Administrative
Material name | Citation | Summary |
---|---|---|
US - PPIA Regulations- Sanitation | The following sanitation regulations are implemented under the Poultry Product Inspection Act. The general rule states: Each official establishment must be operated and maintained in a manner sufficient to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and to ensure that product is not adulterated. | |
US - PPIA Regulations - Operating, Ante and Post Mortem Inspection | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act regulations detail the provisions for operating a poultry slaughterhouse, and for ante and post mortem inspection. | |
US - PPIA and FMIA Regulations - Rules of Practice | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act and Federal Meat Inspection act regulations detail the provisions for when the Food Safety and Inspection Service can take regulatory control. | |
US - Poultry - Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter |
FSIS is reminding all poultry slaughter establishments that, under the PPIA and Agency regulations, live poultry must be handled in a manner that is consistent with good commercial practices, which means they should be treated humanely. Although there is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry, under the PPIA, poultry products are more likely to be adulterated if they are produced from birds that have not been treated humanely, because such birds are more likely to be bruised or to die other than by slaughter. |
|
US - Poultry - Petition to issue regulations under the Poultry Products Inspection Act to regulate practices and actions that result in adulterated poultry products | The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been directed by Congress to promulgate regulations that will reduce poultry carcass adulteration. However, although USDA has repeatedly recognized that the inhumane treatment of poultry leads to adulteration, it has not promulgated any regulations to limit that adulteration. Thus, USDA is not fulfilling its mandate. Farm Sanctuary and the Animal Welfare Institute submit this petition for rulemaking, calling on USDA to begin the process of promulgating regulations to address bird handling and slaughter practices that result in adulteration as is its duty under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), 21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq. Read 9 C.F.R. 381, 9 C.F.R. 416, and 9 C.F.R. 500 --all of which are discussed in the petition. | |
US - Pets and housing - § 5.380 Public housing programs: Procedure for development of pet rules. | This rule states that Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) must consult with tenants of projects on rules for pets in projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities. PHAs shall send to the responsible HUD field office, copies of the final (or amended) pet rules, as well as summaries or copies of all tenant comments received in the course of the tenant consultation. | |
US - Pets and Housing - Subpart G. Pet Ownership in Public Housing. | The purpose of this subpart is, in accordance with section 31 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437z-3), to permit pet ownership by residents of public housing, subject to compliance with reasonable requirements established by the public housing agency (PHA) for pet ownership. | |
US - Pets and housing - Subpart C. Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities. | This set of HUD regulations set forth the mandatory pet rules for housing programs. The procedure for the development of pet rules is outlined as well as pet rule violation procedures. One rule states that an applicant for tenancy in a project for the elderly or persons with disabilities may reject a unit offered by a project owner if the unit is in close proximity to a dwelling unit in which an existing tenant of the project owns or keeps a common household pet. The rules also contemplate protection of the pet by allowing project owners to contact state or local authorities to remove the pet if the health or safety of the pet is threatened by the death or incapacity of the pet owner. | |
US - Pets and Housing - Subpart C. Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities |
This subpart implements section 227 of the Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 1701r-1) as it pertains to projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities under: (1) the housing programs administered by the Assistant Secretary for Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner; (2) projects assisted under the programs contained in chapter VIII of this title 24; and (3) the public housing program. The rule specifically states that it does not apply to assistance or service animals. The rule states that, except as otherwise provided, no project owner that manages a project for the elderly or disabled may restrict or discriminate against any person by reason of the person's ownership or presence of a common household pet in the person's dwelling unit. A "common household pet," is defined as "[a] domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), fish, or turtle, that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes" (excluding reptiles with exception of turtles). Notice of the allowance must be provided to tenants and tenants must be given the ability to access to pet rules. The project owner must establish reasonable rules to govern the keeping of pets.
