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. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0349) 

■ 5. Section 357.4 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 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 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 357 

[Docket No. APHIS–2018–0017] 

RIN 0579–AE36 

Lacey Act Implementation Plan: 

Composite Plant Materials 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Food, Conservation and 

Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey 

Act to provide, among other things, that 

importers submit a declaration at the 

time of importation for certain plants 

and plant products. The declaration 

requirements of the Lacey Act became 

effective on December 15, 2008, and 

enforcement of those requirements is 

being phased in. We are soliciting 

public comment on regulatory options 

that could address certain issues that 

have arisen with the implementation of 

the declaration requirement 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 

http://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 http://

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: 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31703 

1To view the advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

APHIS-2010-0129. 

purchase in interstate or foreign 

commerce any plant, with some limited 

exceptions, taken, possessed, 

transported, or sold in violation of any 

law of the United States or an Indian 

tribe, 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, makes it unlawful, as 

of 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, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Serviced 

(APHIS) 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. 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. 

The first regulatory option we 

discussed in the 2011 ANPR was the 

possibility of establishing a limited 

exception to the plant declaration 

requirement for imported products 

containing minimal amounts of plant 

material. The Lacey Act does not 

explicitly address whether the 

declaration requirement is intended to 

apply to such products, 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. In a separate document 

published today in the Federal Register, 

we are proposing to establish an 

exception to the Lacey Act plant 

declaration requirement for such 

products. 

This notice addresses the second 

regulatory option that was discussed in 

the 2011 ANPR that related to a separate 

de minimis exception that related to 

composite plant products. This 

exception would cover composite plant 

materials that are not otherwise 

considered de minimis quantities under 

the first regulatory option. Many 

composite plant materials are currently 

manufactured in a manner that makes 

identification of the genus, species, and 

country of harvest of all of the plant 

content difficult and perhaps expensive. 

While provisions in the Lacey Act’s 

declaration requirement address how to 

complete a declaration in situations in 

which the species or country of harvest 

of plant material used in an imported 

product varies (16 U.S.C. 3372(f)(2)(A) 

and (B)), these provisions may not 

relieve the difficulties and expense 

faced by importers of some composite 

plant materials. In the 2011 ANPR, we 

solicited comments on defining the term 

composite plant materials and on two 

possible approaches to incorporating 

such a definition into a separate de 

minimis exception from the declaration 

requirement specifically for such 

composite plant materials. 

Specifically, we invited comment on 

the possibility of defining composite 

plant materials as plant products and 

plant-based components of products 

where the original plant material is 

mechanically or chemically broken 

down and subsequently re-composed or 

used as an extract in a manufacturing 

process. Such a definition would need 

to be broad enough to include various 

complex composite materials (e.g., pulp, 

paper, paperboard, medium density 

fiberboard, high density fiberboard, and 

particleboard), and also need to include 

exceptions for species listed in an 

appendix to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species; 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. 

Of the 37 commenters on the ANPR, 

16 specifically addressed the potential 

approaches for composite plant 

materials. Most of those commenters 

supported defining the term composite 

plant materials because such a 

definition would provide additional 

guidance to importers. Several 

commenters requested that the 

definition be written in a way to 

exclude certain products, such as plantderived perfume components and 

seaweed products. One commenter 

expressed concern that, under the 

definition we suggested in the ANPR, 

any wood product other than a log or 

piece of sawn timber that has not been 

subsequently attached somehow to 

other wood material could be defined as 

composite. Another commenter opposed 

the definition as contrary to the spirit 

and letter of the Lacey Act but did not 

address any specific aspects of the 

definition. 

We also invited comments on two 

possible approaches to incorporating 

such a definition into a de minimis 

exception from the declaration 

requirement for composite plant 

materials. In the first approach, if the 

plant product being imported is 

composed in whole or in part of a 

composite plant material, importers 

would be exempted from identifying the 

genus, species, and country of harvest of 

up to a given percentage of the 

composite plant material content, 

measured on the basis of either weight 

or volume. 

In the second approach, where the 

plant product being imported is 

composed in whole or in part of a 

composite plant material, the 

declaration would have to contain the 

average percent composite plant 

content, measured on the basis of either 

weight or volume, without regard for the 

species or country of harvest of the 

plant, in addition to information as to 

genus, species, and country of harvest 

for any non-composite plant content. 

