Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29659 

* * * * * 

Miami-Dade 

Survey Area 

Florida: 

Miami-Dade 

Area of Application. Survey area plus: 

Florida: 

Broward 

Palm Beach 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–12066 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 356 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0086] 

RIN 0579–AD50 

Forfeiture Procedures Under the 

Endangered Species Act and the Lacey 

Act Amendments 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is one of the agencies 

that administers the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA), and the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981, as amended, that 

pertain to plants. We are proposing to 

update our regulations that set forth our 

forfeiture procedures with regard to 

plants or plant products seized under 

the authority of the ESA and the Lacey 

Act. The proposed changes would make 

our regulations conform to the 

requirements of the Civil Asset 

Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, increase 

the monetary threshold of those cases 

proceeding through judicial forfeiture, 

provide for the assessment of storage 

costs of seized property, and make the 

regulations easier to understand. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before July 22, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0086- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2007–0086, 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-2007-0086 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: Dr. 

John C. Veremis; National CITES 

Coordinator; PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road, Unit 52, Riverdale, MD 20737; 

(301) 851–2347. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), was passed to prevent the 

extinction of native and non-native 

animals and plants by providing 

measures to help alleviate the loss of 

species and their habitats. With certain 

exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities 

with these protected species unless 

authorized by a permit from the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES, 27 U.S.T. 1087) is implemented 

in the United States through the ESA. 

CITES is a multinational agreement that 

entered into force on July 1, 1975, to 

prevent species of wild animals and 

plants from becoming endangered or 

extinct because of international trade. 

The CITES treaty is currently signed by 

176 countries. It regulates international 

trade in specimens of wild animals and 

plants in order to protect against overexploitation. Regulations implementing 

CITES for both wildlife and plants have 

been promulgated by the Division of 

Management Authority located within 

the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. These regulations 

are found at 50 CFR parts 13, 17, and 

23. The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, as well as 

the Office of Law Enforcement of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the 

Department of Interior, enforces those 

regulations with regard to plant imports. 

Species regulated under CITES are 

listed in one of three appendices to 

CITES. Species listed in Appendix I are 

subject to the most restrictions and 

species listed in Appendix III are 

subject to the fewest. Depending upon 

the appendix in which the species is 

listed, its trade is controlled through the 

issuance of various permits or 

certificates by the exporting and/or 

importing countries’ management 

authorities. When a CITES-regulated 

species is imported into the United 

States, it must be accompanied by the 

required permit or certificate. If it is not, 

the commodity is subject to seizure by, 

and forfeiture to, the U.S. Government. 

APHIS, as part of its enforcement work, 

initiates, with the assistance of other 

agencies, seizures at U.S. ports of entry, 

of plants and plant products imported 

in violation of CITES. APHIS initiates 

approximately 100 seizures each year 

for CITES-regulated products imported 

without the proper CITES 

documentation. Wood, wood products, 

medicinal items, and live plants 

constitute the bulk of property that has 

been seized in the past. The seizures of 

these commodities are governed by the 

forfeiture regulations currently found in 

APHIS’ regulations in 7 CFR part 356, 

which are the subject of this proposed 

rule. 

The current procedures in part 356 

also apply to seizures by APHIS 

authorized by the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) (Lacey Act). The 

Lacey Act is the United States’ oldest 

wildlife protection statute. It was first 

enacted in 1900 and was significantly 

amended in 1981. The Lacey Act 

combats trafficking in ‘‘illegal’’ wildlife, 

fish and 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. The 

Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase in interstate or foreign 

commerce certain plants taken, 

possessed, transported or sold in 

violation of the laws of a U.S. State or 

any foreign law that protects plants. It 

also makes it unlawful to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire 

or purchase certain plants taken, 

possessed, transported or sold, in 

violation of the laws of the United 

States or an Indian tribe. The Lacey Act 

also makes it unlawful to make or 

submit any false record, account, or 

label for, or any false identification of, 

any plant that has been or is intended 

to be moved in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Additionally, certain plants 

and plant products must be 

accompanied at the time of importation 

with a declaration providing, in part, 

the scientific name of the plant and 

where the plant was harvested. The 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29660 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Lacey Act authorizes the seizure of 

plants and plant products that are 

traded contrary to the Lacey Act. The 

proposed forfeiture procedures 

described below would apply to these 

types of seizures when conducted by 

APHIS. 

Another statute bearing on our 

forfeiture regulations is the Civil Asset 

Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA, 

18 U.S.C. 983). CAFRA was enacted to 

provide a more just and uniform 

procedure for Federal civil forfeitures. 

Among other things, CAFRA enacted 

time requirements spanning from the 

point of seizure to the effective date of 

forfeiture. CAFRA also eliminated the 

requirement that a property owner post 

a bond in order to be able to file a claim. 

Because our forfeiture regulations in 

part 356 predate CAFRA, we are 

proposing to revise those regulations to 

bring them into conformity with CAFRA 

requirements. In addition, we are 

proposing to amend the requirements 

for determining the value of seized 

property, to increase the monetary 

threshold of those cases proceeding 

through judicial forfeiture, to provide 

for the assessment of storage costs of 

seized property, and to make the 

regulations easier to understand. A 

section-by-section analysis of the 

proposed changes follows. 

Definitions 

The existing regulations in part 356 

do not include a section in which key 

terms used in the regulatory text are 

defined. In proposed § 356.1, we would 

define the applicable terms used in the 

regulatory text of the proposed 

regulations. These proposed definitions 

would be in accordance with the way 

the terms are defined in our existing 

regulations. 

