implement by April 1. USTR would welcome any additional suggestions we would have to operationalize the simplified declaration.
11. Wood Packaging – Chapter 4415. USTR encourages us to raise this issue again in order to highlight difficulties.
A notice was published in the Federal Register earlier this week with the revised implementation plan for the Lacey Act amendments. A copy of the notice is available here.
Below is a further update provided by the Canadian Embassy regarding a recent meeting with the United States Trade Representative (USTR) with respect to the revised Lacey Act implementation plan. We were asked not to distribute this update until the revised implementation plan was published.
The information provided in this update should be verified against the Federal Register notice.
Canadian Embassy Update
On Thursday, January 15, Kevin Thompson, Counsellor (Trade Policy), Canadian Embassy and a representative from the European Commission Mission in Washington (EC) met with USTR to discuss the respective comments filed by Canada and the EC to the APHIS Lacey Act Implementation Plan Federal Register Notice of October 8. We wanted to use the opportunity to underscore key points in our respective submissions and to seek additional information on the next steps in the Administration’s implementation plan for the import declaration. The following are the key points coming out the meeting:
1. APHIS anticipates issuing a revised implementation plan and schedule early next week. There will be substantial changes to the schedule as it appeared in the October 8 Notice. The USG has revised its approach to identify a positive list of products for which the declaration will be required (as opposed to an all encompassing requirement, subject to exceptions).
From what we were able to gleam, the implementation plan will be broken into three six month phases:
Phase I – April to September 30, 2009, covering
• 4401, 4403, 4404, 4407, 4408, 4409, 4417, 4418
Phase II – October 1 to March 31, 2010, covering
• 4402, 4405, 4410 to 4416, 4419, 4420 and 4701 to 4705
Phase III – April 1 to September 30, 2010
• 4421, 4801 to 4811 and 940169, 9403.03 to 9403.07
You will note the following:
• The 3 phases only apply to wood and wood products. Chapter 44 is divided into Phase I and II.
• Chapter 6 has been dropped off the implementation schedule (will not apply to horticultural plants or Christmas Trees)
• the implementation plan takes the USG to the end of the 2 year period before which a review can taken place under the legislation. Thus, product categories not on this list will likely not be subject to import declaration before the completion of the review. USG intends to conduct studies of whether to include other products beyond what is identified in this revised schedule.
• Chap 4706 and 4707 will not be included because this encompasses recovered (waste and scrap) material. Intention is not to collect information if the answer is already known.
• Import Declaration will only be required for the good that is being imported and that is identified on the implementation schedule (for instance, it will not be required for any manuals or labels that accompany the good being imported).
2. Phase I of the schedule is fixed. However, USG will be eliciting comments on Phases II and III. The USG encourages comments on an ongoing basis describing the process as very fluid.
3. In terms of the electronic entry system, CBP is currently working on modifications to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). Thus, in order to avoid duplication of information, the intention is not to have a completely separate system, but to integrate additional information requirements into existing ACS environment.
4. Ideally, USG would like to have electronic system operational for several weeks (possibly a month) before the declaration requirement becomes enforceable, to enable trade to practice. That’s the plan, although it may not be realistic.
5. Paper Declarations – no declarations have been filed to date. Apparently, APHIS has set up a mailbox for imports to send voluntary declarations.
6. Time of submission – the rules for when the import declaration will have to be submitted will likely be the same as existing rules for other types of customs documentation (time of entry, time of release)
7. Import declaration information will likely be governed by same confidentiality requirements as other types of customs documentation. However, it is anticipated that some form of aggregate information will be publicly released (ENGOs are pushing for this)
8. Database of internationally recognized scientific names. Currently, CBP is contemplating a drop-down menu for specifying scientific names.
9. Use of commercial short-form nomenclature (e.g. SPF). Unlikely at this stage. Statute requires genus and species.
10. Blanket or Simplified Declaration – Discussions are underway regarding the use of a simplified declaration such as that suggested by Canada. However, it appears unlikely that they will be able to implement by April 1. USTR would welcome any additional suggestions we would have to operationalize the simplified declaration.
11. Wood Packaging – Chapter 4415. USTR encourages us to raise this issue again in order to highlight difficulties.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Canadian Produce Inspections Going Automated
(The Packer via CSCB)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection plan to establish standard inspection protocol for fresh produce crossing the entire northern border with Canada beginning February 1, but growers-shippers in Canada don’t think it will affect their exports.
“We don’t anticipate any delays,” said Melanie Richer, senior manager of marketing and communications for the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Ottawa, Ontario. “The change is to the risk management selection, which will now be computer-generated rather than manually by an officer.