|
|
US - Pets and Housing - Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons With Disabilities | 2008 WL 4690497 (F.R.) |
This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing the requirements for pet ownership in HUD-assisted public housing and multifamily housing projects for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Specifically, this final rule conforms these pet ownership requirements to the requirements for animals assisting persons with disabilities in HUD's public housing programs, other than housing projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities. |
US - Petitions - AWI Consolidated Petitions | The following is a list of petitions submitted by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other advocacy groups to United States agencies. These petitions seek changes to rule-making for various animal welfare issues and also seek designations under the federal Endangered Species Act. The provided links for each action give a summary and links to the actual filed petitions. The petitions are listed with the most recent one filed at the top of the page. | |
US - Permits - Subpart D. Conditions. § 13.42 Permits are specific. | 67 FR 12824 | This regulation provides that permits issued to collect or otherwise take wildlife or plants are strictly construed. |
US - Permits - Subpart C. Permit Administration. § 13.29 Review procedures. | 54 FR 38149, Sept. 14, 1989 | This regulation outlines the procedure to seek administrative review of the denial for a permit to possess or otherwise take wildlife or plants. |
US - Permits - Subpart C. Permit Administration. § 13.21 Issuance of permits. | 67 FR 12824 | This regulation describes the conditions under which a permit is issued to possess wildlife that is subject to restricted terms of possession. It further outlines the disqualifying factors that will result in denial of a permit under this subchapter (i.e., conviction of a wildlife offense, failure to comply with reporting requirements, activities that threaten the particular plant or animal population, etc.). |
US - Permits - Subpart A. Introduction. § 13.4 Emergency variation from requirements. | 67 FR 12824 | This regulation provides that the Director of the USFWS may approve variations from the permit requirements if an emergency exists and it does not hinder the administration of other regulations. |
US - Migratory Birds - Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management |
The purpose of this depredation order is to reduce the occurrence and/or minimize the risk of adverse impacts to public resources (fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats) caused by double-crested cormorants. |
|
US - Migratory Birds - Final List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Apply |
We are publishing a final list of the nonnative bird species that have been introduced by humans into the United States or its territories and to which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) does not apply. This action is required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004. The MBTRA amends the MBTA by stating that it applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories, and that a native migratory bird is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. This notice identifies those species that are not protected by the MBTA, even though they belong to biological families referred to in treaties that the MBTA implements, as their presence in the United States and its territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions. |
|
US - Migratory Birds - Draft List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act |
This is a published draft list of the nonnative bird species that have been introduced by humans into the United States or its territories and to which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBTA does not apply. This action is required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004. The MBTRA amends the MBTA by stating that it applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories, and that a native migratory bird is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. This notice identifies those species that are not protected by the MBTA, even though they belong to biological families referred to in treaties that the MBTA implements, as their presence in the United States and its territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions. It should be noted as with all changes to federal rules, public comment is sought. |
|
US - Migratory Bird - Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management | 2003 WL 22295159 |
Increasing populations of the double-crested cormorant have caused biological and socioeconomic resource conflicts. In November 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on double-crested cormorant management. In March 2003, a proposed rule was published to establish regulations to implement the DEIS proposed action, Alternative D. In August 2003, the notice of availability for a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published, followed by a 30- day comment period. This final rule sets forth regulations for implementing the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative D (establishment of a public resource depredation order and revision of the aquaculture depredation order). It also provides responses to comments we received during the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule. The Record of Decision (ROD) is also published here. |
US - Meat Inspection - Labeling (Historical) | These former Federal Meat Inspection Act regulations detail the law surrounding labeling, marking, and containing packaged food prior to 2014. Read an Animal Welfare Institute petition to amend section 317.4 of labeling regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The new regulations went into effect in 2014. | |
US - Meat Inspection - Labeling (Current) | The following Federal Meat Inspection Act regulations detail the law surrounding labeling, marking, and containing packaged food that went into effect in 2014. See the prior version. | |