We would define the person and the 

program responsible for enforcing the 

proposed rule, namely the 

Administrator and Plant Protection and 

Quarantine. Specifically, we would 

define Administrator as the 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, or any other person 

authorized to act for the Administrator. 

This proposed definition is consistent 

with the definition of Administrator that 

we employ elsewhere in the regulations. 

We would define Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) as the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine program of 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

or any agency delegated to act in its 

place. 

We would define the property that 

could be seized under the proposed 

rule. Property would be defined as any 

plant, plant product, equipment or 

means of transportation seized under 

the authority of the ESA or the Lacey 

Act. 

We would define the two types of 

forfeiture actions that could occur under 

the proposed regulations. We would 

define administrative forfeiture as a 

forfeiture action initiated by the 

Administrator. A judicial forfeiture 

would be defined as a forfeiture action 

initiated in a U.S. District Court. 

We would define the components of 

notices of proposed forfeiture and 

notices of seizure. Specifically, we 

would define notice of proposed 

forfeiture as a document alerting 

someone with an ownership interest in 

property valued at less than $15,000 of 

PPQ’s initiation of an administrative 

forfeiture action. Notice of seizure 

would be defined as a document 

alerting an owner that PPQ has taken 

custody of certain property. The notice 

would set forth when and where the 

property was seized, a description of the 

property, the reason for seizure, and the 

determined value of the property. 

We would define the three written 

requests that may be filed to request the 

return of seized property, to request that 

the forfeiture cease or be mitigated, and 

to effectuate relinquishment of property. 

Claim would be defined as a written 

request to the Administrator for the 

return of property that is the subject of 

an administrative forfeiture action. The 

definition would further state that 

submittal of a claim in an administrative 

forfeiture action mandates that the 

matter proceed through judicial 

forfeiture. A petition for remission or 

mitigation of forfeiture would be 

defined as a written request to the 

Administrator that the proposed 

forfeiture not be completed, or in the 

alternative, be mitigated. Waiver of title 

would be defined as the divestiture of 

an owner’s right, title, and interest in 

the property to the United States. If a 

waiver is signed, the United States 

becomes the owner of the property and 

the signatory is relinquishing all right, 

title and interest in the property. 

Signing a waiver of title would 

eliminate the need for administrative or 

judicial forfeiture proceedings, since, 

upon signature, the property would 

become that of the United States. 

Scope of the Regulations 

Proposed § 356.2 would outline the 

scope of the regulations. Specifically, 

the section would state that the 

regulations set forth the procedures 

relating to the forfeiture of any property 

that is seized by APHIS under the 

authority of the ESA and the Lacey Act 

by the Administrator and that is in 

PPQ’s active or constructive custody. 

This proposed section is consistent with 

the corresponding section in the 

existing regulations. 

Determination of Property Value 

Current § 356.2, which pertains to 

appraisement of seized property, states 

that if the property may be lawfully sold 

in the United States, its value shall be 

determined by ascertaining the price at 

which the property or similar property 

in the ordinary course of trade is freely 

offered for sale at the time of 

appraisement, and at a principal market 

as close as possible to the place of 

appraisement. The section further states 

that if the property may not lawfully be 

sold in the United States, the value 

thereof shall be determined by other 

reasonable means. 

Under this proposed rule, § 356.3 

would provide for the manner in which 

the Administrator determines the value 

of seized property. To simplify and 

streamline our procedures, we are 

proposing that the value would be the 

amount shown on the import’s 

associated invoice. We understand that 

by using this amount, we would likely 

undervalue the seized commodity. We 

have taken this factor into account in 

determining when a forfeiture should 

proceed administratively versus 

judicially. Judicial forfeiture would 

apply to property of greater value, i.e., 

$15,000 or higher. In the uncommon 

event that an invoice is unavailable, or 

if the invoice is determined by the 

Administrator not to represent a 

reasonable value, the value of the 

property would be determined by 

ascertaining the price at which similar 

property is offered for sale at or as near 

as possible to the time and place of 

seizure. 

Notice Upon Seizure; Distribution of 

Forms 

Proposed § 356.4 concerns the notice 

of seizure and the distribution of forms 

upon seizure. Some of the requirements 

contained in this section are 

incorporated from the existing 

regulations, but we are also proposing 

amendments to conform to current 

practice or to comply with CAFRA. 

Proposed paragraph (a) states the 

purpose of a notice of seizure, when it 

is to be completed, and the elements to 

be included. A notice of seizure would 

be completed by PPQ when the property 

is seized and would alert the property 

owner of the seizure. The notice would 

include information on when and where 

the property was seized, a description of 

the property, the reason for seizure, and 

the property’s value. These provisions 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29661 

are incorporated from the existing 

regulations. 

Proposed paragraph (b) provides that 

the notice be posted at the port office of 

the seizing agency for 35 calendar days. 

The existing regulations also provide for 

public posting of the notice; however, 

we are proposing to increase the 

duration of the posting from 21 to 35 

days. If the property is valued at less 

than $15,000, administrative forfeiture 

proceedings would be commenced, and 

a notice of proposed forfeiture would be 

posted with the notice of seizure. Under 

the existing regulations, administrative 

forfeiture applies to property valued at 

under $10,000. Property valued at 

$10,000 or more is subject to judicial 

forfeiture. We are proposing to raise the 

threshold for judicial forfeiture to 

$15,000 in order to account for inflation 

and to allow for the most cost-effective 

use of the U.S. Attorney’s resources in 

pursuing judicial forfeiture cases. We 

welcome comment on raising the 

threshold for judicial forfeiture up to 

$500,000. 