“Before, officers at local ports would determine what was inspected,” said Erlinda Byrd, director of public affairs with the CBP. “It differed port to port. Now, we’re operating with more consistency port to port.”
The action results from a March 2007 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which lifted the inspection exemption for Canadian-grown fruits and vegetables. In 1991, APHIS began charging fees for commercial vessels, trucks, loaded railcars and international air passengers from all countries except Canada….
U.S. Customs and Border Protection plan to establish standard inspection protocol for fresh produce crossing the entire northern border with Canada beginning February 1, but growers-shippers in Canada don’t think it will affect their exports.
“We don’t anticipate any delays,” said Melanie Richer, senior manager of marketing and communications for the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Ottawa, Ontario. “The change is to the risk management selection, which will now be computer-generated rather than manually by an officer.
“Before, officers at local ports would determine what was inspected,” said Erlinda Byrd, director of public affairs with the CBP. “It differed port to port. Now, we’re operating with more consistency port to port.”
The action results from a March 2007 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which lifted the inspection exemption for Canadian-grown fruits and vegetables. In 1991, APHIS began charging fees for commercial vessels, trucks, loaded railcars and international air passengers from all countries except Canada….
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Update Regarding Implementation of the Lacey Act Amendments
(The Canadian Embassy — DFAIT)
1. Estimated Administrative Burden
On January 5, 2009, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register requesting an extension of approval to collect information under the Lacey Act.
Under the US Paperwork Reduction Act, an executive agency must seek approval for any “information collection” (the objective is to minimize the amount of unnecessary paperwork imposed by the government). APHIS had previously sought and received emergency approval to collect information on its paper import declaration issued in early December 2008. Now it is seeking an extension of that approval for all purposes.
As a part of the extension request, APHIS is required to estimate the amount of administrative burden resulting from the requirement to file an import declaration, the number of anticipated respondents per year, and the average number of responses per respondent. In its notice, APHIS is seeking comments to assist them in evaluating the following:(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
We have clarified that the request for an extension applies to the import declaration requirement, writ large, and not/not only to the paper version of the import declaration. The estimates have been based in part on the presence of an electronic means of submitting this information. Comments are due on March 6, 2009.
2. Revise Implementation Plan Notice
We have learned that APHIS will be publishing shortly (January 16 expected date) another notice in the Federal Register setting out a revised implementation plan. This plan apparently takes into consideration comments received on APHIS’s initial Notice of October 8. Details of the plan are sketchy at this moment. However, we have been told the implementation phase-ins will now be 6 months apart (as opposed to 3 months), that the initially contemplated phase-in period will be 18 months (instead of 6 months), Chapter 6 has been dropped from initial stages of the implementation plan (the only products affected after exclusions were Christmas trees, which were considered low risk) and that the products will be identified to below the HTSUS Chapter level (to 4 and in some cases 6 digits).
Moreover, we understand that APHIS has given serious consideration to the “blanket” or accumulated declaration alternative and the use of common commerical terms, such as SFP and hem-fir, although these will not be addressed in the plan. The plan apparently is still to use the Fish and Wildlife Service legacy database for the collection of information. We have no information about integration of this system with existing CBP portals.
3. “Common Cultivar” and “Common Food Crop” Definitions
We have been advised that APHIS will not/not publish its definitions for “common cultivar” and “common food crop” for at least a few months, given that the definitions are not relevant to product categories implicated in the initial phases of the implementation plan, further reinforcing our information that Chapter 6 will be dropped from initial phases.
1. Estimated Administrative Burden
On January 5, 2009, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register requesting an extension of approval to collect information under the Lacey Act.
Under the US Paperwork Reduction Act, an executive agency must seek approval for any “information collection” (the objective is to minimize the amount of unnecessary paperwork imposed by the government). APHIS had previously sought and received emergency approval to collect information on its paper import declaration issued in early December 2008. Now it is seeking an extension of that approval for all purposes.
As a part of the extension request, APHIS is required to estimate the amount of administrative burden resulting from the requirement to file an import declaration, the number of anticipated respondents per year, and the average number of responses per respondent. In its notice, APHIS is seeking comments to assist them in evaluating the following:(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
We have clarified that the request for an extension applies to the import declaration requirement, writ large, and not/not only to the paper version of the import declaration. The estimates have been based in part on the presence of an electronic means of submitting this information. Comments are due on March 6, 2009.
2. Revise Implementation Plan Notice
We have learned that APHIS will be publishing shortly (January 16 expected date) another notice in the Federal Register setting out a revised implementation plan. This plan apparently takes into consideration comments received on APHIS’s initial Notice of October 8. Details of the plan are sketchy at this moment. However, we have been told the implementation phase-ins will now be 6 months apart (as opposed to 3 months), that the initially contemplated phase-in period will be 18 months (instead of 6 months), Chapter 6 has been dropped from initial stages of the implementation plan (the only products affected after exclusions were Christmas trees, which were considered low risk) and that the products will be identified to below the HTSUS Chapter level (to 4 and in some cases 6 digits).
Moreover, we understand that APHIS has given serious consideration to the “blanket” or accumulated declaration alternative and the use of common commerical terms, such as SFP and hem-fir, although these will not be addressed in the plan. The plan apparently is still to use the Fish and Wildlife Service legacy database for the collection of information. We have no information about integration of this system with existing CBP portals.
3. “Common Cultivar” and “Common Food Crop” Definitions
We have been advised that APHIS will not/not publish its definitions for “common cultivar” and “common food crop” for at least a few months, given that the definitions are not relevant to product categories implicated in the initial phases of the implementation plan, further reinforcing our information that Chapter 6 will be dropped from initial phases.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Lacey Act Import Declaration Form
(IE Canada)
The Plant and Plant Product Declaration Form (PPQ Form 505), the import declaration form that has been developed for purposes of implementation of the Lacey Act Amendments, is available for use and has been posted on the APHIS website here (PDF).
As of December 15, 2008, this paper declaration form is being accepted on a voluntary basis. Filing of the declaration form will not become mandatory until April 2009, when Customs and Border Protection hopes to have an electronic process in place for filing the forms.
As the paper form will serve as the basis for the electronic declaration, IE Canada wants to receive comments that members may have regarding the form. Send your comments to Amesika Baeta at abaeta@iecanada.com.
The Plant and Plant Product Declaration Form (PPQ Form 505), the import declaration form that has been developed for purposes of implementation of the Lacey Act Amendments, is available for use and has been posted on the APHIS website here (PDF).
As of December 15, 2008, this paper declaration form is being accepted on a voluntary basis. Filing of the declaration form will not become mandatory until April 2009, when Customs and Border Protection hopes to have an electronic process in place for filing the forms.
As the paper form will serve as the basis for the electronic declaration, IE Canada wants to receive comments that members may have regarding the form. Send your comments to Amesika Baeta at abaeta@iecanada.com.
CBP Continues Inspection of Canadian Firewood; New Commercial/Personal Certificate Required
(CBP)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection continually inspects loads of firewood coming from Canada into the United States to prevent the entry of unwanted guests – the six-legged variety.
Despite CBP’s ongoing inspection efforts, the threat of invasive species hitchhiking in wood shipments across the US-Canadian border remains. Effective December 15, for commercial shipments and January 1, 2009 for noncommercial or personal shipments, hardwood firewood must be accompanied by either a treatment certificate or a treatment label certifying that the wood was heat treated to a core temperature of 71.1º Celsius for 75 minutes. The requirement can be found in Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, 319.40-7(c). Without this proof of treatment, travelers will be turned back to Canada to dispose of their hardwood firewood. Hardwoods generally include: oak, beech, ash, maple, cherry and certain other varieties.
Softwood firewood, such as pine, may enter without treatment but it must be free of pests. It must also have written certification, a requirement which varies according to the type of wood and origin. If inspection at the border reveals plant pests, or if certification is lacking, travelers may have to take the firewood back to Canada. Read the complete press release here.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection continually inspects loads of firewood coming from Canada into the United States to prevent the entry of unwanted guests – the six-legged variety.
Despite CBP’s ongoing inspection efforts, the threat of invasive species hitchhiking in wood shipments across the US-Canadian border remains. Effective December 15, for commercial shipments and January 1, 2009 for noncommercial or personal shipments, hardwood firewood must be accompanied by either a treatment certificate or a treatment label certifying that the wood was heat treated to a core temperature of 71.1º Celsius for 75 minutes. The requirement can be found in Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, 319.40-7(c). Without this proof of treatment, travelers will be turned back to Canada to dispose of their hardwood firewood. Hardwoods generally include: oak, beech, ash, maple, cherry and certain other varieties.
Softwood firewood, such as pine, may enter without treatment but it must be free of pests. It must also have written certification, a requirement which varies according to the type of wood and origin. If inspection at the border reveals plant pests, or if certification is lacking, travelers may have to take the firewood back to Canada. Read the complete press release here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
