Official Luthiers Forum!

This morning after reading every FWS guidance document on CITES, re-reading Lacey, and anything I could find at Customs and Border Control, I called Craig Hoover at FWS.

As Lance previously mentioned, Craig Hoover is Chief of Branch of CITES Operations (policy/Regs)
FWS, Office of International Affairs, Division of Management Authority. Essentially he is the chief biologist in charge of all things CITES at FWS. Craig was able to confirm most of what Lance has been saying and passed on answering portions to others involved in permitting whom I haven't yet been able to reach.

Mahogany. Mahogany is a CITES Appendix II material. According to CITES Appendices document,http://www.cites.org/eng/app/E-1104277.pdf, Honduran Mahogany is only controlled when it is in the form of “Logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets and plywood.” See p. 38, footnote 6. According to FWS, unless the material is in a form or category that is controlled, there is no requirement to file a 3-200-32 form, no CITES permit required because it’s not considered CITES material. Despite the apparent discrepancy between the form (which asks to document any CITES listed material, Mr. Hoover stated that finished mahogany parts are not considered controlled under CITES.

Brazilian.

There is no provision within Lacey or CITES for the prohibition of the sale or transport of post-convention materials, other than for export. If it’s not documented, it’s still considered contraband; however, the burden is on the Government to show that it is contraband. It is only in the context of export that the burden is on the exporter – that does not necessarily make the material contraband, it just means that you do not have the documentation necessary for FWS to declare it legal for export. His explanation was that if it's in the US then it was brought in legally, but unless it's papered, you can't export it. I find it peculiar that there is this ambiguity in that a material can be contraband, but still legal for trade within the US. Something to think about. This may be their story now, but that doesn't mean it won't change later.

Personal instruments: Person A is planning on leaving the country with a personal instrument that contains Appendix I materials in a finished form. What is necessary for them to legally carry it out of the country and bring it back in?

50 CFR pt. 2315, relates to personal and household effects. It states that you don’t need documents to import or export unless it contains Appendix I materials, e.g., Brazilian Rosewood. If you have a guitar with Appendix I materials you need a export permit – preconvention certificate (3-200-32) in order to travel with the instrument. This will allow you to get in and out of the US; however, this only applies to the US and does not necessarily protect the owner from other jurisdictions.

As for Appendix II materials in personal instruments, no permit is required if it meets all the other personal exemption requirements.

Now as for repurposing pre-convention materials into guitar sets, the jury is still out as I haven't been able to talk with the permit person Mr. Hoover gave to me. Lance's information thus far has proved to be on point; I suspect this will be as well.

The real problem here, and Mr. Hoover indicated as much is that FWS has difficulty making sense of the regulations and as such it makes it much more difficult to provide unified responses to inquiries such as ours.

So for the time being, this is very good news. I'm reserved in my glee because their is such ambiguity in the regs and procedures that I don't have much confidence in how the agencies might choose to implement the regulations at any date in the future. My recommendation is that going forward people start demanding full chain of custody for their materials such that if in the future implementation or rules change, they will be already have the paperwork.

Lance, I stand corrected. Furthermore, Mr. Hoover intends to make sure the other biologists under his purview understand the distinctions made in these regulations.

Yes. I will take the accuracy on. But only for the sake of discussion and to gain a better understanding. You don't say who the author is when it was written or where his info comes from but it looks to be based on worst case scenario. I will comment and hope someone else will also.



This makes it sound like they Lacey is singling out stringed musical instruments. No so, the law applies to anything made out of wood.



The form is not complicated. The time estimate on the front page does not estimate 1.5 hours to fill it out. The time estimate includes all the time it takes to learn how to fill out the form the first time. Once you know how it probably takes less than 10 minutes to fill out. And why is 1.5 hours a huge problem considering the hours invested in building a guitar? A Customs agent probably will charge $20 extra to fill out the form.

Here is a link to the form...
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ ... onform.pdf



Not WILL result... MAY result.


This is not correct. PPQ Form 505 is required for all Plant Products not just stringed instruments.



This is correct. Probably because the majority of stringed musical instruments crossing international borders contain some form of restricted species?



From what I understand all the raids were based on improperly filled out documents and involve restricted species.



No. Possessing an undocumented item is not a violation of Lacey unless you obtained the item through illegal actions.



No. There is legal BRW that can be made into a guitar even today. So to say any guitar made with BRW after 1992 is a violation is not correct.



No, not correct. The pre-CITES certificate wood can be transformed into something else. And that new item can be certified by showing the certificate for the source material.



No, for the above reason. Use the original certificate to obtain a new certificate.


Lacey only address possession if you took possession through illegal means, knowingly.



Not correct.






Is it clear yet?


The "law" does not apply to them for possession.
CITES applies if the are importing or exporting restricted species.
Lacey applies if they are importing.



Yes you have to fill out the form if the form is required for your activity or item. But it is not the end of the world.