Proposed paragraph (c) provides that 

if the owner of the property is present 

when property is seized for forfeiture, 

the owner would be given a copy of the 

notice of seizure; a form providing for 

a waiver of title; a form providing for 

the petition for remission or mitigation 

of forfeiture; and, if the property is 

valued at less than $15,000, a copy of 

the notice of proposed forfeiture and a 

form providing for the filing of a claim. 

This proposed paragraph would codify 

in the regulations procedures that are 

already being employed in the field. 

In the alternative, if the owner of the 

property is not present, proposed 

paragraph (d) would provide that all 

applicable notices and forms be sent by 

certified or registered mail, return 

receipt requested, to the owner and to 

any other persons having an interest in 

the property. The forms would be 

mailed not more than 60 calendar days 

after the date of seizure. The proposed 

60-day notice of seizure is incorporated 

from CAFRA. 

Waiver of Title 

Proposed § 356.5 provides for a 

waiver of title. Under the existing 

regulations, such a waiver, referred to as 

a waiver of forfeiture, occurs when an 

owner voluntarily decides not to 

challenge the forfeiture of his or her 

property and instead to divest the 

property to the United States. The 

owner must sign a statement indicating 

that he or she is waiving his or her 

rights to any procedures relating to the 

forfeiture. Under this proposed rule, we 

would continue to allow for the waiver 

of forfeiture proceedings. We would use 

the term waiver of title, however, which 

we view as more precise than waiver of 

forfeiture. Provided that the value of the 

property does not exceed $500,000, in 

which case judicial forfeiture would be 

required, the owner of the seized 

property may waive his or her title to 

the property by submitting a waiver of 

title form to the port office of the seizing 

agency or to the Administrator. Once 

the form has been submitted, all right, 

title, and interest in the property would 

be forfeited to the United States, thus 

eliminating the need for any further 

action by the Administrator with regard 

to the forfeiture. 

Judicial Forfeiture; Property Valued at 

$15,000 or Greater 

Proposed § 356.6 would elevate the 

current monetary threshold for a case to 

be referred to a U.S. Attorney’s Office 

for institution of judicial forfeiture in 

U.S. District Court. Currently, property 

having a retail value over $10,000 will 

proceed through judicial forfeiture. We 

propose that the value be increased to 

$15,000, as discussed above, in order to 

account for inflation and to allow for the 

most efficient use of the U.S. Attorney’s 

resources. Also, as discussed earlier, 

appraisement of the value of the 

property would be based upon the 

readily accessible invoice price, which 

presumably would be below retail 

value. We anticipate that more cases 

will fall below the $15,000 threshold 

and, consequently, be forfeited 

administratively. We welcome comment 

on raising the threshold for judicial 

forfeiture up to $500,000, which would 

likely result in even more cases being 

forfeited administratively. 

Administrative Forfeiture; Property 

Valued at Less Than $15,000 

Proposed § 356.7 sets forth the 

administrative forfeiture procedure for 

property valued at less than $15,000. 

Proposed paragraph (a) relates to the 

notice of proposed forfeiture, which 

alerts any interested party that PPQ is 

initiating an administrative forfeiture 

action. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) states 

that the notice of seizure referred to in 

§ 356.4 shall be accompanied by a 

notice of proposed forfeiture but also 

indicates that the two notices may be 

consolidated into one document. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) indicates 

that the notice would have to include 

information on when and where the 

property was seized, a description of the 

seized property, including its value, and 

the reason for seizure. The notice would 

indicate that interested parties would 

have the option to file a petition for 

remission or mitigation of forfeiture. 

The notice also would provide that 

unless a claim is filed, the property will 

be forfeited to the United States. Lastly, 

the notice would indicate the time 

period allowed for filing a claim. If a 

claim were to be filed, the 

administrative forfeiture would cease 

and, instead, the matter would be 

referred for judicial forfeiture. The 

proposed requirements pertaining to the 

notice are incorporated from the 

existing regulations. 

Proposed § 356.7(b) states that, in the 

absence of a claim, forfeiture would 

occur 36 calendar days after the owner 

was handed or mailed the notice of 

seizure and proposed forfeiture. In the 

event that the notice of seizure and 

proposed forfeiture was not received (as 

indicated by return of the notice sent by 

certified or registered mail), the 

property would be forfeited to the 

United States in 66 calendar days, 

which is 31 calendar days after the date 

the notice of seizure is no longer 

required to be posted. These proposed 

timeframes stem from the time 

requirements to file a claim, as enacted 

by CAFRA. Once property is forfeited to 

the United States, the owner would no 

longer have any right or title to, or 

interest in, the property. 

Proposed § 356.7(c)(1) states that 

although the administrative forfeiture is 

effective upon the conclusion of the 

time period specified in proposed 

paragraph (b) and that no other action 

would be required, PPQ nonetheless 

would complete a declaration of 

forfeiture. Proposed paragraphs (c)(2) 

and (c)(3) set forth the type of 

information that is to be included in the 

declaration and how (certified or 

registered mail) and to whom (the 

owner and any other persons known by 

the Administrator to have an interest in 

the property) the declaration is mailed. 

