This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

3939 

Vol. 81, No. 15 

Monday, January 25, 2016 

1To view these notices and the comments we 

received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0119. 

2To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0018. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 357 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0018] 

RIN 0579–AD11 

Lacey Act Implementation Plan; 

Definitions for Exempt and Regulated 

Articles 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Affirmation of interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final 

rule, without change, an interim final 

rule that established definitions for the 

terms common cultivar and common 

food crop and several related terms. The 

2008 amendments to the Lacey Act 

expanded its protections to a broader 

range of plant species; extended its 

reach to encompass products, including 

timber, that derive from illegally 

harvested plants; and required that 

importers submit a declaration at the 

time of importation for certain plants 

and plant products. Common cultivars 

and common food crops are among the 

categorical exclusions to the provisions 

of the Act. The Act does not define the 

terms common cultivar and common 

food crop but instead gives authority to 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 

the U.S. Department of the Interior to 

define these terms by regulation. The 

interim final rule specifically requested 

comment on definitions of two related 

terms: Commercial scale and tree. This 

document responds to comments we 

received on those definitions. 

DATES: Effective on January 25, 2016, we 

are adopting as a final rule the interim 

final rule published at 78 FR 40940– 

40945 on July 9, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Parul Patel, Senior Agriculturalist, 

Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, 

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 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 

protections to a broader range of plants 

and plant products (Section 8204, 

Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices). 

As amended, the Lacey Act now makes 

it unlawful to, among other things, 

import, export, transport, sell, receive, 

acquire, or purchase in interstate or 

foreign commerce any plant, with some 

limited exceptions, taken, possessed, 

transported or sold in violation of any 

Federal, State, tribal, or foreign law that 

protects plants or that regulates the theft 

of plants; the taking of plants from a 

park, forest reserve, or other officially 

protected area; the taking of plants from 

an officially designated area; or the 

taking of plants without, or contrary to, 

required authorization. 

The statute excludes from the 

definition of the term ‘‘plant’’ the 

following categories: (i) Common 

cultivars, except trees, and common 

food crops; (ii) scientific specimens for 

laboratory or field research (unless they 

are listed in an appendix to the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES, 27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); 

as an endangered or threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or 

pursuant to any State law that provides 

for the conservation of species that are 

indigenous to the State and are 

threatened with extinction); and (iii) 

plants that are to remain planted or to 

be planted or replanted (unless they are 

listed in an appendix to CITES; 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). 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 covered by the Act. 

In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey 

Act, as amended, makes it unlawful, 

beginning December 15, 2008, to import 

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 which the 

plant was harvested. Currently, 

enforcement of the declaration 

requirement is being phased in, as 

described in two notices we published 

in the Federal Register 1 (74 FR 5911– 

5913 and 74 FR 45415–45418, Docket 

No. APHIS–2008–0119). 

On August 4, 2010, we published in 

the Federal Register (75 FR 46859– 

46861, Docket No. APHIS–2009–0018) a 

proposal 2 to establish a new part in the 

plant-related provisions of title 7, 

chapter III of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), containing 

definitions for the terms common 

cultivar and common food crop. 

Common cultivars and common food 

crops are among the categorical 

exclusions to the provisions of the Act. 

The Act does not define the terms 

common cultivar and common food 

crop but instead gives authority to the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to 

define these terms by regulation. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before 

November 29, 2010. The comments we 

received on the proposed rule included 

concerns about two additional terms 

used in the regulations. Specifically, 

some commenters asked that we define 

the term commercial scale to clarify that 

the definitions apply to specialty 

products grown commercially on a 

smaller scale. One commenter also 

asked that we define the word tree as it 

is used in the regulations. The 

commenter noted that there is no 

globally accepted botanical definition 

for tree and stated that adding a 

definition to the regulations would help 

clarify which products require a 

declaration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

3940 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

3To view the interim final rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0018. 

We agreed with the commenters that 

adding definitions of these terms would 

improve clarity. Therefore, in an interim 

final rule 3 published in the Federal 

Register on July 9, 2013 (78 FR 40940– 

40945, Docket No. APHIS–2009–0018), 

we proposed to define commercial scale 

as ‘‘production, in individual products 

or markets, that is typical of commercial 

activity, regardless of the production 

methods or amount of production of a 

particular facility, or the purpose of an 

individual shipment’’ and tree as ‘‘a 

woody perennial plant that has a welldefined stem or stems and a continuous 

cambium, and that exhibits true 

secondary growth.’’ 

We invited public comment on these 

two definitions. Comments on the 

interim final rule were required to be 

received on or before August 8, 2013. 

We received two comments by that date. 

The comments were from an 

organization of State plant pest 

regulatory agencies and a retailer selling 

home furnishings. 