_________________
Lance Peck

"I'm reserved in my glee because their is such ambiguity in the regs and procedures that I don't have much confidence in how the agencies might choose to implement the regulations at any date in the future."

(insert clever saying here that I don't want on the internet because what we say can and will be used against us)

_________________
Lance Peck

Thank you for taking the time to respond Lance.

FAQ on APHIS Lacey Act

12. Does the declaration requirement apply to all types of entries?

At present, we will be enforcing the declaration requirement for formal entries (i.e., most commercial shipments). At this time, we are not enforcing the declaration requirement for informal entries (i.e., most personal shipments), personal importations, or mail, transportation and exportation entries, in-transit movements, carnet importations (i.e., merchandise or equipment that will be re-exported within a year), and foreign trade zone and warehouse entries. As with the different product types, we would issue a Federal Register notice before initiating any enforcement regarding such imports.

_________________
Lance Peck

Lance, One last question (maybe) at the head of this thread you said:

"I have contacted numerous officials with F&W and APHIS about the requirements to export a guitar. You can scratch APHIS off the list of concerns. APHIS does not have jurisdiction over finished wood products. So this only leaves F&W to be concerned with."

Though in your response above you seem to agree with the need for the PPQ 505 form with APHIS for import. Does this mean that Aphis still controls importation of a wood object but not it's export?

Also a question for for anyone else, though now I far better understand the laws in regard to wood, is there anything we need to know regarding the export or interstate sales of finished objects made from red or green abalone or MOP insofar as F&W is concerned?
(I don't find any of these species listed in the Cities appendicies)

APHIS does not control finished wood products that are exported.
APHIS handles the forms and paperwork for all plant imports with primary focus on plant health.
They cover lumber imports because of plant pests.
When Form PPQ505 is required it is filed through APHIS.
APHIS handles the Lacey documents but F&W handles the enforcement for Lacey and CITES.

_________________
Lance Peck

No they are not listed in CITES, I also checked. I enquired with US F&W about this very matter becasue I have Paua in my mandolin and guitars. The requirements differ depending on whether the object is being imported or exported for "commercial" purposes. There is a definition of "commercial" and I would recommend you read the legal definition on their web site. However, regardless as to whether the import/export is commercial or not, you still need to fill out form 3-177. The actual amount of shell is irrelevant, you must fill out form 3-177. If the import/export is not commercial then you do not need an import/export license, and although the item will be inspected and will need to go through a designated port, you will not be charged an inspection fee. If the item is "commercial" then you do need the import/export license and will be charged in inspection fee. The problem with processed shell being supplied to Luthiers out of the USA is that it is "commercial" according to the definition and thus it then becomes uneconomic to supply small quantities. Hence all export of shell from LMI, Stw Mac, Duke of Peal etc has now ceased. The safe thing to do is to get the license and pay the fee since I am not sure how you can prove that an item is not being imported/exported for "commercial" purposes.

The emails from US F&W came with the usual propaganda about how they were protecting preservation of wildlife. When I pointed out that harassing me (actually it is my customer whobears the risk) over less them 1gm of Paua that comes from a New Zealand Paua farm had stuff all nothing to do with preservation of wildlife I got no reply.

Peter

The situation with shell is really stupid because decorative shell is a by product of a fishing industry that fishes for food, or for pearls, not for the shell. I also understand that most of the shell we use comes from Abalone or pearl farms, or at least that is what the suppliers tell me. Controlling decorative shell import/export does nothing to conserve shellfish. The only thing that will conserve shellfish is to stop eating it! Not only that but nobody uses any CITES listed species in their guitars, and if a guitar gets confiscated becasue of a suspected CITES violation then that is just plain wrong. Unfortunately it has been caught up in the bigger picture so we are stuck with it. So, if your guitar contains shell inlay make sure you fill out form 3-177 as well as the form required for the wood.

Peter

David, that's not what I'm hearing here in Washington. APHIS is requiring me to fill out a form PPQ572, APPLICATION FOR INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF DOMESTIC PLANTS AND PLANT PRODUCTS FOR EXPORT, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/domestic/downloads/xpm_pdf/3_2genproc_ppq572.pdf

This is driving me nuts. We need something that is black and white. I'm very confused by this whole thing. The more I read the more depressing this is.

If I use a bone saddle and nut or MOP position markers I'm in violation? Do I have to stop using my supply of Honduran Mahogany necks? What about the hundreds of Brazilian RW bridges I bought years ago from well-known lutherie suppliers? Do I have to stop using that? I process my own nuts and saddles from femur bones bought at the butcher shop. Are those in violation? WTF?

Years ago I bought some BRW veneer for making laminated backs and sides. I have no documentation from the guy I bought it from who had them for 25 years. Do I have to get rid of those veneers?

What about African ebony fingerboards? I bought hundreds of those 10+ years ago.

My head is spinning.