These proposed requirements closely 

parallel the ones pertaining to notices of 

seizure and forfeiture and are adapted 

from the existing regulations. 

Proposed § 356.7(d) addresses how a 

claim may be filed to contest the 

forfeiture of property valued at less than 

$15,000. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) 

states that a document would be 

considered to be a claim only when it 

is clearly labeled with the word 

‘‘Claim,’’ identifies the specific property 

being claimed, states the claimant’s 

interest in the property, and is made 

under oath and subject to penalty of 

perjury. These proposed requirements 

would conform to CAFRA’s description 

of what items shall be included in a 

claim. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would 

state that the claim must be filed with 

the Administrator via the National 

CITES Coordinator located in Riverdale, 

MD. The claim would be considered 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29662 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘filed’’ when it is received by the 

National CITES Coordinator. It would 

have to be filed within 35 calendar days 

after the notice of seizure had either 

been personally handed or mailed to the 

owner. If the owner did not receive the 

notice of seizure, then the claim may be 

filed within 65 calendar days of seizure, 

which is 30 calendar days after the date 

the notice of seizure is no longer 

required to be posted. These proposed 

timeframes are in compliance with 

CAFRA. Proposed paragraph (d)(3) 

states that if a claim is filed, the 

administrative forfeiture is terminated, 

and the matter will be referred to the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the district in 

which the property was seized for 

institution of judicial forfeiture in U.S. 

District Court. These procedures are 

incorporated from the existing 

regulations. To make the regulations 

compliant with CAFRA, however, the 

proposed paragraph would not include 

the existing requirement that a claimant 

post a bond in order to be eligible to 

contest a forfeiture. 

Petition for Remission or Mitigation of 

Forfeiture 

Proposed § 356.8 sets forth the 

procedures with regard to filing a 

petition for remission or mitigation of 

administrative forfeiture. The petition is 

a written request to the Administrator 

that the proposed forfeiture not be 

completed, or in the alternative, be 

mitigated. 

As in the corresponding section of the 

existing regulations, proposed 

paragraph (a) would provide that any 

person who has an interest in the 

property may file a petition for 

remission or mitigation of forfeiture. 

The proposed paragraph clarifies the 

procedures for submitting such a 

petition by providing an address. The 

petition is to be filed with the 

Administrator by submitting it to the 

National CITES Coordinator in 

Riverdale, MD. It is considered ‘‘filed’’ 

when it is received by the National 

CITES Coordinator. 

Proposed paragraph (b) describes the 

information required for a petition, 

namely that it be marked ‘‘Petition for 

Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture’’ 

and contain a description of the 

property, when and where it was seized, 

evidence of the petitioner’s interest in 

the property, and all facts and 

circumstances relied upon by the 

petitioners to justify remission or 

mitigation of forfeiture. These 

requirements are incorporated from the 

existing regulations. 

Proposed paragraph (c) states that the 

petition shall be signed by the petitioner 

or the petitioner’s attorney under oath 

and upon penalty of perjury. If the 

petitioner is a business, the petition 

shall be signed by a partner, officer, or 

the petitioner’s attorney under oath and 

upon penalty of perjury. These 

requirements are incorporated from the 

existing regulations. 

Proposed paragraph (d) provides that 

the Administrator would decide 

whether to grant relief. In making the 

decision, he or she would consider the 

petitioner’s submission and any other 

available information relating to the 

matter. The Administrator also is 

authorized to take testimony. This 

paragraph is also incorporated from the 

existing regulations. 

Proposed paragraph (e) states that if 

the Administrator finds that there are 

mitigating circumstances justifying 

remission or mitigation, the 

Administrator may remit or mitigate 

with terms and conditions as he or she 

deems reasonable and just. However, 

remission or mitigation will not be 

granted if such action would frustrate 

the purposes of the act under which 

authority the property had been seized. 

As an example, remission or mitigation 

typically will not be granted with 

respect to plants that are without 

documentation required by CITES. This 

paragraph is also incorporated from the 

existing regulations, albeit with some 

minor editorial changes. 

Proposed paragraphs (f) through (h) 

provide that the Administrator shall 

notify the petitioner in writing whether 

the petition was granted or denied, and 

the reason for the decision. The 

notification would be sent by registered 

or certified mail, return receipt 

requested. If the petition is denied fully 

or in part, the petitioner may file a 

supplemental petition within 14 

calendar days from the date the 

petitioner received the denial. The 

Administrator would notify the 

petitioner in writing as to whether the 

supplemental petition was granted or 

denied and would provide the reason 

for the decision. The Administrator’s 

decision would be discretionary and 

unreviewable. If a petition is received 

within 30 calendar days of the initial 

posting of a notice of seizure, the 

applicable property would not be 

forfeited until the Administrator makes 

his or her initial determination on the 

petition. These procedures do not differ 

substantively from the ones in the 

existing regulations, except for the 

insertion of specified time periods and 

for the statement clarifying the point 

that the Administrator’s decision is 

discretionary and unreviewable. 

Proposed paragraph (i) makes clear 

that submitting a petition for property 

valued at less than $15,000 does not 

trigger the matter’s being referred for 

judicial forfeiture. In order for the 

administrative forfeiture to be 

terminated and the matter referred for 

judicial forfeiture, a claim must be filed 

in accordance with § 356.7(d). 

