[Nhcoll-l] Filing post-import 3-177s for specimens for taxonomic & systematic research

[Bentley, Andrew Charles]

Trina

We had much the same conversation with USFWS agents in Memphis regarding shipments of ours.  They were also interpreting their own regulations incorrectly and admitted as much to us after seeking input from their higher ups – but for different reasons.

The long and the short of it was that they agreed that we do have 180 days in which to file BUT they strongly encouraged us to file at time of import to avoid delays or unnecessary inspection of packages that were not adequately flagged through the prior filing of a 3-177.  Memphis also does not accept any paper versions of 3-177’s and as such whether filing upon entry or within 180 days, it must go through the e-Dec system.  In that case it is just as easy to file at the time rather than waiting.  As such we have pretty much done away with filing after the fact to avoid any confusion.

After going round and round with them on this and getting a final ruling, I wrote up the following document for our folks here to process incoming and outgoing material.  It is fairly specific to KU in some places but generic enough that it would be adapted for your purposes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zat4CLpagKX0XQAYOXN6sWhXxhYlpxvI4KzKYignPlY/edit

I must admit that I have never heard the argument that specimens that are identified cannot be used for taxonomic work and this is frankly ignorant and easy refutable.

Also, the Legs and Regs committee was planning a workshop at the SF meeting with representatives of USFWS and others to try and find common ground and solutions to common problems but not sure where that stands at present.

Hope that helps.  Happy to answer specific questions if you have them in person on Zoom.

Andy
    A  :             A  :             A  :
 }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
    V                V                V
Andy Bentley
Ichthyology Collection Manager
University of Kansas
Biodiversity Institute
Dyche Hall
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard<x-apple-data-detectors://9/>
Lawrence, KS, 66045-7561<x-apple-data-detectors://9/>
USA<x-apple-data-detectors://9/>

Tel: (785) 864-3863<tel:%28785%29%20864-3863>
Fax: (785) 864-5335<tel:%28785%29%20864-5335>
Email: abentley at ku.edu<mailto:abentley at ku.edu>
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3093-1258
http://ichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu<http://ichthyology.biodiversity.ku.edu/>
    A  :             A  :             A  :
 }<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<(((_°>.,.,.,.}<)))_°>
    V                V                V

From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> On Behalf Of Trina Roberts
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 2:52 PM
To: nhcoll <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Subject: [Nhcoll-l] Filing post-import 3-177s for specimens for taxonomic & systematic research

Hi colleagues,

We are experiencing some misunderstandings with the local USFWS inspection office about what we do and don't need to do for imports of dried/preserved specimens for taxonomic/systematic research.  These are not anything that would require CITES, ESA, MBTA, MMPA, or other special permitting.  They are not imports from new field work, but specimens from existing collections being loaned to us or being returned to us after a loan.

My interpretation of the situation and our responsibility is:
- The specimens are for taxonomic/systematic research because they are being used in studies that will do such things as naming species and determining evolutionary relationships among species and higher taxa, regardless of whether the identity of these specimens is unknown or what we currently know of their taxonomy.
- We do not have to file a 3-177 and have the shipment cleared before/upon import, because 50 CFR §14.55 (d) says that clearance is not required for such shipments, and 50 CFR §14.62 (d) says we do not have to file a declaration at the time of importation.
- But we do have to file a 3-177 within 180 days after the import, because 50 CFR §14.62 (d) says we must do so "with the appropriate Assistant Regional Director - Law Enforcement"

USFWS's current interpretation is:
- The specimens cannot be for taxonomic/systematic research because they have already been identified to genus, and therefore we know what they are.  The exception for taxonomic/systematic research only holds if the specimens in the shipment are unidentified.  We have managed to talk them into accepting that individual shipments are for taxonomic research after a rejection, but with no evidence that they have changed their overall interpretation.
- Therefore we need to file a 3-177 and have the shipment cleared before import.
- There is no difference between clearance and declaration.  There is no situation when we would be exempt from clearance at import and still need to file a declaration later.  We either need to file before import if a 3-177 is needed, or not file at all if it isn't.

The result of this is that if we DO file a 3-177 after import, it gets rejected and found in violation of the clearance requirement.  If we DON'T file at all, obviously USFWS can't reject the 3-177 but I think we are in violation of the declaration requirement.

I would love to hear from the community whether you agree that a 3-177 is needed for this kind of import, and whether any of you are in fact using these exceptions to file yours post-import, something that in my experience is or at least used to be common for museums.  And, critically: if you are doing that successfully, exactly how does the process go?  Are you filing in eDecs?  Is there some magical way you are filling in the fields that tells your local inspectors that this is an import declaration but the shipment is exempt from clearance?  Are your local inspectors interpreting "taxonomic or systematic research" more broadly than ours, and what are you putting on your forms that makes it clear to them that that category applies?  Are you filing in some way that sends the form not to front-line inspectors whose job it is to clear shipments, but to someone else?  Do they approve your eDecs, and if they do do they mark them as "cleared" even if the import is in the past, or is there some other category they apply?

The local office here is horrendously understaffed and overworked, with a huge amount of commercial wildlife traffic coming through LAX and the port; what we do is a tiny corner of what they're responsible for monitoring.  I'm not surprised that misunderstandings occur, just looking for examples of how this is working better for other institutions with the hope of fixing this before it gets more combative.

Thanks for any clever solutions!  I'm happy to talk more about this one-on-one if that's helpful to anyone or if you need more details (or if you don't want to commit your thoughts to writing).

--Trina





--
Trina E. Roberts, Ph.D.
Associate VP, Collections
Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County
213-763-3330
troberts at nhm.org<mailto:troberts at nhm.org>
she, her, hers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20230217/36c2ccca/attachment.html>