One commenter supported the 

additional definitions as proposed. The 

other commenter stated that the 

definitions of common cultivar, 

common food crop, and tree do not 

provide enough clarity for importers to 

determine whether certain products are 

subject to provisions of the Act, but did 

not address the specific wording of the 

definitions. The commenter also asked 

whether certain products, including 

rattan, palm leaves, and willow and 

osier branches, were considered 

common cultivars and if they would be 

included on the list of common 

cultivars. 

Willows and osiers are trees and 

therefore cannot be excepted from the 

declaration requirement. We note that 

several species of palms, including 

African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), 

carnauba palm (Copernicia spp.), and 

palms in the genera Astrocaryum, 

Bactris, and Euterpe are included on the 

list of common cultivars and common 

food crops that are excepted from the 

declaration requirement. Rattan and 

other palms are not currently excepted 

from the declaration requirement but 

may be evaluated as common food crops 

or common cultivars if a member of the 

public submits a request as described 

below. 

As we explained in the interim final 

rule, the list of common cultivars and 

common food crops is intended to be 

illustrative, not exhaustive. The list is 

available on the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Web 

site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

plant_health/lacey_act/index.shtml. 

The public may also send inquiries 

about specific taxa or commodities and 

requests to add taxa or commodities to 

the list, or remove them from the list, by 

writing to The Lacey Act, ATT: 

Common Cultivar/Common Food Crop, 

c/o U.S. Department of Agriculture, Box 

10, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 

20737 or by email to 

lacey.act.declaration@aphis.usda.gov 

and including the following 

information: 

• Scientific name of the plant (genus, 

species); 

• Common or trade names; 

• Annual trade volume (e.g., cubic 

meters) or weight (e.g., metric tons/

kilograms) of the commodity; and 

• Any other information that will 

help us make a determination, such as 

countries or regions where grown, 

estimated number of acres or hectares in 

commercial production, and so on. 

Decisions about which products will 

be included on the list will be made 

jointly by APHIS and the DOI’s Fish and 

Wildlife Service. We will inform our 

stakeholders when the list is updated 

via email and other electronic media. 

We will also note updates of the list on 

APHIS’ Lacey Act Web site mentioned 

above. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

interim final rule and in this document, 

we are adopting the interim final rule as 

a final rule without change. 

This action also affirms the 

information contained in the interim 

final rule concerning Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 and the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12988 

and 13175. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Section 3 of the Lacey Act makes it 

unlawful to import certain plants and 

plant products without an import 

declaration, which must contain, among 

other things, the scientific name of the 

plant, value of the importation, quantity 

of the plant, and name of the country in 

which the plant was harvested. In 

addition, there is a supplemental form 

that must be completed if additional 

space is needed to declare additional 

plants and plant products. Also, records 

of the import declaration and 

supplemental form must be retained for 

at least 5 years. These collection 

activities have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0349. We published a notice in 

the Federal Register on August 21, 2014 

(79 FR 49491–49492, Docket No. 

APHIS–2014–0073) seeking an 

extension of the approval for this 

information collection. 

Common cultivars and common food 

crops are among the categorical 

exclusions to the provisions of the Act. 

In the July 2013 interim final rule, we 

advised the public that inquiries about 

specific taxa or commodities and 

requests to add taxa or commodities to 

the list, or remove them from the list, be 

sent in writing to APHIS, including 

information as to the scientific name of 

the plant (genus, species), common or 

trade names, annual trade volume (e.g., 

cubic meters) or weight (e.g., metric 

tons/kilograms) of the commodity, and 

any other information that will help us 

make a determination, such as countries 

or regions where grown, estimated 

number of acres or hectares in 

commercial production, and so on. 

We inadvertently did not obtain OMB 

approval for this information collection 

activity. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 

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

et seq.), we published a notice in the 

Federal Register on October 15, 2014 

(79 FR 61846–61847, Docket No. 

APHIS–2014–0082), announcing our 

intention to initiate this information 

collection and to solicit comments. We 

have asked OMB to approve our use of 

this information collection for 3 years. 

When OMB notifies us of its decision, 

we will publish a document in the 

Federal Register providing notice of the 

assigned OMB control number, and we 

will combine this collection with OMB 

control number 0579–0349 once it is 

approved by OMB. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the EGovernment Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly 

Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 357 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Plants (Agriculture). 

PART 357—CONTROL OF ILLEGALLY 

TAKEN PLANTS 

■ Accordingly, we are adopting as a 

final rule, without change, the interim 

final rule that amended 7 CFR part 357 

and that was published at 78 FR 40940– 

40945 on July 9, 2013. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 15 / Monday, January 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 3941 

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

January 2016. 

Gary Woodward, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01399 Filed 1–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 600 and 606 

RIN 3052–AD08 

Organization and Functions; 

Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on 

the Basis of Handicap in Programs or 

Activities Conducted by the Farm 

Credit Administration; Organization of 

the Farm Credit Administration 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA, we, Agency or 

our) amended our regulations to reflect 

internal organization changes and to 

update a statutory citation for the Farm 

Credit Act. In accordance with the law, 

the effective date of the rule is no earlier 

than 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register 

during which either or both Houses of 

Congress are in session. 