US - Marine Mammals, Endangered - Establishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of Concern List, Desc | 2004 WL 791908 (F.R.) |
NMFS establishes a species of concern list, places 45 species on this list, describes the factors it will consider when identifying species of concern, and revises the candidate species list. NMFS also solicits information and comments concerning the status of, research and stewardship opportunities for, and the factors for identifying species of concern. |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Tuna Purse Seine Vessels in the East | FR Doc. 04-19869 |
This Notice announces that on August 9, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order which set aside the final finding made on December 31, 2002, by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant Administrator). Under the terms of this Order, the labeling standard for ``dolphin-safe'' tuna shall be governed by the provisions of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act. Under that provision, tuna are deemed dolphin safe if ``no tuna were caught on the trip in which such tuna were harvested using a purse seine net intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins, and no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the sets in which the tuna were caught.'' |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Authorization for Commercial Fisheri | RIN 0648-AH33 |
NMFS issued a final rule to implement a new management regime for the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations, which was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 1995. The purpose of this document is to correct an unintended error in the definition of ``negligible impact,'' which provides a reference to a section number of the regulations that has been changed. |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations -- Permits, etc. | 1980 WL 90340 (F.R.) |
This final decision establishes regulations to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial tuna purse seine fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The regulations provide for a general permit to be issued allowing the taking of a maximum of 20,500 porpoises, as apportioned into individual species and stock quotas, for each of the five years 1981- 1985. |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations |
NMFS proposes regulations to implement provisions of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). These regulations would allow the entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States under certain conditions from nations signatory to the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) that otherwise would be under embargo. |
|
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations | 2000 WL 1214 (F.R.) |
This interim final rule allows the entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States under certain conditions from nations fully complying with the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP). It also allows U.S. vessels to set their purse seines on dolphins in the ETP. The standard for the use of "dolphin-safe" labels for tuna products also is changed. |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations |
NMFS proposes regulations to implement resolutions adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and by the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP). These regulations would prohibit activities that undermine the effective implementation and enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA), and International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). This proposed rule would enlarge the class of vessels required to pay observer fees. The procedure to categorize tuna purse seine vessels as ``active'' in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) and the deadline for submitting vessel permit applications would change. Procedures are proposed for managing the capacity of the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet operating in the ETP through maintenance of a Vessel Register, the definitive list of vessels authorized to purse seine for tuna in the ETP. This proposed rule is intended to contribute to the long-term conservation of dolphin and tuna stocks and to ensure that the domestic tuna tracking and verification program remains consistent with international standards. |
|
US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Listing of the Northeastern Offshore Spotted Dolphin as Depleted | 1993 WL 439609 (F.R.) |
NMFS has determined that the northeastern stock of offshore spotted dolphin is below its maximum net productivity level (MNPL) and, therefore, is depleted as defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This determination is based on a review of the best available information. |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Deterrence Regulations and Guidelines | 1995 WL 258491 (F.R.) |
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Amendments of 1994 provided new authority to citizens of the United States to deter marine mammals from: Damaging fishing gear and catch; damaging private property; endangering public safety; or damaging public property. The Amendments require NMFS to publish a list of guidelines for use in safely deterring marine mammals and to prohibit deterrence measures that have a significant adverse impact on marine mammals. This proposed rule sets forth preliminary versions of the guidelines and prohibitions, and seeks public comment upon which to refine them. |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals | 2000 WL 552235 (F.R.) |
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, issued an affirmative finding for the Government of Mexico under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) on April 12, 2000. This affirmative finding allows importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) after March 3, 1999, by Mexican-flag purse seine vessels or vessels operating under Mexican jurisdiction greater than 400 short tons (362.8 mt) carrying capacity. The affirmative finding was based on documentary evidence submitted by the Government of Mexico and obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental | 2001 WL 929542 (F.R.) |