Storage and Care; Recovery of Costs 

The existing regulations provide that 

seized property shall be stored and, if 

living maintained and cared for, in a 

place determined by the Administrator 

to be most appropriate and convenient 

with due regard to the expense 

involved. The regulations do not, 

however, provide for the recovery of 

these costs by APHIS. The cost of 

transporting, storing, caring for, 

maintaining, and disposing of seized 

property is staggering, and we are 

unable to continue to assume this 

financial burden. 

Proposed § 356.9, therefore, would 

provide for the recovery of these costs. 

Proposed paragraph (a) provides that the 

Administrator determines where the 

seized property will be stored or 

maintained, as do the existing 

regulations. Proposed paragraph (b) 

stipulates who will be responsible for 

handling, maintenance, and storage 

costs associated with seized property. If 

the property is seized and forfeited 

under the ESA, by statute any person 

whose act or omission was the basis for 

the seizure would be responsible for the 

cost of the transfer, board, handling, or 

storage of such property. If the property 

is seized with regard to a violation of 

the Lacey Act, by statute any person 

convicted or assessed a civil penalty 

thereof, would be responsible for the 

cost of the storage, care, and 

maintenance of the property at issue in 

the violation. These regulations reflect 

those provisions. Proposed paragraph 

(c) states that APHIS shall send to the 

responsible party an itemized invoice 

for the amount of the expenses and 

include instructions on the time and 

manner of payment. Proposed paragraph 

(d) allows for the recipient of the 

invoice to file a written objection, 

provided it is filed within 30 calendar 

days of the date upon which the invoice 

is received. An objection is deemed 

‘‘filed’’ when it is received by the 

National CITES Coordinator in 

Riverdale, MD. Finally, proposed 

paragraph (e) states that the 

Administrator will promptly review the 

objections and mail his or her final 

decision to the party who filed the 

objection. That decision would 

constitute the final administrative 

action on the matter. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29663 

Disposal of Property 

The existing regulations do not set 

forth requirements for disposal of seized 

property. Proposed § 356.10 would 

contain such requirements. The section 

would provide that upon a waiver of 

title or upon forfeiture, the property 

would be disposed of in a manner that 

is most convenient, appropriate, and in 

accordance with law. Additionally, the 

person responsible for the violation that 

was the basis of the seizure would not 

benefit from the disposal. This proposed 

provision would prevent the violator 

from attempting to repurchase the 

property if the Government, after 

gaining title to the property, 

subsequently auctions it. 

Computation of Time 

Lastly, proposed § 356.11 makes clear 

that the references in part 356 to 

‘‘calendar days’’ mean that Saturdays, 

Sundays, and Federal holidays are 

included in computing the time 

allowances for meeting the various timesensitive requirements, such as for filing 

a claim, described above; however, if 

time requirements expire on a Saturday, 

Sunday, or Federal holiday, the time 

period is extended to the next business 

day. The requirements contained in this 

section are incorporated from the 

existing regulations. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563, which direct agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and equity). Executive Order 

13563 emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

economic analysis also examines the 

potential economic effects of this rule 

on small entities, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. Copies of the full analysis are 

available by contacting the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov). 

This proposed rule would amend the 

forfeiture regulations in 7 CFR part 356. 

Among other things, the proposed rule 

would change the basis for appraising 

the value of seized property; increase 

the monetary threshold of seized items 

requiring judicial forfeiture from 

$10,000 to $15,000; provide for the 

assessment and recovery of the costs of 

transferring, storing, caring for and 

maintaining seized plants and plant 

products; and prohibit a violator from 

attempting to buy the unlawfully 

imported item if it is sold at auction by 

APHIS. 

Among the expected benefits of this 

proposed rule is that forfeiture 

provisions would be made easier to 

understand by importers and the general 

public than are the current ones. An 

example is the proposed streamlining of 

the appraisal process for seized 

property. Under this proposed rule, the 

value of the property would be that 

shown on the imported item’s invoice, 

which is a much simpler formula for 

determining value than that specified 

under the current regulations. 

The increase in the threshold value 

for judicial forfeiture would allow for 

more efficient use of U.S. Attorney 

resources. We anticipate that more cases 

will proceed through administrative 

forfeiture, rather than judicial, as a 

result of this proposed change. 

This proposed rule would also relieve 

APHIS and U.S. taxpayers of the 

financial burden associated with the 

transfer, storage, care, and maintenance 

of seized property by requiring the 

person whose act or omission was the 

basis for the seizure to bear these costs. 

Costs of the proposed rule would be 

minimal. Because the threshold for a 

case proceeding through judicial 

forfeiture would be raised from $10,000 

to $15,000, there would be more cases 

proceeding through administrative 

forfeiture. However, any additional 

demands on administrative resources 

are expected to be manageable, and 

would not represent a net increase in 

costs for the Federal Government. Costs 

incurred with regard to the transfer, 

storage, care, and maintenance costs of 

seized property would be appropriately 

directed from the Federal Government 

to persons responsible for violating the 

ESA or Lacey Act. 

It is clear that most entities covered 

by the proposed rule are considered 

small, as most importers are considered 

small. However, the only entities 

affected would be ones that violate the 

Endangered Species Act or the Lacey 

Act, such as by attempting to import 

illegal plants or submitting false records 

for plant or plant product imports. The 

majority of the imports are consistent 

with these Acts. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). The information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

the regulations that would be amended 

by this proposed rule have been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under OMB control 

numbers 0579–0076 and 0579–0349. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 356 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Endangered and threatened 

species, Exports, Imports, Law 

enforcement, Plants (agriculture), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seizures and forfeitures. 

■ Accordingly, we propose to revise 7 

CFR part 356 to read as follows: 

PART 356—FORFEITURE 

PROCEDURES 

Sec. 

356.1 Definitions. 

356.2 Property subject to forfeiture 

procedures. 

356.3 Determination of property value. 

356.4 Notice upon seizure; distribution of 

forms. 

356.5 Waiver of title. 

356.6 Judicial forfeiture; property valued at 

$15,000 or greater. 

356.7 Administrative forfeiture; property 

valued at less than $15,000. 

356.8 Petition for remission or mitigation of 

forfeiture. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29664 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

356.9 Storage; recovery of costs. 

356.10 Disposal of property. 

356.11 Computation of time. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1540(f); 16 U.S.C. 

3374; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

§ 356.1 Definitions. 

Administrative forfeiture. A forfeiture 

action initiated by the Administrator. 

Administrator. The Administrator, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

or any other person authorized to act for 

the Administrator. 

Claim. A written request to the 

Administrator for the return of property 

that is the subject of an administrative 

forfeiture action. Submittal of a claim in 

an administrative forfeiture action 

mandates that the matter proceed 

through judicial forfeiture. 

Judicial forfeiture. A forfeiture action 

initiated in a U.S. District Court. 

Notice of proposed forfeiture. A 

document alerting someone with an 

ownership interest in property valued at 

less than $15,000 that Plant Protection 

and Quarantine is initiating an 

administrative forfeiture action against 

that property. 

Notice of seizure. A document alerting 

someone with an ownership interest in 

property that Plant Protection and 

Quarantine has taken custody of that 

property. The notice sets forth when 

and where the property was seized, a 

description of the property, the reason 

for seizure, and the determined value of 

the property. 

Petition for remission or mitigation of 

forfeiture. A written request to the 

Administrator that the proposed 

forfeiture not be completed, or in the 

alternative, be mitigated. 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(PPQ). The Plant Protection and 

Quarantine program of the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, or any 

agency delegated to act in its place. 

Property. Any plant, plant product, 

equipment, or means of transportation 

seized under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), or the 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.). 

Waiver of title. The divestiture of an 

owner’s right, title and interest in the 

property to the United States. If a waiver 

is signed, the United States becomes the 

owner of the property and the signatory 

relinquishes all right, title and interest 

in the property. 

§ 356.2 Property subject to forfeiture 

procedures. 

This part sets forth the procedures 

relating to the forfeiture of any property 

seized by APHIS under the authority of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), or the 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), by the 

Administrator, and is in PPQ’s actual or 

constructive custody. 

§ 356.3 Determination of property value. 

Promptly following seizure of the 

property, the Administrator shall 

determine the value of the seized 

property. If an invoice of the property is 

available, the value is the amount as 

represented on the invoice. If an invoice 

is not available, or is determined by the 

Administrator not to represent a 

reasonable value, the value of the 

property shall be determined by 

ascertaining the price at which similar 

property is offered for sale at or as near 

as possible to the time and place of 

seizure. 

§ 356.4 Notice upon seizure; distribution 

of forms. 

(a) A notice of seizure shall be 

completed when the property is seized. 

This notice alerts an owner that PPQ has 

taken custody of certain property. The 

notice sets forth the date, time, and 

place the property was seized; a 

description of the seized property, 

including any identifying information; 

the reason for seizure, including the 

provisions of the act, permit, certificate, 

or regulations allegedly violated and 

under which the property is subject to 

forfeiture; and the determined value of 

the property. 

(b) A notice of seizure shall be posted 

in a publicly accessible location at the 

port office of the seizing agency and 

shall remain displayed for a period of 35 

calendar days. The date and time the 

notice is posted shall be indicated on 

the notice. If the property is valued at 

less than $15,000, a notice of proposed 

forfeiture shall be posted with the notice 

of seizure. The notice of seizure and 

notice of proposed forfeiture may be 

consolidated into one document. 

(c) If the owner of the property is 

present at seizure, the owner shall 

receive a copy of the notice of seizure. 

The owner also shall receive copies of 

forms providing for filing, at the owner’s 

discretion, a waiver of title and a 

petition for remission or mitigation of 

forfeiture. If the property is valued at 

less than $15,000, the owner 

furthermore shall receive a copy of the 

notice of proposed forfeiture and a form 

providing for filing, at the owner’s 

discretion, a claim. 

(d) If the owner of the property is not 

present at seizure, the notices and forms 

provided under paragraph (c) of this 

section shall be sent by certified or 

registered mail, return receipt requested, 

to the owner and to any other persons 

having an interest in the property, to 

their addresses last known to PPQ. The 

forms shall be mailed as soon as is 

practical and not more than 60 calendar 

days after the date of seizure. 

§ 356.5 Waiver of title. 

(a) A waiver of title is the divestiture 

of an owner’s rights, title, and interest 

in the property to the United States. 

Provided the value of the property does 

not exceed $500,000, the owner of any 

seized property may waive title by 

completing and signing a waiver of title 

form provided to the owner at the time 

of seizure. The form shall be submitted 

to the port office of the seizing agency 

or to the Administrator by submitting it 

to the National CITES Coordinator, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 52, 

Riverdale, MD 20737. 

(b) Upon submittal of the waiver of 

title to the port office or to the 

Administrator, all right, title, and 

interest in the property by the owner of 

the property is fully and finally forfeited 

to the United States. By submitting the 

waiver of title, the owner also waives 

and relinquishes all rights to judicial 

review of the seizure and forfeiture and 

any further rights or proceedings 

relative to the property. Once property 

is thus forfeited to the United States, no 

other right, title, or interest of the owner 

shall exist therein, and no further notice 

or declaration by the Administrator 

shall be required. 

§ 356.6 Judicial forfeiture; property valued 

at $15,000 or greater. 

Promptly following the seizure of any 

property appraised at a value of $15,000 

or greater, the matter will be referred to 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the district 

in which the property was seized for 

institution of judicial forfeiture 

proceedings in U.S. District Court. 

§ 356.7 Administrative forfeiture; property 

valued at less than $15,000. 

(a) Notice of proposed forfeiture. (1) 

For property valued at less than 

$15,000, the notice of seizure shall also 

be accompanied by a notice of proposed 

forfeiture, which notifies any interested 

party that PPQ is initiating the 

administrative forfeiture process. The 

notice of seizure and notice of proposed 

forfeiture may be consolidated into one 

document. 

(2) The notice of proposed forfeiture 

shall set forth the date, time, and place 

the property was seized; a description of 

the seized property, including any 

identification information; the reason 

for seizure, including the provisions of 

the act, permit, certificate, or regulations 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29665 

allegedly violated and under which the 

property is subject to forfeiture; the 

determined value of the property; the 

option for interested parties to file a 

petition for remission or mitigation of 

forfeiture; and a notice providing that 

the property will be forfeited to the 

United States unless a claim is filed. 

The notice shall also set forth the time 

period during which a claim must be 

filed and shall indicate that if a claim 

is filed, the matter will be adjudicated 

in U.S. District Court. 

(b) Forfeiture. If a claim is not filed in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

section, the property is forfeited to the 

United States 36 calendar days after the 

owner either was handed in person or 

mailed the notice of seizure and 

proposed forfeiture. In the event that the 

notice of seizure and proposed forfeiture 

was not received, as evidenced by 

return receipt, the property will be 

forfeited to the United States 31 

calendar days after the date the notice 

of seizure is no longer required to be 

posted at the port office (i.e., 66 

calendar days after seizure). Once 

property is forfeited to the United 

States, the owner no longer retains any 

right or title to, or interest in, the 

property. 

(c) Declaration of forfeiture. (1) 

Administrative forfeiture is effective 

upon the conclusion of the time period 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. No other action is required to 

effectuate forfeiture. Within a 

reasonable time after forfeiture, PPQ 

shall complete a declaration of 

forfeiture. 

(2) The declaration of forfeiture shall 

be sent by certified or registered mail, 

return receipt requested, to the owner 

and to any other persons having an 

interest in the property known to the 

Administrator, to their addresses last 

known to PPQ. 

(3) The declaration of forfeiture shall 

include the date, time, and place the 

property was seized; a description of the 

seized property, including any 

identification information; the reason 

for seizure, including the provisions of 

the act, permit, certificate, or regulations 

violated and under which the property 

was forfeited; and the duration and 

place the notice of proposed forfeiture 

was posted and to whom and the 

manner in which service was 

effectuated. The declaration also shall 

state that no claim was received and, 

therefore, through default, the 

allegations contained in the notice of 

proposed forfeiture are admitted as true. 

The declaration shall conclude with an 

order providing that the property is 

condemned and forfeited to the United 

States and that no other right, title, or 

interest exists therein. 

(d) Claim. (1) An owner may contest 

the forfeiture of property valued at less 

than $15,000 by filing a claim, which is 

a written request for the return of 

property. A claim shall be labeled a 

‘‘Claim’’ and identify the specific 

property being claimed, state the 

claimant’s interest in the property, and 

be made under oath and subject to 

penalty of perjury. 

(2) A claim shall be filed with the 

Administrator by submitting it to the 

National CITES Coordinator, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 52, 

Riverdale, MD 20737. The claim is 

deemed filed when it is received by the 

National CITES Coordinator. It shall be 

filed within 35 calendar days after the 

notice of seizure was either personally 

handed or mailed to the owner. If the 

owner did not receive the notice of 

seizure, then the claim may be filed no 

later than 30 calendar days after the date 

the notice of seizure is no longer 

required to be posted (i.e., 65 calendar 

days after seizure). 

(3) If a claim is filed, the 

administrative forfeiture is terminated, 

and the matter will be referred to the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the district in 

which the property was seized for 

institution of judicial forfeiture in U.S. 

District Court. 

§ 356.8 Petition for remission or mitigation 

of forfeiture. 

(a) Once a notice of seizure has been 

issued for property valued at $15,000 or 

less, any person who has an interest in 

the property may file a petition for 

remission or mitigation of forfeiture. A 

petition shall be filed with the 

Administrator by submitting it to the 

National CITES Coordinator, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 52, 

Riverdale, MD 20737. The petition is 

deemed filed when it is received by the 

National CITES Coordinator. 

(b) A petition shall be labeled a 

‘‘Petition for Remission or Mitigation of 

Forfeiture’’ and contain the following 

information: 

(1) A description of the property; 

(2) The time, date, and place of 

seizure; 

(3) Evidence of the petitioner’s 

interest in the property, such as 

contracts, bills of sale, invoices, security 

interests, certificates of title; and 

(4) A statement of all facts and 

circumstances relied upon by the 

petitioners to justify remission or 

mitigation of forfeiture. 

