Lacey update from Duke of Pearl

[Steve vanPelt]

Chuck Erikson posted an update of recent developments regarding the Lacey Act over on another forum. You can read it here... http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=35405

Steve

 

[southcoastukes]

Thanks for the heads up.

I think one thing is a bit confusing in the post. The difference between shell and wood is not clearly defined when brokerage services and inspection fees are discussed.

We're going to (finally) start importing again soon, and my reading of things (I sure hope this is right), is that those inspections and fees will apply to shell ("wildlife" as defined by FWS) and not wood.

Unless the wood is listed in CITES, it should only require a Lacey declaration - no brokers - no fees - no permits.

We've moved to new woods not listed in any CITES appendix, and ubleached bone position markers.

 

[Plainsong]

I'm confused with that post. Does it mean that you can't move one move one single instrument with a single abalone dot on it, across US borders? That means if your instrument has a single dot of abalone on it, don't take it to the US?

 

[southcoastukes]

I'm confused with that post. Does it mean that you can't move one move one single instrument with a single abalone dot on it, across US borders? That means if your instrument has a single dot of abalone on it, don't take it to the US?

Technically - yes, although as a practical matter you'll likely be fine. Also, if it hasn't already happened, it won't be long before before similar rules apply in Europe. The "I" in "CITES" stands for "International".

 

[Plainsong]

There's something frakked in that agreement then, that private persons are penalized. I can see it eventually getting to that, but it's the businesses that you want to work with.

 

[Rick Turner]

It's a horrible example of unintended consequences.

 

[mzuch]

The agencies involved have stated publicly that individuals carrying instruments are not subject to these regulations. They are intended for commercial shipments only. However, there's no telling whether customs agents understand that, particularly if one is in a bad mood and just wants to make life difficult for travelers.

 

[southcoastukes]

The agencies involved have stated publicly that individuals carrying instruments are not subject to these regulations. They are intended for commercial shipments only. However, there's no telling whether customs agents understand that, particularly if one is in a bad mood and just wants to make life difficult for travelers.

Semantics here, but important ones. There have been statements to the effect that agencies will not, as a matter of standard practice, enforce these regulations on individuals. They don't, however, have any authority to decide on their own to exempt individuals - something like that would have to be written into law.

You correct about the customs agents in a bad mood - they have (infrequently) seized, and even destroyed individual instruments. They are within the law in doing so, and if they are mistaken, there is no legal recourse.

 

[Pete Howlett]

CITES and Lacey are different aren't they?

 

[southcoastukes]

CITES and Lacey are different aren't they?

Yes, but in a way, they overlap. CITES is an International Treaty that restricts global trade in certain plant, animal and marine species. Almost all countries have adopted it.

The Lacey Act is a U.S. law that requires a declaration for all such materials imported into the states. If you have materials that are restricted under CITES, or by local restrictions in the country of origin, then you'll need to go through the permit process.

 

[Pete Howlett]

I hardly export now and when I build avoid CITES listed materials.

 

[Plainsong]

Sucks to be an international traveling musician. I'm for protection of the environment, but I'm not so sure this doesn't do anything but open a new market for travel instruments.

 

[Moore Bettah Ukuleles]

I hardly export now and when I build avoid CITES listed materials.

Whether you use materials on the CITIES appendices or not, you are in violation of the law if you do not document all the the species contained within the instrument.

 

[Moore Bettah Ukuleles]

The agencies involved have stated publicly that individuals carrying instruments are not subject to these regulations. They are intended for commercial shipments only. However, there's no telling whether customs agents understand that, particularly if one is in a bad mood and just wants to make life difficult for travelers.

It's unclear to me how "commercial" shipments are defined. I read one source that said 6 or more identical pieces shipped at the same time was considered commercial. Don't quote me on that though.

 

[southcoastukes]

Whether you use materials on the CITIES appendices or not, you are in violation of the law if you do not document all the the species contained within the instrument.

I don't think so, Chuck. At least I surely hope not! If they're not restricted under CITES or by the country of origin (you have to fill in country of origin on the declaration), your Lacey Declaration simply affirms the fact that no inspections or permits are required.

Of course, it would be wise to have documentation. If the government were to doubt the truth of your declaration, you'd prefer to supply them with purchase orders rather than have them tear chunks of wood out of your instrument for testing at the USDA.

Still, I think that (hope that), if they see a small builder has gone to the trouble to declare all the parts and species (it's a lot) in a single, or small lot of instruments, they're likely to take his word on the species, rather than launch a full scale scientific analysis.

That's the kind of thing I would imagine might occur on the larger lots.

 

[Moore Bettah Ukuleles]

I may be wrong, I often am. This is the latest info I've come across concerning commercial shipments. I can't verify the original source as it came third hand to me from another builder. In any event, in all cases some documentation is required, at the very minimum, DFW. In part:


Commercial import/export
• Import of non-protected plant species material (no wildlife)
– Lacey Act declaration
• Import of non-protected wildlife species
material (no plant)
– Fish and Wildlife declaration
– Fish and Wildlife import/export license


Commercial import/export
• Export of non-protected plant species material (no wildlife)
– Have a nice day!
• Export of non-protected wildlife species
material
– Fish and Wildlife declaration form
– Fish and Wildlife import/export license


Commercial import/export
• Commercial import of protected plant and animal species material (Brazilian rosewood and hawksbill sea turtle shell)
– Lacey Act declaration
– Fish and Wildlife declaration
– Fish and Wildlife import/export license – USDA Protected Plant permit
– CITES and/or ESA permit/certificate


Commercial import/export
• Commercial export of protected plant and wildlife species material
– Fish and Wildlife declaration
– Fish and Wildlife import/export license – CITES and/or ESA permit/certificate

 

[Pete Howlett]

Do you mean documentation for all instruments travelling Chuck?

 

[southcoastukes]

Commercial import/export
• Import of non-protected plant species material (no wildlife)
– Lacey Act declaration
• Import of non-protected wildlife species
material (no plant)
– Fish and Wildlife declaration
– Fish and Wildlife import/export license

This shows how hard it is to sift through regulatory requirements these days. Nonetheless, what your friend is saying in the first instance is also what I'm saying applies to us.

We'll need the Lacey Declaration - it doesn't require documentation - it's just you putting yourself on the line as to the legality, or "non-protected status" of your plant materials (wood).

We wouldn't need anything from Fish & Wildlife - you note bone in your Lacey Declaration as "domestic cattle" (they're not wildlife), and we have no shell. It's the simplest way to go, and the only practical way I see for a small importer.

BTW, his parentheses about BRW & Hawksbill should be expanded to any material in any CITES appendix.

I especially like the part about "Have a nice day". That will also apply to us on overseas sales.

 

[southcoastukes]

Do you mean documentation for all instruments travelling Chuck?

Of course, I'm not Chuck, but what we'll be doing is supplying a list of all materials along with date of manufacture (something we use might get restricted at a later date)to all our customers. Rick Turner was saying he may be doing this as well. While it wouldn't carry the weight of a legal document, it would be the closest thing to an "instrument passport". We might even supply the Declaration itself, though that's a big bundle of paper.

In the eyes of a customs agent, something like this should shift responsibility away from the owner, and back to the maker, where it really belongs.

If you're not using any restricted materials, Pete, you should be able to do the same for your customers. Just remember to check for local restrictions in the country of origin as well as what's in CITES.