NMFS, upon application from the University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps), is issuing regulations to govern the unintentional take of a small number of marine mammals incidental to the continued operation of a low frequency (LF) sound source by Scripps. |
US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals |
This material from the Federal Register invites public comment on the proposed guidelines outlined by the NMFS for acceptable methods for deterring marine mammals. |
|
US - Marine Mammals - Public Display of Marine Mammals | 1994 WL 540866 (F.R.) |
NMFS is announcing that the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) and the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums Alliance) have submitted, for reference purposes, the professionally accepted standards on which their members base their education and conservation programs. The MMPA was amended substantially on April 30, 1994. These 1994 Amendments require that persons holding marine mammals for purposes of public display, or requesting issuance of a permit to capture or import a marine mammal for purposes of public display, must offer a program for education or conservation purposes that is based on professionally recognized standards of the public display community. |
US - Marine Mammals - Protected Species Special Exception Permits | 2001 WL 738878 (F.R.) |
NMFS is proposing to amend the regulations for permits to capture or import marine mammals for purposes of public display under MMPA. The proposed revisions would implement amendments to the MMPA enacted in 1994, affecting marine mammals held captive for public display purposes and clarify the public display requirements relating to permits to capture or import, transport or transfer, and export marine mammals. |
US - Marine Mammals - Preventing Harassment From Human Activities Directed at Marine Mammals in the Wild | 2002 WL 111193 (F.R.) |
NMFS is considering whether to propose regulations to protect marine mammals in the wild from human activities that are directed at the animals and that have the potential to harass the animals. Some of these activities include feeding wild marine mammals, and "Swim-With" programs. |
US - Marine Mammals - Petition to Designate the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River Stock of Beluga Whales under the MMPA | Under § 1383 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq., the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), Cetacean Society International, and Earth Island Institute hereby petition the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, through the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to designate Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the Sea of Okhotsk as a “depleted” stock. As described herein, the best scientific information available indicates that these beluga whales constitute a stock that is well below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) and, under the MMPA, qualify for such designation. The evidence also suggests that the stock continues to decline and faces a number of risk factors, providing additional impetus for such designation. | |
US - Marine Mammals - Feeding Populations of Marine Mammals in the Wild | 1991 WL 301955 (F.R.) |
NMFS is issuing a final rule that amends the definition of "take" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to include feeding marine mammals in the wild, and adds a new definition of "feeding." As a result, feeding dolphins, porpoise, whales, seals and sea lions in the wild will be prohibited unless the feeding is incidental to another activity such as the routine discard of fish bycatch or discharges from processing plants or vessels. |
US - Marine Mammals - Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement | 2005 WL 41294 (F.R.) |
NMFS will be preparing an EIS to analyze the potential impacts of applying new criteria in guidelines to determine what constitutes a ``take'' of a marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of exposure to anthropogenic noise in the marine environment. This notice describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and also describes the proposed scoping process. |
US - Marine Mammals - 50 CFR Part 216. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing | 2004 WL 2019268 (F.R.) | NMFS issues a final rule to implement provisions of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). This rule replaces the interim rule published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2000. This final rule makes technical changes and clarifications to the interim final rule which is already in effect. The interim final rule allows the entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States under certain conditions from nations fully complying with the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) and the Agreement on the IDCP. The interim final rule establishes a standard for the use of "dolphin-safe" labels for tuna products and also establishes a tuna-tracking and verification program to ensure that the dolphin-safe status of tuna domestically produced and imported into the United States is documented. |
US - Livestock - Water Availability for Livestock at Slaughter Establishments |
On September 12, 1980, the Food Safety and Quality Service requested information on the humane watering needs of livestock. The action was taken in response to industry petitions that questioned a departmental regulation that requires water to be available for animals in holding pens at slaughter establishments. The Agency has determined that the regulations requiring that water be available is holding pens will remain in effect, but notes that compliance with the regulations will not necessarily impose burdensome costs on the industry. |
|
US - Livestock - To Promulgate Additional Regulations Implementing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to Prevent Incidents of Inhumane Handling and the Needless Suffering of Animals at Slaughter | Petitioner requests that the Secretary amend Humane Methods of Slaughter Act regulations to require all slaughter establishments take a systematic approach to animal welfare by preparing and maintaining a comprehensive, written humane handling plan, and make other changes that are needed to prevent unnecessary incidents of inhumane handling at slaughter. These amendments include requiring routine testing and maintenance of stunning equipment, the availability of backup stunning devices, and employee training in animal handling. The purpose of the requested action is to protect the welfare of animals during the slaughter process and to provide safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughter industry. Read the regulation the petitioner sought to amend. | |
US - Livestock - To Amend Labeling Regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act | The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) submits this petition for rulemaking in compliance with United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation 9 C.F.R. § 392 and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. AWI respectfully requests USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to amend labeling regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to require independent third-party certification for the approval of animal welfare and environmental stewardship claims on meat and poultry products. This action is necessary to 1) prevent the misleading and deceptive use of animal welfare and environmental stewardship claims, 2) provide for consistency and transparency in the label approval process, 3) meet consumer expectations for the label approval process, and 4) protect from financial harm those farmers making legitimate use of these value-added claims. Read the Federal Meat Inspection Act regulation in effect at the time the AWI petitioned. | |
US - Livestock - Petition To Amend the Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation Regulations to Include Fitness for Transport Requirements | This petition is submitted on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute (“AWI”) and the United States office of the World Society for the Protection of Animals (“WSPA”) and requests that the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), initiate rulemaking to amend the “exportation of animals” regulations by adopting the animal welfare standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (“OIE”) for the transport of animals. Read the regulations this petition challenges. | |
US - Livestock - Humane Handling and Treatment of Livestock; Solicitation of Information |
The Food Safety and Quality Service is seeking information from all interested members of the public on the need for modification of certain provisions relating to the humane handling of livestock contained in the Federal meat inspection regulations. The Agency has been requested to allow the withholding of water from cattle for a period of time not in excess of 24 hours when such withholding is specified in the sales contract. The Agency has also been requested to allow the withholding of water from animals which are to be slaughtered within 24 hours from the time they arrive at the slaughter establishment. |
|
US - Livestock - Humane Handling and Treatment of Livestock; Notice of Solicitation of Information (Republication) | 1980 WL 89059 (F.R.) |
The Food Safety and Quality Service is seeking information from all interested members of the public on the need for modification of certain provisions relating to the humane handling of livestock contained in the Federal meat inspection regulations. The Agency has been requested to allow the withholding of water from cattle for a period of time not in excess of 24 hours when such withholding is specified in the sales contract. The Agency has also been requested to allow the withholding of water from animals which are to be slaughtered within 24 hours from the time they arrive at the slaughter establishment. |
US - Livestock - Farm Sanctuary, et al v. Vilsack (Petition to Amend Rule) | The undersigned submit this petition to request that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) amend the ante-mortem inspection regulations to prohibit the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled (NAD) pigs.1 Specifically, Petitioners request that FSIS amend 9 C.F.R. § 309.3 by adding a provision: "(f) Non-ambulatory disabled pigs that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and humanely euthanized in accordance with § 309.13." Read the regulation this petition challenges. | |
US - Livestock - Ante-Mortem Inspection of Disabled Animals and Other Animals Unable to Move on | 1990 WL 346631 (F.R.) |
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to allow ante-mortem inspection of disabled animals, and other animals unable to move, while the animals are still on a transport vehicle, if requested by the official establishment. Currently, the ante-mortem inspection of such animals may only be performed in designated, covered ante-mortem pens on the premises of an official establishment. This proposal is intended to reduce the inhumane handling that may result when disabled animals, and other animals unable to move, are transferred from transport vehicles to the designated, covered ante-mortem pens for ante-mortem inspection. |
US - Lacey Act - Lacey Act Implementation Plan; Definitions for Exempt and Regulated Articles |
In response to recent amendments to the Lacey Act, we are establishing definitions for the terms “common cultivar” and “common food crop” and several related terms. The amendments to the 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 require 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. Our definitions specify which plants and plant products will be excluded from the provisions of the Act, including the declaration requirement. |
|
US - Invasive Species - Executive Order 13112 |
The Executive Order created the National Invasive Species Council and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee , which work together with stakeholders, concerned members of the public, and member departments to address invasive species. The Council is made up of federal agencies. The Committee is a group of non-federal experts and stakeholders. |