(c) The petition shall be signed by the 

petitioner or the petitioner’s attorney 

under oath and upon penalty of perjury. 

If the petitioner is a business, the 

petition shall be signed by a partner, 

officer, or petitioner’s attorney under 

oath and upon penalty of perjury. 

(d) Upon receiving the petition, the 

Administrator shall decide whether to 

grant relief. In making his or her 

decision, the Administrator shall 

consider the information submitted by 

the petitioner, as well as any other 

available information relating to the 

matter, and may require that testimony 

be taken. 

(e) If the Administrator finds that 

there are mitigating circumstances 

justifying remission or mitigation, the 

Administrator may remit or mitigate 

with terms and conditions as he or she 

deems reasonable and just. However, 

remission or mitigation will not be 

granted if such action would frustrate 

the purposes of the act under which 

authority the property had been seized. 

As an example, this section typically 

would not allow for remission or 

mitigation with respect to plants that are 

without documentation required by the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora. 

(f) The Administrator shall notify the 

petitioner in writing as to whether the 

petition was granted or denied and shall 

state the reason for the decision. The 

notification shall be sent by registered 

or certified mail, return receipt 

requested. 

(g) If the petition is denied fully or in 

part, the petitioner may file a 

supplemental petition, but a 

supplemental petition will not be 

considered unless it is received within 

14 calendar days from the date on 

which the petitioner received the 

denial. The Administrator shall notify 

the petitioner in writing as to whether 

the supplemental petition was granted 

or denied and shall state the reason for 

the decision. The Administrator’s 

decision is discretionary and 

unreviewable. 

(h) If a petition is received within 30 

calendar days of the initial posting of a 

notice of seizure, no property will be 

forfeited until the Administrator makes 

his or her initial determination on the 

petition. 

(i) If a petition is submitted for 

property valued at less than $15,000, the 

matter will not be referred for judicial 

forfeiture; in order for that to occur, a 

claim must be filed in accordance with 

§ 356.7(d). 

§ 356.9 Storage and care; recovery of 

costs. 

(a) Seized property shall be stored in 

a place that, in the opinion of the 

Administrator, is most convenient and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29666 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

appropriate, with due regard to the 

expense involved. 

(b) If any property is seized and 

forfeited under the Endangered Species 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., any person 

whose act or omission was the basis for 

the seizure shall be assessed the amount 

of the expenses incurred in connection 

with the transfer, board, handling 

(including care and maintenance of live 

plants), or storage of such property. If 

any property is seized with regard to a 

violation of the Lacey Act Amendments 

of 1981, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq., any 

person convicted or assessed a civil 

penalty under the Lacey Act shall be 

assessed the amount of the expenses 

incurred in connection with the storage, 

care, and maintenance of the property at 

issue in the violation. 

(c) Within a reasonable time after 

forfeiture, APHIS shall send to such 

person by registered or certified mail, 

return receipt requested, an invoice for 

the amount of the expenses. The invoice 

shall contain an itemized statement of 

the applicable expenses, together with 

instructions on the time and manner of 

payment. Payment shall be made in 

accordance with the invoice. 

(d) The recipient of any assessment of 

expenses under this section who has an 

objection to the reasonableness of the 

expenses described in the invoice may 

file, within 30 calendar days of the date 

upon which the invoice is received, 

written objections with the 

Administrator by submitting it to the 

National CITES Coordinator, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 52 

Riverdale, MD 20737. An objection is 

deemed filed when it is received by the 

National CITES Coordinator. 

(e) The Administrator will promptly 

review the objections and mail his or 

her final decision to the party who filed 

the objection. The Administrator’s 

decision shall constitute the final 

administrative action on the matter. 

§ 356.10 Disposal of property. 

Upon a waiver of title or upon 

forfeiture of property to the United 

States under this part, such property 

shall be disposed of in a manner that is 

most convenient, appropriate, and in 

accordance with law. The person 

responsible for the violation that was 

the basis of the seizure shall not receive 

financial or other gain from the 

disposal. 

§ 356.11 Computation of time. 

Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal 

holidays shall be included in computing 

the time allowed for in this part, 

provided that, when such time expires 

on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal 

holiday, such period shall be extended 

to include the next following business 

day. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

May 2013. 

Max Holtzman, 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12048 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0422; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–097–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Airbus Model A330–200 and –300 series 

airplanes; Model A340–200 and –300 

series airplanes; and Model A340–541 

and –642 airplanes. This proposed AD 

was prompted by reports of wing tip 

brakes (WTBs) losing their braking 

function in service due to heavy wear 

on the brake discs. WTBs are designed 

to stop and hold the mechanical 

transmission of slats and flaps in certain 

failure cases. This proposed AD would 

require repetitive operational tests of 

certain WTB pressure-off-brakes (POBs) 

for performance on the flap and slat 

systems, and replacement of any 

affected WTB with a new or serviceable 

part if the test fails. This proposed AD 

would also require eventual 

replacement of all affected WTBs with 

a new part, which would terminate the 

repetitive tests. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent loss of the WTB braking 

function, and consequent inability of 

the flap or slat system to be stopped and 

held in position during operation, 

which could result in loss of control of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

Accomplishment Instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS— 

Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1138; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0422; Directorate Identifier 

2012–NM–097–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1