DATES: Under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 

2252, the regulation amending 12 CFR 

parts 600 and 606 published on 

November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68427) is 

effective January 25, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst, 

Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102– 

5090, (703) 883–4124, TTY (703) 883– 

4056, or Jane Virga, Senior Counsel, 

Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102– 

5090, (703) 883–4071, TTY (703) 883– 

4056. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Farm 

Credit Administration amended our 

regulations to reflect internal 

organization changes and to update a 

statutory citation for the Farm Credit 

Act. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, 

the effective date of the final rule is no 

earlier than 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register 

during which either or both Houses of 

Congress are in session. Based on the 

records of the sessions of Congress, the 

effective date of the regulations is 

January 25, 2016. (12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) 

and (10)) 

Dated: January 20, 2016. 

Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01398 Filed 1–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 121 

RIN 3245–AG49 

Small Business Size Standards: 

Employee Based Size Standards in 

Wholesale Trade and Retail Trade 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA or Agency) is 

increasing 47 small business size 

standards based on a concern’s number 

of employees. These increases affect 46 

industries in North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Sector 

42, Wholesale Trade, and one industry 

in NAICS Sector 44–45, Retail Trade. 

SBA retains the size standards for the 

remaining industries in those sectors 

and the 500-employee size standard for 

the Federal Government’s procurement 

of supplies under the nonmanufacturer 

rule. As part of its comprehensive size 

standards review under the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010, SBA 

reviewed all 71 industries in NAICS 

Sector 42, as well as the two industries 

in NAICS Sector 44–45, that have 

employee based size standards. The 

revisions adopted in this rule primarily 

affect eligibility for SBA’s financial 

assistance programs, and have no 

impact on Federal procurement 

programs. 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

26, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Jordan, Office of Size Standards, (202) 

205–6618 or sizestandards@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

19, 2014 (79 FR 28631), SBA proposed 

to increase employee based size 

standards for 46 industries in NAICS 

Sector 42, Wholesale Trade, and one 

industry in NAICS Sector 44–45, Retail 

Trade. The Agency proposed keeping 

the current size standards for the 

remaining industries in those sectors. 

SBA also proposed to retain the 500- 

employee size standard for Federal 

procurement of supplies under the 

nonmanufacturer rule (13 CFR 121.406). 

The proposed rule sought comments 

from the public on the Agency’s 

proposals and received seven 

comments. Generally, commenters 

opposed the proposed increases to the 

size standards in the wholesale trade 

industries. However, while some 

commenters appeared to be cognizant of 

the effects of the proposed increases and 

how they apply to various small 

business programs and their industries, 

others did not seem to be aware that the 

NAICS codes and size standards for the 

wholesale and retail trade industries do 

not apply to Federal Government 

procurement programs and the 

proposed increases would have no 

impact on size eligibility for Federal 

contracts. 

What follows is a summary and 

discussion of the comments, their 

positions and the issues they raise, and 

SBA’s responses. All comments are 

available for public review at the 

Federal Rulemaking Portal, 

www.regulations.gov. 

Summary and Discussion of Public 

Comments to the May 19, 2014 

Proposed Rule 

Two parties submitted identical 

comments, opposing SBA’s proposal to 

increase the size standards. The 

commenters stated that current size 

standards are already too high, and 

expanding them will make matters 

worse. The commenters contended that 

98 percent of all businesses (including 

non-employer firms) have 1–19 

employees, and those businesses mostly 

need loans of $50,000 to $250,000. 

Expanding the definition of ‘‘small’’ is 

crippling their ability to get loans, they 

added. The commenters maintained that 

the average size of SBA’s loan increased 

from $182,000 in 2008 to $547,000 in 

2013, while the share of loans under 

$100,000, which they claimed generally 

go to truly small businesses, decreased 

from 24 percent to 9 percent. 

The European Union defines the 

smallest unit of small business as less 

than 10 employees, and Australia 

defines ‘‘small’’ as 1–14 employees 

under its Fair Work Act, the 

commenters noted. In addition, they 

stated that the U.S. Congress defines 

small business as 20–25 employees 

‘‘and rarely as high as 50.’’ The 

commenters asked SBA to stop focusing 

on 2 percent of the largest small 

businesses and refocus on the remaining 

98 percent of small businesses because 

they are the ones who really need the 

help. The higher size standards, if 

adopted, will put loan assistance out of 

reach for most small businesses, they 

argued. 

Another commenter that offers startup 

workshops to entrepreneurs expressed 

concerns on how SBA defines small 

business. Specifically, the commenter 

stated that almost any business with up 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES