Importers Praise APHIS Lacey Act de Minimis Proposal, Express Concerns Over Submission Deadline
Importers lauded the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s proposal to create a de minimis exemption from Lacey Act declaration requirements, but called for the agency to allow flexibility in how products may qualify, in recently submitted comments on the APHIS proposed rule. But commenters criticized a proposed requirement for declarations to be submitted within three days after importation, instead urging APHIS to harmonize the timeline with other agencies’ import requirements.
Setting a three-day deadline from importation “creates the potential for disruption in the entry process and an undue burden on commerce,” FedEx Express said. Instead, the declaration should be required at the time of entry as defined in the customs regulations, or alternatively 15 days after importation to correspond with CBP requirements for general order merchandise.
Other trade groups had different ideas for the deadline. The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America suggested 10 days after entry to align the timeline with CBP’s entry requirements. The American Association of Exporters and Importers and other trade groups, including the National Retail Federation and the International Wood Products Association, said importers need “a minimum of 90 days to file original import declarations and also need additional time to make administrative corrections on filed declarations (up to one-year post entry or as long as the entry remains open, just as importers are allowed to do with other information provided in an entry),” they said in their joint comments.
A proposed change to the definition of “importation” also caused some concern among importers. Its breadth would “result in a significant increase in the application of the Lacey Act declaration requirement,” AAEI and other trade groups said in their joint submission. It appears to repeal existing APHIS guidance that says declaration requirements don’t apply to personal shipments, transportation and exportation entries and some bonded warehouse entries, they said. The definition should be amended so it refers to merchandise formally entered into the customs territory of the U.S., they said.
APHIS should be flexible in how it administers the de minimis exemption, the Express Association of America said. The agency proposed a threshold of 5 percent of total weight and no more than 2.9 kg of content subject to declaration requirements (see 1807060013), below which a declaration would not be required for the overall product. But “this percentage is not part of the standard importing process and would have to be developed by each importer for the products they bring in,” EAA said. “One feasible approach might be for importers to register their standard products that meet these weight requirements with APHIS and in return APHIS would grant a blanket exception for that set of products,” it said.
APHIS should also be sure that it does not create any new burdens for industry with its concurrently proposed composite wood requirement. Currently, composite wood materials are an approved special use designation and detailed genus and species information does not have to be submitted on the declaration requirement. “APHIS now proposes to require genus and species identification for composite wood products, however it is unclear what additional benefit will be derived from such action. What is clear is that both US producers and foreign producers of composite wood products will face a significant increase in costs for implementing new tracking and compliance programs to meet this new regulatory burden,” the AAEI and other trade groups said in their joint comments.