Many of the commenters preferred the 

second approach to incorporating the 

definition into a de minimis exception 

to the plant declaration as the easiest to 

implement and least burdensome on 

importers. However, two commenters 

opposed omitting species and harvest 

location from the declaration for 

composite plant materials because they 

believed that omission would 

permanently exclude those products 

from the declaration requirement and 

would therefore be contrary to the intent 

of the Lacey Act. One of these 

commenters stated that while small 

amounts of diverse plant material may 

enter production streams unknowingly, 

the bulk of wood fiber used to make 

fiberboard, medium-density fiberboard, 

high-density fiberboard, and similar 

materials is purposefully processed into 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31704 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

wood chips with the direct intent of 

producing a composite product. The 

commenter further stated that in order 

for this process to be economically 

feasible, the majority of the raw 

materials are sourced within close 

proximity of the mill or plant. The 

commenter stated that this practice 

greatly limits the number of species that 

could be included in the product. 

We have decided to publish another 

ANPR to solicit comments addressing 

the following questions: 

• Is the scope of the proposed 

definition for composite plant materials 

appropriate, and if not, how could it be 

revised? 

• What would be an appropriate 

threshold for a de minimis exception 

from the declaration requirement for 

composite plant materials under the 

first approach identified above? We 

especially invite comment on the 

feasibility of providing importers an 

exemption from identifying in a 

declaration the genus, species, and 

country of harvest for up to 5 percent of 

the composite plant material in a 

product being imported so long as it 

does not include material from plants of 

conservation concern that are listed in 

an appendix to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species; as an endangered or threatened 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973; or pursuant to any State 

law that provides for the conservation of 

species that are indigenous to the State 

and are threatened with extinction. We 

also invite comment on whether that 

percentage should be higher or lower, 

and why. Additional data on why 

commenters support either the 5 percent 

threshold or an alternative threshold 

would be useful for the rulemaking 

process. We note that where a paper or 

paperboard plant product includes 

recycled plant product the statute only 

requires that the importer identify an 

average percent of recycled content 

without regard for the species or 

country of harvest of a recycled product, 

in addition to the information otherwise 

required for the non-recycled plant 

content. 

• Would the second approach 

discussed above, in which the 

declaration would have to contain the 

average percent composite plant 

content, measured on the basis of either 

weight or volume (in addition to 

information as to genus, species, and 

country of harvest for any noncomposite plant content) be appropriate 

as a de minimis exception to the Lacey 

Act declaration requirement and 

consistent with the statute? Would such 

an approach affect U.S. manufacturers 

who export finished products to Europe 

and other market nations that may 

require their traders to authenticate the 

source of wood or wood products? 

• Would an alternative approach to 

either of those described above 

concerning the import declaration 

requirement be appropriate in the case 

of composite products, and why? 

• What specific activities would 

affected entities (including importers 

and their suppliers) need to engage in in 

order to identify the species and country 

of harvest of plants in composite plant 

materials and thereby comply with the 

declaration requirement for products 

containing such plant materials? 

• How would those specific activities 

be affected by various levels of a de 

minimis exception to the declaration 

requirement products containing 

composite plant materials? 

• In commenting on any of the 

approaches described above or 

proposing an alternative threshold, 

comments should take into 

consideration that a de minimis 

exception to a statutory requirement is 

being proposed, which means that the 

exception should be appropriately 

limited and consistent with the statute. 

This action 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. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d). 

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

July 2018. 

Greg Ibach, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14625 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0029] 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Water-Source Heat 

Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On June 22, 2018, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

published in the Federal Register a 

request for information (RFI) to consider 

whether to amend DOE’s test procedure 

for commercial water-source heat 

pumps (‘‘WSHPs’’). This notice 

announces an extension of the public 

comment period for submitting 

comments on the RFI or any other 

subject within the scope of the RFI. The 

comment period is extended to 

September 21, 2018. 

DATES: The comment period for the RFI 

published on June 22, 2018 (83 FR 

29048) is extended. Written comments 

and information are requested and will 

be accepted on or before September 21, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0029, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: to WSHP2017TP0029@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0029 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

Test Procedure RFI for Water-Source 

Heat Pumps, Docket No. EERE–2017– 

BT–TP–0029, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket

Browser?rpp=25&po=0&D=EERE-2017- 

BT-TP-0029. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS