[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61735-61755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23416]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61735]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 319 and 322
[Docket No. 98-109-2]
RIN 0579-AB20
Bees and Related Articles
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations for the importation of
honeybees and honeybee semen and the regulations governing the
importation of bees other than honeybees, certain beekeeping
byproducts, and used beekeeping equipment. Among other things, we are
allowing honeybees from Australia and honeybees and honeybee germ plasm
from New Zealand to be imported into the continental United States
under certain conditions, imposing certain conditions on the
importation into the United States of bees and related articles from
Canada, and prohibiting both the interstate movement and importation of
honeybees into Hawaii. This action also consolidates all of our
regulations concerning all bees in the superfamily Apoidea. These
changes are intended to make these regulations more consistent with
international standards, update them to reflect current research and
terminology, and simplify them and make them more useful.
DATES: November 22, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Wayne F. Wehling, Entomologist,
Pest Permit Evaluations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8757.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Honeybee Act (7 U.S.C. 281-286), the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation of
honeybees and honeybee semen to prevent the introduction into the
United States of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees and of
undesirable species such as the African honeybee. The Secretary has
delegated responsibility for administering the Honeybee Act to the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Regulations established
under the Honeybee Act are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Title 7, part 322 (referred to below as the ``honeybee
regulations'').
Regulations Covering Bees and Honeybees
The honeybee regulations have allowed the unrestricted importation
into the United States of honeybees and honeybee semen from Canada, but
placed stringent requirements on the importation of these products from
other countries. Honeybee imports from any country other than Canada
have been allowed only if the bees are imported by the USDA for
experimental or scientific purposes. Honeybee semen could be imported
by the USDA for experimental or scientific purposes or by another
person or group only if the semen was imported from Australia, Bermuda,
France, Great Britain, or Sweden and met certain documentation,
packaging, inspection, notification, and port of entry requirements.
Honeybees and honeybee semen from New Zealand have been allowed to
transit the United States en route to another destination in accordance
with certain documentation, packaging, handling, notification, and port
of entry requirements, but entry has not been allowed.
Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary
of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation,
entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of plant pests
and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the
United States or their dissemination within the United States. The
Secretary has delegated responsibility for administering the Plant
Protection Act to the Administrator of APHIS. Regulations authorized by
the Plant Protection Act concerning the importation of certain bees,
beekeeping byproducts, and used beekeeping equipment are contained in 7
CFR part 319, Sec. Sec. 319.76 through 319.76-8 (referred to below as
the ``pollinator regulations'').
The pollinator regulations have governed the importation of live
bees other than honeybees, dead bees of the superfamily Apoidea,
certain beekeeping byproducts, and beekeeping equipment. These
regulations have been intended to prevent the introduction of exotic
bee diseases and parasites that, if introduced into the United States,
could cause substantial reductions in pollination by bees. Reductions
in pollination by bees could indirectly cause serious damage to crops
and other plants.
The pollinator regulations have allowed bees other than honeybees;
dead bees; used bee boards, hives, nests, and nesting material; used
beekeeping equipment; beeswax; pollen for bee feed; and honey for bee
feed to be imported into the United States from Canada without
restriction, but have restricted the importation of these articles from
other countries. Specifically, the pollinator regulations have provided
for the importation of these articles from any country other than
Canada only if they are imported by USDA for experimental or scientific
purposes or if they are imported under permit and meet certain
documentation, inspection, treatment, packaging, notification, and port
of entry requirements.
Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments
On August 19, 2002, we published in the Federal Register (67 FR
53844-53867, Docket No. 98-109-1) a proposal to amend the regulations
by revising the honeybee regulations and the pollinator regulations.
Among other things, we proposed to allow honeybees from Australia and
honeybees and honeybee germ plasm from New Zealand to be imported into
the United States under certain conditions, to impose certain
conditions on the importation into the United States of bees and
related articles from Canada, and to prohibit the interstate movement
of honeybees into Hawaii. We also proposed to consolidate the honeybee
regulations and the pollinator regulations by
[[Page 61736]]
combining both into part 322. These changes were intended to make these
regulations more consistent with international standards, update them
to reflect current research and terminology, and simplify them and make
them more useful.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending
November 18, 2002. We received 308 written comments by that date, most
of which expressed opposition to our proposal. They were from
beekeepers, beekeepers' associations, researchers, and representatives
of State and foreign governments. These comments, as well as oral
comments presented at three public hearings on the proposed rule, are
discussed below by topic.
The largest group of commenters who opposed the proposed rule
expressed the concern that by allowing imports of honeybees from
Australia and New Zealand, APHIS risked letting in disease organisms,
mites and other bee parasites, hitchhiker insects, and Africanized
bees. Issues raised by these commenters included the adequacy of the
surveillance programs of Australia and New Zealand, the adequacy of our
proposed inspection requirements, the danger of introducing exotic
pests into Hawaii, the adequacy of our proposed provisions related to
packaging, and the possible precedent that the proposed changes could
set for future regulation of honeybee imports.
Some commenters questioned the efficacy of the surveillance
programs of Australia and New Zealand, fearing that authorities in
those countries might fail to detect common pests or diseases in bees
slated for export to the United States. Various commenters discussed
the recent outbreak in Australia of small hive beetle, the routing by
Australian companies of illegal honey to the United States, and the
belated discovery of Varroa mite in New Zealand after New Zealand's
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) had conducted a nationwide
survey and pronounced New Zealand free of dangerous pests and diseases
and after bees certified by the MAF as Varroa-free were shipped from
that country to Canada. These episodes were cited as examples of
regulatory lapses on the part of Australia and New Zealand. Commenters
also expressed reservations about the ability or the willingness of the
governments of Australia and New Zealand to implement the inspection
regimen spelled out under Sec. 322.6 of the proposed rule. One
commenter asserted that the two countries have expressed an
unwillingness to pay for or subsidize honeybee inspection programs.
APHIS has worked extensively with the Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service (AQIS) and with MAF both in the preparation of the
country-specific pest risk assessments (PRAs) and these revised
regulations. The PRAs did not reveal any bee pathogens, parasites, or
disease strains in either Australia or New Zealand that are not already
present in the continental United States. The Varroa mite found in New
Zealand and the European foulbrood found in Australia were both
determined to be identical to the strains already present in the
continental United States. Moreover, the introduction of exotic bee
species or subspecies is extremely unlikely given the importation
restrictions and inspection regimes already in place in Australia and
New Zealand. Both countries have strong beekeeping organizations with
good government support. We are confident, therefore, that the
provisions we have developed will prevent the introduction of new
exotic bee diseases into the continental United States. If new maladies
or problems are detected, appropriate measures will be taken. For
reasons that will be discussed in greater detail further on in this
document, this final rule, unlike the proposed rule, will not allow
bees to be imported into Hawaii from Australia or New Zealand.
A number of commenters raised issues pertaining to the inspection
requirements for imported honeybees, specified in Sec. 322.6 of the
proposed rule. Proposed Sec. 322.6 required individual inspection of
the hives from which the honeybees in each shipment were derived by an
official of the appropriate regulatory agency of the exporting region
no more than 10 days prior to export. Inspections were also required of
individual hives from which germ plasm was derived. Inspectors were
further required to identify any diseases, parasites, or undesirable
species or subspecies of honeybee found in the hive during inspection
and to certify that the bees in the shipment were produced in the
exporting region and were the offspring of queens and drones or semen
also produced in the exporting region. Additional inspection conditions
specific to Hawaii in proposed Sec. 322.6 included a requirement for
certification that the pre-export inspections revealed no sign of
Varroa mite, tracheal mite, or African honeybee on the day of export.
Citing various reasons, commenters argued that our proposed
inspection requirements were inadequate, unworkable, or otherwise not
feasible. Some commenters expressed the view that time, personnel, and
methodological constraints would prevent the inspection procedures from
being conducted with the rigor necessary to prevent the accidental
introduction of unwanted organisms into the United States. A commenter
argued that within the prescribed 10-day period preceding export, the
exporting country's authorities would only have time to do visual
inspections of the bees, and the necessary laboratory procedures would
not be performed. Other commenters expressed skepticism that there
would be sufficient numbers of inspectors available during a shipping
season to conduct even visual inspections of individual hives within 10
days prior to shipment. A minimal inspection of bees for known diseases
and parasites, suggested another commenter, requires a combination of
field and laboratory examinations. Certain parasites and diseases
(e.g., Varroa mites and foulbrood diseases) can be diagnosed in the
field by trained personnel, but the absolute identification of the
bacteria responsible for American foulbrood disease and European
foulbrood disease would require laboratory analyses. Other parasites
and pathogens (e.g., Acarapis mites and the parasitic protozoan that
causes Nosema disease) are not visible to the naked eye, and their
identification would require dissection of adult honeybees followed by
microscopic examination. Inspection for parasites and diseases of
honeybees not currently found in Hawaii or the continental United
States, such as Tropilaelaps and Euvarroa mites and Thai sacbrood
virus, as required by the APHIS proposal, would require additional
field and laboratory diagnoses, including molecular characterization of
viruses. The detection of some exotic parasites and diseases, it was
suggested, will depend upon the development and verification of new
field and laboratory methodologies. Similarly, the requirement that the
export certificate identify the species or subspecies of honeybee found
in the hive during the pre-export inspection to ensure that no
undesirable species or subspecies of bees (e.g., Apis mellifera
capensis) gain entrance into the United States could only be met by
developing new laboratory molecular genetic and/or morphometric
techniques for subspecies identification. Finally, another commenter
asserted that the required certification in Sec. 322.6 that the bees
or queens in a shipment originated in the exporting region is not
objectively verifiable.
[[Page 61737]]
Some commenters discussed what they saw as the need for the final
rule to specify a standard detection and inspection protocol for all
dangerous honeybee pests and pathogens and ensure that such specified
protocols provide accurate detection and identification of each and
every dangerous honeybee pathogen or pest. One commenter argued that if
new inspection standards are to be adopted for imported honeybees, they
should be based upon the inspection protocols of the Office
International des Epizooties (OIE). The OIE protocols, according to
this commenter, specify specific numbers of bees that are to be
examined. The commenter asserted that, under the proposed rule, the OIE
guidelines were mandated only for importation certificates for Hawaii.
Other commenters argued that the final rule should provide for
port-of-entry inspections and testing of imported bees. One of these
commenters also argued for quarantining bees entering the United
States.
APHIS is revising the bee regulations, in part, to bring them into
alignment with the international standards as set forth by the OIE
guidelines for export certification (Article 3.4.2.3). The inspection
requirements in the proposed rule were derived from the internationally
accepted OIE standard, with some modifications tailored to address the
honeybee pest concerns of the United States, Australia, and New
Zealand. The requirement for inspection of hives no more than 10 days
prior to export is derived directly from the stipulations set forth in
the guidelines of the OIE in Appendix 3.4.2, ``Hygiene and Disease
Security Procedures in Apiaries.'' Therefore, the inspection standards
contained in the proposed rule and in this final rule are no less
rigorous than any international standards. In addition, all inspection-
related documentation will be examined by APHIS at the port of entry.
We are confident, therefore, not only that the requirements for pre-
export inspection are adequate to safeguard against the introduction of
new honeybee pests, but also that we will be able to enforce these
requirements. The comments concerning the requirements specific to
Hawaii in Sec. 322.6(a)(2) of the proposed rule are no longer
relevant, since we will not be allowing imports of honeybees into
Hawaii.
Regarding port-of-entry inspections, the proposed rule, under Sec.
322.12, did allow for port inspections of documentation, including
export certificates and notice of arrival, and packaging of shipments
of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, and other bees. The proposal also
authorized inspectors to refuse entry of shipments that failed to meet
the requirements of part 322.
The Government of Australia, in its comments, took a different view
of the inspection requirements in our proposed Sec. 322.6 than did
most of the commenters, arguing that the requirement for individual
inspection of hives no more than 10 days prior to export is unwarranted
as applied to Australia. This requirement, it was said, does not
constitute a risk-management measure relating to any specific disease
or pest that could be of quarantine significance to the United States
and is not consistent with conditions in the continental United States,
as there exists no equivalent inspection requirement for hives for
internal movement of bees within the continental United States. Another
commenter, not affiliated with the Government of Australia, argued for
loosening, rather than eliminating, the 10-day requirement, suggesting
that 30 days prior to export would be a more practical timeframe for
inspections.
As noted earlier, the requirement that all colonies yielding export
material be inspected no more than 10 days prior to export comes
directly from the OIE export standards. Loosening this 10-day
requirement would result in a corresponding loss of confidence that the
export certificate would have identified all of the diseases and pests
present at the time of packaging. We do not regulate the interstate
movement of honeybees in the continental United States, which we view
as a single region for the purposes of sanitary surveillance of
apiaries.
The Government of Canada argued against the inspection provisions
on similar grounds. The regulations in Sec. 322.1(b) have stated that
honeybees or honeybee semen from Canada may be imported into the United
States without any further restrictions under the honeybee regulations.
The August 2002 proposed rule placed Canada on an equal footing with
Australia and New Zealand, subjecting imports from all three countries
to the same certification, inspection, and other requirements. The
Canadian representative cited the lack of equivalent requirements for
bees shipped within the United States in arguing that our proposed
inspection requirements exceeded the provisions of international trade
agreements. By enacting the proposed requirements, it was claimed,
APHIS would be placing new import conditions upon Canada without having
first conducted a PRA to justify such an action. Similarly, our
proposed requirements for inspection and the associated certification
for imported Canadian honeybee germ plasm were criticized as
unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of international trade
agreements. Our proposed inspection and certification requirements for
bumblebees and leafcutter bees from Canada were said to be unjustified
unless APHIS knew of disease agents that affect bumblebees and
leafcutter bees in Canada but not in the United States.
Our decision to regulate the contiguous United States as a single
sanitary surveillance unit has no bearing on import requirements as
they will be applied to Canada. The requirements for Canada directly
reflect the international standard as agreed upon through the OIE.
APHIS' decision to require certification of honeybees, honeybee germ
plasm, and bumblebees from Canada is based on our concerns over the
range of countries that Canada imports these commodities from, as well
as concerns over smuggling.
Packaging standards were also discussed by commenters as a risk-
related issue. General packaging requirements for shipments of
honeybees and other bees were contained in Sec. 322.8 of the proposed
rule. Proposed Sec. 322.9 pertained to mailed packages of honeybees,
honeybee germ plasm, or other bees, and proposed Sec. Sec. 322.10 and
322.11, to hand-carried packages containing those commodities.
Similarly, proposed Sec. Sec. 322.18 and 322.19 contained,
respectively, general requirements for packaging of restricted
organisms and specific requirements for mailed packages, and Sec. Sec.
322.20 and 322.21 set out conditions for hand-carried packages.
Proposed Sec. 322.35 contained requirements for mailed packages of
restricted articles, and hand-carrying requirements were set out in
proposed Sec. Sec. 322.36 and 322.37. Certain materials, such as
brood, comb, pollen, or honey, were specifically prohibited in proposed
Sec. 322.8, but shippers were allowed some latitude in packing
methods, as long as the overarching objective, stated in Sec.
322.8(a)(1), that shipments must be packaged to prevent the escape of
any bees, was met. Proposed Sec. 322.18 did specify acceptable
packaging materials for shipments of restricted organisms. Commenters
suggested that more detailed requirements for packaging of honeybee
shipments were needed in order to prevent the escape of imported bees
that may carry diseases or pests. Some commenters also argued that
allowing individuals to carry live bees in their personal baggage could
present undue risks of spreading disease, as not all individuals could
be counted on to package their shipments with adequate care.
[[Page 61738]]
We chose, in this instance, to employ a performance standard rather
than a list of detailed packaging requirements in order not to place an
excessive regulatory burden on shippers. In response to these comments,
we are amending Sec. 322.8(a)(1) to state that imported adult
honeybees must be packaged to prevent the escape of any bees or bee
pests. Packages of bees will be inspected at the port of entry for
integrity and security of the packaging. Packaging deemed inadequate
can be refused entry by the inspector. Similarly, inadequate packaging
would in all likelihood cause the shipper to refuse receipt of the
packaged bees at the origin of the shipment. We have also reconsidered
our proposed provisions regarding hand carrying, in response to a
recent Audit Report of APHIS Permits by the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) of the USDA. This audit has brought about many recent
changes to our plant pest permit review and issuance processes,
practices, and policies, some of which will be discussed later in this
document. In accordance with the recommendations of the audit, we will
not be allowing individuals to hand carry live bees, restricted
organisms, or restricted articles into the United States. Therefore,
this final rule will not include proposed Sec. Sec. 322.10, 322.11,
322.20, and 322.36. Proposed Sec. Sec. 322.21 and 322.37 have been
amended in this final rule to provide only for importation via
commercial vehicles arriving at land border ports in the United States.
Other sections of this final rule have been renumbered accordingly.
A number of commenters discussed what they saw as the potential
risks specific to Hawaii of allowing the importation of honeybees into
the State from Australia and New Zealand. One commenter, noting that
Hawaii, because of its isolation, has a fragile ecosystem, suggested
that the introduction into Hawaii of Apis mellifera from anywhere else
on earth could include the introduction of microbiological pathogens
that could spill over and adversely affect the 22 species of native
bees or hundreds of other hymenopteran or dipteran species that are
present in the State. Loss of insects could result in impaired
pollination. Other commenters noted that Hawaii is free of parasitic
mites, such as the Varroa mite, known to exist in New Zealand. It was
suggested that such pests could be introduced to Hawaii by allowing
imports of honeybees from New Zealand. Some commenters argued that
since APHIS prohibits interstate movement of honeybees to Hawaii to
prevent the introduction of exotic pests there, APHIS should also
prohibit international movement of bees to Hawaii for the same reason.
Commenters argued that the introduction of a pest like Varroa mite
would devastate the Hawaiian bee industry. One commenter asserted that
such an outbreak could cause Hawaii to lose half of its managed hives
and all of its feral honeybee population. It was also suggested that if
Hawaii were to be invaded by the Varroa mite, the use of miticides
would mean the end of American organic honey, as Hawaii is the only
State that produces it. Other commenters cited the possible
introduction of the aggressive Africanized honeybee to Hawaii via
imports from Australia and New Zealand as a cause for concern. It was
suggested that Africanized honeybees could have a disastrous impact on
Hawaii's tourist industry.
After we initiated the process of revising the bee regulations,
Varroa mite was found in New Zealand, and the small hive beetle
(Aethina tumida) was found in Australia. Neither bee pest is present in
Hawaii; therefore, this final rule prohibits the importation of adult
honeybees into Hawaii. Specifically, Sec. 322.4(a) of this final rule
lists Australia, Canada, and New Zealand as regions that are approved
for the importation of adult honeybees into the continental United
States (i.e., not including Hawaii), and proposed Sec. 322.6(a)(2),
which contained conditions for export certificates accompanying
shipments of adult honeybees into Hawaii, has been removed.
As a result of our decision not to allow honeybees or other bees to
be imported into Hawaii, any bees from Australia or New Zealand that
are transiting through Hawaii will be considered restricted organisms
and will be subject to the appropriate requirements. The conditions for
transiting imported bees through and transloading them in Hawaii, set
forth in the proposed rule in Subpart D--Transit of Restricted
Organisms Through the United States, also were the subject of a number
of comments. Proposed Sec. 322.25 stated that shippers may not
transload restricted organisms in Hawaii. The restricted organisms
would have to remain on, and depart for another destination aboard, the
same aircraft on which the shipment arrived at the Hawaiian airport.
This provision represented the most significant change from the current
regulations, which do allow transloading. The remaining provisions of
the proposed subpart, which pertained to such matters as documentation,
packaging, notice of arrival, and inspection and handling, did not
deviate significantly from the existing provisions in Sec. 322.1 of
the regulations.
Some commenters, in expressing their opposition to the proposed
transiting conditions, cited the same concerns about the possible
introduction of diseases and pests into Hawaii that they stated could
result from imports of honeybees and honeybee germ plasm from Australia
and New Zealand into the State. The possibility of a Varroa mite
infestation was given as a reason for not allowing offloading or
transloading of bees from New Zealand in Hawaii. One commenter argued
that transloading of Australian bees in Hawaii should also be banned
until a comprehensive Varroa mite survey verified the absence of that
pest in Australia. A commenter suggested that Hawaii's airports lack
the operational and procedural safeguards needed to prevent the escape
of restricted organisms. Concern was also expressed about the
possibility of transiting infected bees escaping into the Hawaiian
environment as a result of an accident.
The Government of New Zealand also took issue with our proposed
transiting conditions. Unlike the other commenters, however, New
Zealand viewed the proposed conditions as too restrictive rather than
too lenient. As restricted organisms, honeybees from New Zealand would
not be eligible for transloading in Hawaii. The Government of New
Zealand asked that consideration be given to retaining the current
transiting conditions, which do allow transloading in Hawaii. New
Zealand currently ships honeybees through Honolulu to Canada under the
existing regulations and expressed a desire to be allowed to ship to
the continental United States under the same conditions. It was argued
that, due to the distance from New Zealand to the continental United
States, restrictions on freight space, and New Zealand's desire to ship
honeybees with the least possible stress and to provide premium quality
honeybees to the U.S. market, direct shipping of honeybees from New
Zealand for import into the continental United States, as required in
proposed Sec. 322.5, would be impracticable. New Zealand argued that
it needed to be able to transit honeybees through Hawaii and to retain
the right to transload shipments there onto aircraft other than the
ones in which the shipments arrived. Though the New Zealand Government
viewed the current transiting system as having been
[[Page 61739]]
successful, additional safeguards were suggested in comments submitted
by that government's representatives in order to protect Hawaii's
honeybee health status. These included requiring that shipments transit
Honolulu at night, when honeybees are least active; requiring shipments
to include Apistan (fluvalinate) strips; and requiring the Apistan
strips to have been in contact with the honeybees for at least 24 hours
prior to the shipment reaching the airport in Honolulu.
APHIS has taken all comments into consideration regarding the
transit of bee shipments through Hawaii and decided not to make any
changes to the proposed transiting conditions. As we have already
noted, the proposed standards were closely based upon the existing
requirements in Sec. 322.1, which have proved effective in ensuring
the safe transit through Hawaii of honeybees and honeybee semen from
New Zealand. In some instances, the proposed conditions were more
stringent. For example, both the existing and proposed regulations
require that honeybees be packaged in enclosed containers covered with
netting to ensure that no honeybees can escape, but the proposed rule,
in Sec. 322.27(a), also specified that the containers must be
sufficiently secure to prevent the escape of organisms and the leakage
of any contained materials. We are confident that foreign bees and bee
products will be able to transit through Hawaii safely under the
conditions that we proposed. Allowing shipments of bees to change
planes, however, could increase the likelihood of an accidental release
of bees or bee pests. Therefore, we find it necessary to retain the
prohibition on transloading contained in proposed Sec. 322.25(c).
In addition to the concerns expressed over possible risks resulting
from the importation or transiting of live honeybees, some commenters
also criticized the proposed conditions for importation of beeswax and
honey for bee feed. Those two articles were classified as restricted
articles in Sec. 322.31 of the proposed rule. Section 322.33 specified
that export certificates for beeswax must state that the beeswax has
been liquified and that export certificates accompanying honey for bee
feed must state that the honey has been heated to 212 [deg]F for 30
minutes. Commenters argued that liquification of beeswax was not an
effective means of preventing the spread of disease through that
medium. Similarly, it was argued that heating honey to 212 [deg]F may
also fail to kill disease-carrying pathogens, such as American
foulbrood spores, in the honey. Commenters also suggested that the
heating process itself could make the honey toxic for bees. Some
commenters also worried that contaminated honey imported as bee feed
under proposed Sec. 322.33 could find its way into the retail market
for human consumption.
American foulbrood (Paenibacillus larvae) is the only bee malady
that we are aware of that can be transmitted in beeswax that has been
liquefied or in honey. Because American foulbrood is widespread in the
United States, we do not regulate the internal movement of affected
material, and citing the disease as a rationale for barring imports may
be problematic under international trade agreements. In order to offer
greater protection to the U.S. honeybee population, however, we are
tightening the beeswax requirements somewhat in this final rule. As
specified in Sec. 322.30(a) of this final rule, the export certificate
accompanying beeswax entering the United States must state that the
beeswax has been liquified and that slumgum and honey have been
removed. For the sake of clarity, we are adding a definition for
slumgum to Sec. 322.1. We define slumgum as the residue remaining
after the beeswax rendering process. Slumgum is composed of beeswax
mixed with debris or refuse that accumulates when wax cappings or comb
are melted and may include wax moth cocoons, dead bees, bee parts, and
other detritus from the colony. The claim that heated honey may be
toxic to bees is not supported by sufficient data to cause us to change
the final rule. Regarding the commenters' final point, the Food and
Drug Administration would be responsible for ensuring that honey
imported for bee feed does not get into the food supply.
In addition to the other risks cited by commenters opposed to the
proposed rule, there was concern expressed that it could set a
dangerous precedent. Under the rules of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), it was suggested, APHIS might have difficulty justifying the
prohibition or restriction of imports from other countries that wanted
to export honeybees to the United States. The ultimate effect of the
proposal, it was feared, would be to allow the importation of bees and
queens from almost any country in the world, greatly increasing the
risk of spreading diseases and pests to the U.S. bee population.
Regions that are not listed in Sec. 322.4 as approved regions for
the importation of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or other bees will
be required to submit a formal petition to the Secretary of Agriculture
for consideration for such approval. Such a petition would be followed
by a thorough PRA, which would then be made available to the public for
comment. If the results of the PRA suggest that a regulatory change is
merited, i.e., that bees and bee products could safely be imported from
the region under consideration, then APHIS may propose such a change.
The proposed rule would be published in the Federal Register, and the
public would have an opportunity to offer comments.
In their discussions of the possible risks of allowing imports of
honeybees and related articles from Australia and New Zealand, many
commenters focused on what they perceived as the shortcomings of the
PRAs that APHIS carried out for those two countries. The PRAs provided
the basis for the proposed rule. Various commenters asserted that the
PRAs were not conducted in accordance with OIE guidelines; that the
PRAs were insufficiently comprehensive in evaluating pest risks,
lacking both depth and breadth and relying on old information; that
they employed imprecise or unscientific terminology; and that the
standards applied to Australia and New Zealand were less rigorous than
those we apply domestically.
A commenter, referring to proposed OIE standards for PRAs for
honeybees, questioned why APHIS did not use these standards as a basis
for conducting its assessments of Australia and New Zealand. The
commenter thought APHIS had proceeded in an ad hoc manner rather than
relying on specific international standards that were available for
use.
The OIE standards in question are proposed standards that have not
yet been implemented. It is possible that finalization of the OIE
standards could serve as an impetus to future rulemaking. In drafting
the August 2002 proposed rule and this final rule, we did use the
international standard that was available at the time of writing.
Some commenters stated that the information on which the PRAs were
based was no longer current, particularly in the case of New Zealand.
Commenters noted that the New Zealand site visit was conducted by APHIS
in 1984, which was the year the risk assessment was initiated, and was
of relatively short duration. It was suggested that the continued use
of the original New Zealand PRA as a basis for the current rulemaking
was not warranted. It was also claimed that previous critiques of that
risk assessment had been ignored.
As noted in the preamble of the proposed rule, APHIS made the PRAs
for both Australia and New Zealand
[[Page 61740]]
available for public comment prior to the publication of the proposed
rule. On December 9, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR
68984, Docket No. 99-091-1) a notice of availability for the New
Zealand PRA. On May 3, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65
FR 25701, Docket No. 00-032-1) a notice of availability for the
Australian PRA. We solicited public comment on each PRA for 60 days.
During their respective 60-day comment periods, we received 23 comments
on the New Zealand PRA and 6 comments on the Australian PRA. We
responded to all comments. In March 2002, we updated the New Zealand
PRA because, following its publication, Varroa mite was detected on the
North Island of New Zealand. The updated New Zealand PRA includes a
discussion of the detection of Varroa mite on the North Island of New
Zealand and qualitatively assesses the effect of that parasite on
importations of bees and bee products from New Zealand. We believe that
our PRAs for Australia and New Zealand employed the best available
sources of information to document the presence or absence of bee
diseases and parasites in those countries. It is true that a site visit
of New Zealand has not been conducted in recent years; however, we were
repeatedly in contact with AQIS and MAF officials, as well as bee
scientists from the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, during the
preparation of the PRAs for Australia and New Zealand.
Some commenters argued that the PRAs were lacking in depth and
scope. One commenter maintained that no U.S. scientist has yet done an
in-depth study on diseases, pests, and viruses of New Zealand or
Australian stock. It was suggested that serious study should be given
to half-moon disorder, chronic bee paralysis virus, Kashmir bee virus
(KBV), melanosis, and Malphighamoeba mellificae, all of which are known
to occur in New Zealand.
As noted in Appendix II of the revised New Zealand PRA, which
contains public comments on the PRA and APHIS' responses to those
comments, neither KBV nor half-moon disorder is considered to be a
significant disease by the OIE. Therefore, we cannot impose special
import requirements on New Zealand queens and package bees based on
these diseases. Chronic bee paralysis virus, melanosis, and
Malphighamoeba mellificae are not known to have an economic impact on
honeybees.
A commenter questioned why APHIS did not assess germ plasm and
honeybees as separate items in separate risk assessments. The commenter
argued that beekeepers are chiefly concerned about the risks posed by
importing live honeybees but would support a standard protocol for
imported germ plasm that would control the handling of that commodity.
APHIS does distinguish between live honeybees and honeybee germ
plasm in evaluating the risks of importing each into the United States.
Like the beekeepers cited by the commenter, we view imported live bees
as having a greater potential for introducing bee diseases and pests
into the U.S. bee population than imported germ plasm. While germ plasm
can transmit genetic maladies, it will not carry viruses, bacteria, or
parasites. Section 322.4 of the proposed rule provided for the
importation of germ plasm from Australia, Bermuda, Canada, France,
Great Britain, New Zealand, and Sweden, while allowing imports of live
bees only from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
Another criticism of the PRAs was that the standards we applied to
New Zealand and Australia were less rigorous than those we apply
domestically. It was noted that while the continental United States has
pest-free zones, we treat it as a single entity. Pests found anywhere
in the continental United States are regarded as existing throughout
the country. On the other hand, New Zealand is divided up into regions
with and without pests.
Historically, APHIS has chosen not to regulate the interstate
movement of honeybees because the frequent peregrinations of American
beekeepers make such regulation extremely difficult. We have allowed
the State agriculture regulatory agencies to oversee the apiculture
industry at the State level. APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine and
Veterinary Services divisions have been engaged in discussions of
domestic honeybee health issues and are working together, along with
honeybee-related trade associations and other organizations, such as
the Apiary Inspectors of America, to develop solutions to perceived
regulatory gaps or inequities.
An additional criticism of the PRAs was that they employed
imprecise, inappropriate, or unscientific terminology. One commenter
questioned whether the term ``negligible,'' which was employed in the
preamble of the proposed rule to describe the level of risk of
introducing exotic bee diseases or pests or unwanted subspecies into
the United States by means of imports from Australia and New Zealand,
was being used purely as a descriptive adjective or whether the term
corresponded to numerical ratings. This commenter claimed that a term
such as ``negligible'' cannot be science-based if it is not based upon
a numerical rating.
We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that descriptive
terms cannot be science-based. APHIS performs both qualitative and
quantitative PRAs. The two types of assessments are similar in most
respects; however, in quantitative PRAs, quarantine pests are examined
in greater detail, and a quantitative assessment of the likelihood of
introduction is provided. Criteria for performing PRAs for regions
wanting to export honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, and other bees to the
United States were set out in the August 2002 proposed rule. These
procedures were followed when we conducted the PRAs for Australia and
New Zealand. The primary elements of a honeybee-related PRA, as
delineated in the proposed rule, are as follows: Identifying bee
diseases and parasites of quarantine significance to the United States,
as well as undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees associated
with the importation; assessing the likelihood of the introduction of
these diseases, parasites, and undesirable species and subspecies of
honeybees into the United States, as well as the consequences of
introduction; and considering the effectiveness of the regulatory
system of the exporting region to control and prevent occurrences of
diseases, parasites, and undesirable species and subspecies of
honeybees. We evaluated these factors for Australia and New Zealand
using information obtained from the governments of the two countries,
as well as reviews of the topical scientific literature and site
visits. Our conclusion, therefore, that the risks of introducing
various pests and diseases into the United States as a result of
allowing imports from Australia and New Zealand were low (the term
``negligible'' was only used in the preamble of the proposed rule and
not in the PRAs themselves) was scientifically based.
Finally, one commenter thought that we should have done a ``risk/
benefit analysis'' rather than a ``risk assessment,'' suggesting that
the former would have led us to conclude that allowing imports from
Australia and New Zealand was not advisable. This commenter claimed
that there would be no benefits accruing to the U.S. beekeeping
industry as a result of the proposal, only risks.
Risk assessment is the internationally accepted standard for this
type of evaluation and satisfies our international trade obligations.
Under the international trade agreements to which it is a party, the
United States is
[[Page 61741]]
obliged to consider imports of honeybees from countries where science-
based analyses indicate acceptable risk levels and/or adequate risk
management tactics. The methods used to initiate, conduct, and report
on the PRAs for Australia and New Zealand are consistent with
guidelines provided by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization and by the OIE.
A number of researchers took issue with the dead bee provisions in
subpart E of the proposed rule. Under proposed Sec. 322.31, dead bees
of any genus were considered restricted articles. Commenters objected
to this classification, arguing that dead bees do not pose a realistic
threat of disease or parasite transmission because bacterial and viral
diseases will not survive in dead hosts. Also, the manner in which bee
specimens are killed and stored further diminishes the risk of their
transmitting diseases or pests to live bees. Killing bees in cyanide or
carbon tetrachloride will likely result in the death of any associated
disease organisms or bee parasites as well. Dried bee specimens in
museums are frozen, which would further reduce the likelihood of the
survival of parasites, and housed in Schmidt boxes or museum drawers
and are permanently isolated from contact with live bees. One commenter
questioned the requirements in proposed Sec. 322.32, under which dead
bees entering the United States must be immersed in a solution
containing at least 70 percent alcohol, immersed in liquid nitrogen, or
pinned and dried in the manner of specific specimens. The commenter
favored allowing additional fluids for immersion, arguing that alcohol
does not always provide the best means of DNA preservation. Another
commenter suggested that the paperwork burden that the requirements
would place upon APHIS will inevitably lead to multi-month delays in
granting permits, which will seriously impede or even stop taxonomic
and ecological research collaborations that underlie bee conservation
efforts.
The dead bee provision that most concerned the commenters was the
requirement in Sec. 322.32(b) of the proposed rule that such specimens
be inspected at the port of entry in the United States. Some commenters
suggested that this requirement could hamper scientific research. One
commenter, citing an instance in which the British Museum of Natural
History refused to lend to his research group samples of type and other
bees because of the probability that packages would be opened and
repacked inexpertly, asserted that the proposed inspection requirement
would leave U.S. researchers unable to borrow bees from foreign
museums. To eliminate the need for opening and repacking packages of
dead bees at the port of entry, commenters advocated permitting systems
that would allow packages to be shipped to bona fide institutional
insect collectors without visual inspections of the specimens and
viewable shipping boxes.
The proposed import requirements for dead bees in the superfamily
Apoidea substantially reduce the regulatory burden placed upon
importers. The regulations in Sec. 319.76-3 have required a Plant Pest
Permit (Plant Protection and Quarantine form 526 and APHIS form 599)
for importation of dead bees. Based on the number of comments, many
scientists have been in violation of the existing bee regulations, as
we issue very few permits for dead bees. Proposed Sec. 322.32 did not
require the Plant Pest Permit, mandating only that the bees be properly
preserved and declared for possible inspection at the port of entry. We
regret any inconvenience that research scientists may experience, but
must point out that the periodic inspection of packages at the port of
entry by DHS personnel is likely, with or without our inspection
requirement. Removal of dead bees from the list of restricted articles
would do nothing to reduce that likelihood, so they will remain on the
list. We did agree with the commenter who suggested that we needed to
accommodate additional preservative (fixative) solutions, and we have
amended the final rule accordingly. The amended provision states that
imported dead bees must be immersed in a solution containing at least
70 percent alcohol or a suitable fixative for genetic research.
Smaller numbers of commenters raised various other issues.
Representatives of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand
commented on issues of concern to those countries. Other commenters
discussed the proposed ban on the importation of pollen for bee feed
and restrictions on the importation of used beekeeping equipment,
restrictions on the interstate movement of honeybee germ plasm and bee
products into Hawaii, the possible benefits of allowing imports of
honeybees from additional regions and other species of bees, the
terminology employed in the proposed rule, packaging for bees other
than honeybees, requirements for researchers who can import restricted
organisms, States' authority to regulate bees and bee pests, and our
economic analysis.
The Government of Australia, while generally favoring the proposed
rule, had some objections to particular provisions. In addition to the
comments on the proposed inspection procedures, which we discussed
earlier, Australia also took issue with certain provisions in Sec.
322.6 of the proposed rule pertaining to the importation of adult
honeybees into Hawaii. Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of Sec. 322.6
indicated that the export certificate for bees imported into Hawaii
must state that the hives from which the honeybees in the shipment were
derived were inspected individually and showed no sign of Varroa mite,
tracheal mite, or African honeybee. Subsequent paragraphs specified
that the certification must also state that the honeybees in the
shipment were (1) derived exclusively from an apiary situated in the
center of a zone of 50 kilometers (31 miles) in radius, in which
special diagnostic tests, as set forth by the OIE, did not reveal any
sign of the presence of Varroa mite for at least the past 2 years; and
(2) derived exclusively from an apiary situated in the center of a zone
of 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) in radius, in which no case of tracheal
mite has been reported for at least the past 8 months. Australia
contended that these requirements were unwarranted because it, like
Hawaii, is free of Varroa mite, tracheal mite, and African honeybee--a
status confirmed by a program of targeted surveillance and routine
inspections of hives by Government apiary officers. It was argued,
therefore, that official certification that Australia remains free of
Varroa mite, tracheal mite, and African honeybee would provide a
satisfactory level of assurance that a shipment of Australian honeybees
could safely be imported into Hawaii.
These comments are moot now that we have determined that we will
not allow the importation of honeybees into Hawaii. It should be noted
that our proposed requirements were drawn directly from the OIE
security procedures recommended in Article 3.4.2.3.
The Government of New Zealand also supported most aspects of the
proposed rule, arguing that imports of honeybees and honeybee germ
plasm from New Zealand could offer the U.S. beekeeping industry the
opportunity to introduce new genetic stock from a source that poses no
disease or pest hazards, and that the resulting increase in the
biodiversity of the U.S. honeybee population could reduce its
vulnerability to such pests as Varroa mite. Like the Government of
Australia, however, New Zealand did offer some criticisms of particular
provisions in the
[[Page 61742]]
proposed rule. In addition to its comments on the provisions for
transiting of honeybees from New Zealand through Hawaii, which we
discussed earlier, the Government of New Zealand took issue with
proposed Sec. 322.6(a)(1)(iii), which stated that the export
certificate accompanying honeybees shipped to the United States must
certify that the bees in the shipment were produced in the exporting
region and are the offspring of queens and drones or semen also
produced in the exporting region. The Government of New Zealand
requested that we apply this condition to first-generation bees only.
It was argued that the modified requirement would still be sufficiently
rigorous to satisfy any concerns that APHIS might have about the
possibility of bees of lesser health status or their germ plasm being
imported into New Zealand and then exported to the United States.
Currently, New Zealand does not allow the importation of adult
honeybees or honeybee germ plasm, but it may in the future, and it
would like to be able to export offspring or germ plasm from such
imported bees provided that they are second generation or more.
We will not be making any changes to the final rule as a result of
these comments. The intent of our requirements is to have New Zealand
and Australia demonstrate that the bees they are exporting were derived
from stock that is genuinely of Australian or New Zealand origin and
thereby free from bee maladies widely prevalent in Asia. If New Zealand
were to allow imports of honeybees, we would not want these bees
exported to the United States without an opportunity to prepare a PRA
and seek public comment. We do not view our export certification
requirements as excessively onerous. Finally, the New Zealand
representative may have overstated the potential benefits to the U.S.
honeybee population of allowing imports. It is unlikely that the
genetic stock from New Zealand will help to diminish the vulnerability
of U.S. honeybees to Varroa mite, as New Zealand has not had Varroa
long enough to select for resistance. Similarly, useful genetic stocks
that will respond to our growing problem with antibiotic-resistant
foulbrood are not likely to come from New Zealand or Australia.
In addition to the Canadian Government's criticisms of our proposed
certification and export requirements, two commenters from Canada, one
a Government representative and the other a producer of honey and other
products, took issue with our ban on the importation of bee pollen for
bee feed in proposed Sec. 322.2(b)(2) and our restrictions on the
importation of used beekeeping equipment in proposed Sec.
322.2(b)(3)(ii). The commenters viewed these proposed changes to the
regulations as unjustified. It was suggested that the relative honeybee
disease risk from importation of bee pollen and used beekeeping
equipment was no greater than that associated with the import of
Canadian honeybees, which is currently permitted under the regulations.
It was also argued that the ban on pollen could hamper local U.S.
companies that depend on Canadian bee pollen to rear bumblebees. One of
the commenters suggested that in the final rule we might want to narrow
the pollen prohibition, maintaining a ban on pollen for use in rearing
honeybees but not for use in rearing bumblebees, since honeybee
diseases present in bee pollen do not affect bumblebees. The commenter
also suggested that APHIS may wish to consider an import requirement
for the irradiation of pollen or other materials for bee feed when the
disease risk so warrants.
We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to
these comments. This final rule will allow the continued importation of
honeybees into the United States from Canada, but such imports will now
be subject to the same conditions as will apply to imports from
Australia and New Zealand. As specified in Sec. 322.6, export
certificates for both honeybees and honeybee germ plasm must include
certifications of origin. One reason why we view such certification as
necessary for Canadian imports is our concern about the smuggling of
bees through Canada into the United States. These same concerns apply
to bee pollen and used beekeeping equipment from Canada. If suitable
techniques for sterilizing bee pollen and used beekeeping equipment are
developed and are validated by means of efficacy studies and proper
documentation, the regulations could be amended to accommodate imports
of bee pollen and used beekeeping equipment from Canada.
Some commenters from Hawaii questioned the ban on interstate
movement of honeybee germ plasm into that State in Sec. 322.2 of the
proposed rule and also argued that Hawaiian beekeepers should be
allowed to bring in pollen from the continental United States. It was
suggested that semen brought in from the continental United States
could be used to introduce disease-resistant traits to Hawaiian bees.
It was also argued that because the tropics are known for pollen
shortages, the possibility of importing pollen into Hawaii from the
continental United States for supplemental bee feeding should not be
foreclosed.
The commenters' concerns are duly noted, and the prohibition on the
interstate movement of honeybee germ plasm into Hawaii has been removed
from the final rule. Under this final rule, honeybee semen is
considered a restricted organism and can be imported or moved
interstate under permit into Hawaii for research by university, Federal
Government, or State officials in accordance with the regulations. The
final rule will not allow interstate movement of pollen into Hawaii,
however, and will retain the prohibition in Sec. 322.2 on the
importation of pollen into the United States for use as bee feed. The
risk of disease transmission from bee pollen to honeybees, along with
plant disease risks, make the importation of bee pollen into the United
States and the interstate movement of bee pollen to Hawaii inadvisable.
At some point in the future, under a separate risk assessment, we could
amend the regulations to allow interstate movement of bee pollen into
Hawaii or importation of bee pollen into the United States if the
pollen is irradiated.
Some commenters favored allowing the importation of honeybees from
additional regions or allowing in additional bee species. One commenter
wrote to advocate allowing the importation of honeybees from
Scandinavia and northwestern Russia into Alaska. According to this
commenter, it is very difficult at present to start a breeding program
in Alaska because there are no local strains of feral honeybees there
and because bees imported from southern locations tend not to survive
the Alaskan winter. Allowing imports from Scandinavia and northwestern
Russia could solve this problem faced by Alaskan beekeepers. The
commenter also argued that Alaska, because of its isolation, would be a
good location to carry out research on bees. Another commenter favored
allowing imports of alfalfa leafcutting bees from New Zealand. The
proposed rule allowed such imports only from Canada. The commenter
argued that the alfalfa leafcutting bee does not carry enemies or
diseases of honeybees or bumblebees and that all species of insects
that can occur among leafcutting bee cells are easily eliminated by
appropriate management. Allowing these bees to be imported into the
United States from New Zealand would give American alfalfa seed growers
an alternative to Canada as a supplier of these bees, according to the
commenter.
[[Page 61743]]
Before APHIS could allow such imports, formal PRAs would need to be
carried out for imported honeybees from Scandinavia and northwestern
Russia and imported alfalfa leafcutter bees from New Zealand. PRA
requirements are contained in Sec. 322.12 of this final rule. As
stated in Sec. 322.12(a), requests for PRAs must be initiated by the
national government of the region wishing to export bees or bee
products to the United States.
One commenter questioned the terminology we used Sec. 322.6(c) of
the proposed rule, which stated that for bees other than honeybees, the
export certificate must certify that the bees in the shipment were
produced in the exporting region and are the offspring of queens and
drones or semen also produced in the exporting region. Noting that
alfalfa leafcutter bees and some other species do not have queens or
drones, the commenter suggested substituting ``reproductive females and
males'' for those terms.
The commenter's concerns are duly noted, and the oversight has been
corrected. In this final rule, Sec. 322.6(c) states that the export
certificate must certify that the bees in the shipment were produced in
the exporting region and are the offspring of bees or semen also
produced in the exporting region.
The same commenter took issue with a provision in Sec. 322.8 of
the proposed rule pertaining to the packaging of shipments of bees
other than honeybees. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) stipulates that packages of
bees other than honeybees may not contain any soil. Noting that Osmia
lignaria and O. cornifrons, both species that would be allowed
importation under the proposed rule, use soil in creating mud
partitions in their nests, the commenter questioned whether it was
APHIS' intent to prevent the importation of filled nests of Osmia with
their mud partitions. The commenter added that she did not know of any
information to suggest that there is or is not a risk of importation of
pests, including microorganisms, in the mud partitions in Osmia nests.
It is not our intent to prevent the importation of filled nests of
Osmia. While the nest cells of O. lignaria and O. cornifrons are made
of soil, the soil is highly manipulated and combined with secretions
that render it a changed substance that is unlikely to serve as a
medium for the transmission of diseases or pests. Therefore, Sec.
322.8(b)(2)(ii) of this final rule allows for the importation of soil
in packages of bees other than honeybees if the soil is used in nest
cells that include developing, immature bees. In addition, Sec.
322.5(d), which contains general conditions for the importation of bees
other than honeybees, will now provide for the importation of
``essential nest substrate,'' as well as for live adult bees and live
brood.
The same commenter also argued for a change to Sec. 322.15(b) of
the proposed rule, which specified that restricted organisms may only
be imported into the United States by Federal, State, or university
researchers. It was argued that importation of restricted organisms by
independent researchers should be allowed if such researchers are able
to meet the post-entry handling requirements of proposed Sec. 322.24.
We have not made any change to the final rule in response to this
comment. The conditions of proposed Sec. 322.15, under which
university and State researchers could work for the first time with
certain organisms defined in that section as restricted organisms, were
substantially more liberal than the regulations that have been in place
up to now. For example, the existing Sec. 322.1 has allowed only USDA
personnel to import honeybees from any region other than Canada. A
decision to conduct research on a restricted organism comes with
considerable responsibility, liability, and regulatory oversight. We
believe that any further loosening of the restrictions on the
importation of restricted organisms could jeopardize APHIS' ability to
safeguard our apiculture industry by tracking disease and pest
introductions, should any occur.
One commenter suggested that Sec. 322.17 of the proposed rule,
which contained procedures for review by APHIS of permit applications
for importing restricted organisms and criteria for denial or
cancellation of permits, could infringe upon State prerogatives.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) stated that APHIS may consult with State
officials during the permit review process. Proposed paragraph (a)(2)
stated, among other things, that APHIS will transmit a copy of the
permit application, along with its anticipated decision on the
application, to the appropriate regulatory official in the destination
State for review and recommendation; that APHIS will consider the
State's response before taking final action; and that if a State makes
no recommendation within 20 business days, concurrence with APHIS'
decision is assumed. The commenter argued that States need to be
guaranteed a ``reasonable'' timeframe for review and that the rule must
include reference to the State's authority to regulate bees and pests
brought to the State.
We will not be making any changes to the final rule as a result of
this comment. In matters where APHIS is regulating importation and/or
interstate transport of a plant pest (7 CFR 330.200), the authority
lies with APHIS, as a Federal agency, to issue the necessary permit.
Finally, some commenters disputed our observations in the economic
analysis prepared for the proposed rule that continental U.S.
beekeepers experience shortages of queens in early spring and that
California fruit and nut producers may experience shortages of
pollinators at that time of year. We argued that, based on the high
demand for pollination services and uncertainty about whether enough
bees could be brought into the continental United States from Hawaii to
meet that demand, the price of Hawaiian early-spring honeybees would
not be likely to fall significantly as a result of allowing imports
from Australia and New Zealand.
It is the observation of APHIS' entomologists working with the bee
industry that there are shortages of domestic queen bees and package
bees in late winter and early spring, before production in Georgia,
Texas, Florida, and other bee-producing States reaches its full
capacity.
Miscellaneous
In addition to changes we have made in response to commenters'
suggestions, in response to the OIG audit referred to earlier and to
post-September 11 security concerns, we have also made a slight
modification to the permitting process for the importation of
restricted organisms. On March 1, 2003, the APHIS Permit Unit
instituted a requirement that each permit condition on a PPQ Form 526
be initialed by the permit applicant prior to issuance of the permit.
Accordingly, Sec. 322.15(b)(1) of this final rule provides, among
other things, that the applicant must first initial each condition of
the proposed permit and then return the proposed permit to the Permit
Unit before we will issue a signed, valid permit.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have prepared a final
regulatory
[[Page 61744]]
flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the economic
effects of this rule on small entities. The discussion also serves as
our cost-benefit analysis under Executive Order 12866.
In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that accompanied the
proposed rule, we solicited comments regarding the number and kinds of
small entities that could incur benefits or costs from implementation
of the proposed rule and the economic effects of those benefits or
costs. We did not receive such information, although, as we have
already noted, a few commenters took issue with our discussion in that
initial analysis of shortages of domestic queens and pollinators in
early spring. We stand by our observation that such shortages do, in
fact, exist at a given price.
This final rule is intended to consolidate and amend the
regulations for the importation of honeybees and honeybee semen and the
regulations established to prevent the introduction of exotic bee
diseases and parasites through the importation of bees other than
honeybees, certain beekeeping byproducts, and used beekeeping
equipment. Among other things, we are allowing, under certain
conditions, the importation into the continental United States of
honeybees from Australia and honeybees and honeybee germ plasm from New
Zealand. These changes will make these regulations more consistent with
international standards, update them to reflect current research and
terminology, and simplify them and make them more useful.
Honey Production in the United States
The United States is the second largest honey producer in the
world. In 2003, the United States had a registered stock of close to
2.6 million honeybee colonies, as shown below in table 1. These
honeybee colonies were owned by beekeepers with 5 or more colonies and
produced 181 million pounds of honey valued at $255 million. Largely
due to bee parasite problems (i.e., Varroa mite), the number of
honeybee colonies in the United States decreased from 3.4 million in
1994 to 2.5 million colonies in 2001.
Table 1.--Honeybee Colonies, Honey Production, and Value in the United States, 1997-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of
Year Honeybee colonies Honey production production (in
(in pounds) U.S. dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997................................................ 2,631,000 196,536,000 $147,795,000
1998................................................ 2,633,000 220,316,000 147,254,000
1999................................................ 2,688,000 205,250,000 126,075,000
2000................................................ 2,620,000 220,339,000 132,742,000
2001................................................ 2,513,000 185,926,000 127,060,000
2002................................................ 2,574,000 171,718,000 228,338,000
2003................................................ 2,590,000 181,096,000 255,791,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Honey Report (several issues), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics
Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
An estimated 125,000 to 150,000 beekeepers in the United States
operate the 2.59 million honeybee colonies (NASS, Honey Report, 2004).
Less than 2 percent of these beekeepers in the United States are full-
time (commercial) operators (i.e., with 300 or more bee colonies). More
than 90 percent are hobbyists (i.e., with fewer than 25 bee colonies).
The remainder are part-time (i.e., with 25 to 299 bee colonies).
According to the 1997 U.S. Census of Agriculture, there were 7,688
commercial apiaries registered in the United States in that year that
sold honey and 910 commercial apiaries that offered their honeybees for
pollination services (table 2). Total annual sales of honey and other
bee products amounted to $138.23 million that year. California,
Florida, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Texas accounted for
more than half of both U.S. bee colonies and honey production. Hawaii,
with 38 registered commercial apiaries in 1997, was responsible for 0.5
percent of U.S. domestic commercial sales. However, Hawaii is the only
U.S. State that is able to export honeybees because of its disease-free
status.
Table 2.--Honeybee Colonies and Honey, Inventory and Sales in Major States and Hawaii in 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial sales of bee colonies and honey
Inventory of -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State all U.S. (a) Colonies of bees (b) Honey
registered ---------------------------------------------------------------- Value of sales % of U.S.
apiaries \1\ Apiaries Number Apiaries Pounds (a + b) sales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.............................. 1,021 68 79,239 733 28,305,056 $23,167,000 16.8
Florida................................. 645 35 5,524 482 16,471,427 13,461,000 9.7
S. Dakota............................... 219 16 8,305 132 14,225,757 11,351,000 8.2
N. Dakota............................... 144 11 2,184 120 12,803,245 10,330,000 7.5
Texas................................... 989 57 106,028 360 8,418,792 7,906,000 5.7
Minnesota............................... 428 37 9,813 258 9,311,475 7,744,000 5.6
Sum of 6................................ 3,446 224 211,093 2,085 89,535,752 73,959,000 53.5
Hawaii.................................. 75 4 16 34 949,769 735,000 0.5
United States........................... 17,469 910 380,463 7,688 158,943,634 138,228,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 1997 U.S. Census of Agriculture, USDA.
\1\ Both commercial and hobbyists' apiaries.
[[Page 61745]]
Bee Pollination in the United States
Honeybees, in addition to producing honey, play a vital role in the
pollination of U.S. agricultural crops. In 1987, the annual value of
agricultural production dependent upon pollination by honeybees in the
United States was $9.6 billion; by 1999, that value had risen to $14.6
billion. More than 40 percent of fruit and nut production in the United
States depends upon honeybee pollination ($4.76 billion out of $10.94
billion average annual value), as does more than 70 percent of
vegetable and melon production ($2.98 billion out of $3.96 billion),
and around 21 percent of field crop production ($6.82 billion out of
$32.06 billion).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The Value of Honey Bees as Pollinators of U.S. Crops in
2000.'' Bee Culture Magazine, March 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other bees besides honeybees also provide important pollination
services. The alfalfa leafcutter bee (Megachile rotundata), for
example, has become the principal alfalfa pollinator in several Western
States. Other bee species that are commonly used for pollination
purposes are bumblebees (Bombus occidentalis and B. impatiens), blue
orchard bees (Osmia lignaria), and horn-faced bees (O. cornifrons).
Bumblebees are pollinators of many plants, especially those growing at
high elevations and in greenhouses. Blue orchard bees are an alternate
pollinator species of orchard crops, such as almonds. Apiculture
pollination is especially vital to the fruit, nut, and vegetable
production of California and Florida. As the demand for these products
increases, so, too, does the corresponding demand for bee pollination
services.
International Bee Trade
Reported data on U.S. imports of bees exist only for the alfalfa
leafcutter bee, a species used only for crop pollination. The value of
U.S. imports of alfalfa leafcutter bees from Canada increased from $6.5
million in 1996, to $11.4 million in 1999, and then declined to $5
million in 2001 (table 3). No imports of alfalfa leafcutter bees were
recorded in 2002 or 2003. Alfalfa leafcutter bee larvae have generally
been imported into the United States exclusively from Canada.
Table 3.--U.S. Imports of Live Leafcutter Bee (Non-Apis) Larvae, 1996-
2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. customs
Year Exporting country value (in U.S.
dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................... (1) Canada............. $6,526,580
World.................. 6,528,680
1997........................... (1) Canada............. 9,319,641
World.................. 9,319,641
1998........................... (1) Canada............. 10,382,341
World.................. 10,382,341
1999........................... (1) Canada............. 11,393,247
World.................. 11,393,247
2000........................... (1) Canada............. 7,169,000
(2) United Kingdom..... 5,000
World.................. 1,174,000
2001........................... (1) Canada............. 5,033,000
(2) Belgium............ 3,000
World.................. 5,036,000
2002........................... None................... 0
2003........................... None................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and World Trade Atlas. Commodity
code (0106005030), Leaf Cutter Bee Larvae, Live.
There are no data available on traded honeybees and honeybee
queens, except for exports from New Zealand (table 4) and imports into
Canada (tables 5 and 6). These data provide an indication of the size
of trade of honeybees amongst the biggest traders. Canada's largest
trading partners are the United States for honeybee queens and New
Zealand for honeybee workers.\2\ International trade data on honeybees
are not readily available, because only when a country requires an
import or an export certificate does it report the corresponding data.
For example, Canada requires import certificates for honeybees and thus
reports only import data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hawaii is the only U.S. State that may export honeybees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this rule, an import permit will be required for restricted
organisms (honey brood in the comb, all bees and bee germ plasm from
nonapproved regions, and species of honeybees not listed in Sec.
322.5(d)(2)). There is no cost for an import permit.
Table 4.--New Zealand's Exports of Honeybee Queens and Honeybee
Packages, 1996-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeybee
Year Honeybee packages
queens (1.5 kg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................ 20,815 25,722
1999............................................ 16,872 17,506
2000............................................ 18,113 14,056
2001............................................ 14,287 12,631
2002............................................ 10,780 18,028
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF).
Table 5.--Canadian Imports of Live Honeybee Queens From Major Suppliers, 1996-2001
[in Canadian dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States..................... $545,392 $708,279 $2,241,361 $1,616,708 $1,758,663 $1,805,442
(52%) (71%) (81%) (82%) (82%) (82%)
[[Page 61746]]
New Zealand....................... $325,864 $143,953 $225,176 $102,849 $62,436 $27,475
(31%) (14%) (8%) (5%) (3%) (1%)
Australia......................... $183,540 $150,870 $99,915 $168,356 $77,170 $79,436
(17%) (15%) (4%) (9%) (4%) (4%)
People's Republic of China........ ........... ........... $178,886 $59,058 $85,483 $125,815
(7%) (3%) (4%) (6%)
Italy............................. ........... ........... $7,417 $17,065 $7,835 $8,620
Argentina......................... ........... ........... 0 0 $28,219 0
France............................ ........... ........... 0 $187 $6,446 $13,014
Germany........................... ........... ........... $2,228 $12,104 $800 $3,390
United Kingdom.................... ........... ........... $1,384 $4,818 $1,033 $3,304
Taiwan............................ ........... ........... $3,353 $1,114 $2,254 0
Togo.............................. ........... ........... $5,832 0 0 0
Denmark........................... ........... ........... $274 0 $67 $4,477
Brazil............................ ........... ........... 0 0 0 $2,431
Norway............................ ........... ........... 0 $419 $1,951 0
Netherlands....................... ........... ........... $413 0 $1,267 0
Malaysia.......................... ........... ........... 0 0 $404 0
Japan............................. ........... ........... 0 $145 0 $153
India............................. ........... ........... 0 $93 0 0
--------------
Total......................... $1,054,796 $1,003,102 $2,766,239 $1,982,916 $2,034,020 $2,073,557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agricultural Canada, Horticulture and Special Crops Division, Commodity HS Code 0106.000030.
Table 6.--Canadian Imports of Live Honeybees, Except Queens, 1996-2001
[in Canadian dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand................. $1,240,178 $1,931,210 $1,659,455 $778,019 $295,089 $304,074
(83%) (73%) (74%) (56%) (43%) (41%)
United States*.............. $161,077 $346,642 $368,430 $195,102 $166,364 $179,974
(11%) (13%) (16%) (14%) (24%) (24%)
Australia................... $93,551 $375,476 $176,165 $423,729 $229,089 $262,365
(6%) (14%) (8%) (30%) (33%) (35%)
Netherlands................. 0 0 $45,490 0 0 0
---------------
Total................... $1,494,806 $2,653,328 $2,249,540 $1,396,850 $691,398 $746,413
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agricultural Canada, Horticulture and Special Crops Division, Commodity HS Code 0106.0000
* The State of Hawaii only.
Potential Effects for U.S. Entities
In 1997, California honeybee producers sold $18.4 million worth of
honeybee queens, package bees, and nucs (i.e., 3, 4, or 5 frames of
bees with brood and a laying queen). Sales from the rest of the United
States brought the U.S. total sales of honeybee queens, package bees,
and nucs to about $30 million for 1997. Since then, there have been
slight increases in prices for honeybee queens and package bees,
reflecting increased demand. Domestically produced honeybee queens
currently sell for an average of $10 to $12 per queen, but their price
may range between $3 and $40, depending on the season. Queens
possessing unique or exceptional characteristics are occasionally
auctioned off for hundreds of dollars. Domestically produced package
bees currently sell for between $30 and $42 for a 3-pound colony.
This rule places U.S. produced queens and package bees, for the
first time, in direct competition in the domestic market with imports
of these types of bees from Australia and New Zealand. Imported bees
are expected to arrive between early spring (end of March/early April)
and the end of May. Because of seasonal differences between the United
States and Australia and New Zealand, the adoption of this rule is
expected to have a small, if any, negative impact on continental U.S.
apiarists whose bees are ready to pollinate crops just as Australian
and New Zealand bee imports cease with the beginning of winter in the
southern hemisphere.
Because of the expected shipping season for honeybees from
Australia and New Zealand, the greatest potential impact of this final
rule will likely be on bee producers in Hawaii who produce honeybees
year-round. Honeybees, particularly queen bees, from Australia and New
Zealand will probably enter the U.S. market during early spring (i.e.,
the beginning of active reproduction in bee colonies and a critical
time for queen introduction). Traditionally, only Hawaii, because of
its tropical climate, has been able to provide queens to U.S.
beekeepers during this time period. Therefore, imports of queens from
Australia and New Zealand may affect the prices of all queens sold
during early spring. However, we do not expect this rule to have a
significant economic effect on Hawaiian queen producers or other U.S.
beekeepers for two reasons. First, data from imports into Canada of
queens and package bees demonstrate that Hawaiian queens have a strong
marketability; of the queens imported into Canada between 1997 and
2001, Hawaii supplied on average 80 percent,
[[Page 61747]]
while Australia and New Zealand supplied on average only 7 percent and
6 percent, respectively (table 5). Second, there have been reports from
U.S. beekeepers of an insufficient supply of queens that are needed to
revitalize bee colonies in early spring. California fruit and nut
producers, in particular, also experience shortages of pollinators, as
honeybees from the continental United States are still in winter
hibernation and those from Hawaii are not enough to meet demand at that
time of the year. Therefore, based on the high demand for pollination
services and the uncertainty regarding the amount of imports to fill
this demand, the price of Hawaiian early spring honeybees is not
expected to fall significantly with the importation of honeybees. In
general, expanded supplies of honeybees made possible through this
action may reduce their price only slightly if demand is elastic, with
greater price decreases possible if demand is inelastic.
While Hawaiian suppliers may witness some price decline, such
losses to suppliers are not expected to exceed gains to purchasers of
bees, who in general will benefit by increased availability of
honeybees, particularly queens, during early spring. However, despite
our requests for information regarding the economic impact of this
rulemaking, we were unable to obtain data on the volume of queens or
package bees that may be imported into the United States from Australia
and New Zealand or on the potential demand for imports of queens and
package bees from Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, we cannot
quantitatively assess the effects those imports may have on U.S.
producers of queen and package bees.
Foreign government inspectors visit their countries' apiaries twice
a year and provide their honeybee producers with health certificates
for exporting these bees. The price of the export certificate is
included in the sale price of these honeybees. The fees that the
Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian Governments charge their bee
producers for the certificates are small.
Economic Effect on Small Entities
According to the North American Industry Classification System used
by the Small Business Administration, honeybee farms and honey
production are included under the ``other animal production'' category
1129, as subcategory 112910 ``apiculture.'' This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in raising bees; collecting honey;
and/or selling queen bees, packages of bees, royal jelly, bees' wax,
propolis, venom, or other bee products. Such entities are considered
small if they have annual receipts of $750,000 or less. Therefore, most
of the apiaries that are affected by this rule qualify under this
definition of a ``small entity.'' Specifically, only 20 to 50 apiaries
out of 17,469 total apiaries in 1997 had more than $750,000 of annual
sales. We do not expect that U.S. apiarists, or importers and
distributors of bees and bee equipment, large or small, will be
significantly affected by this rule.
As discussed above, the number of honeybee colonies in the United
States has fallen from 3.4 million in 1994, to 2.5 million in 2001, due
to Varroa mite, an exotic bee parasite. Meanwhile, the demand for
honeybees and other pollinating bees continues to increase, especially
during the early spring months when continental U.S. bees are not
available to pollinate almonds and plums in California. Therefore,
greater access to bee imports from more countries will benefit U.S.
agriculture in general.
Alternatives Considered
An alternative to this rulemaking was to make no changes in the
regulations. After consideration, we rejected this alternative because
there appears to be minimal disease or parasite risk, or risk of
introduction of undesirable species of honeybees, associated with
imports of bees from the regions we are designating as approved
regions. Further, the changes to the regulations contained in this
document will bring the regulations into accord with international
standards for the trade of bees and with international trade agreements
entered into by the United States.
This final rule contains various recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. These requirements are described in this document under
the heading ``Paperwork Reduction Act.''
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0207.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA
compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 319
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock,
Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
7 CFR Part 322
Bees, Honey, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR chapter III as follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Sec. Sec. 319.76, 319.76-1, 319.76-2, 319.76-3, 319.76-4, 319.76-5,
319.76-6, 319.76-7, 319.76-8 [Removed]
0
2. In part 319, ``Subpart--Exotic Bee Diseases and Parasites,''
Sec. Sec. 319.76 through 319.76-8, is removed.
0
3. Part 322 is revised to read as follows:
PART 322--BEES, BEEKEEPING BYPRODUCTS, AND BEEKEEPING EQUIPMENT
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
322.1 Definitions.
322.2 General requirements for interstate movement and importation.
322.3 Costs and charges.
Subpart B--Importation of Adult Honeybees, Honeybee Germ Plasm, and
Bees Other Than Honeybees From Approved Regions
322.4 Approved regions.
322.5 General requirements.
322.6 Export certificate.
322.7 Notice of arrival.
322.8 Packaging of shipments.
[[Page 61748]]
322.9 Mailed packages.
322.10 Inspection; refusal of entry.
322.11 Ports of entry.
322.12 Risk assessment procedures for approving countries.
Subpart C--Importation of Restricted Organisms
322.13 General requirements; restricted organisms.
322.14 Documentation; applying for a permit to import a restricted
organism.
322.15 APHIS review of permit applications; denial or cancellation
of permits.
322.16 Packaging of shipments.
322.17 Mailed packages.
322.18 Restricted organisms in a commercial vehicle arriving at a
land border port in the United States.
322.19 Inspection; refusal of entry.
322.20 Ports of entry.
322.21 Post-entry handling.
Subpart D--Transit of Restricted Organisms Through the United States
322.22 General requirements.
322.23 Documentation.
322.24 Packaging of transit shipments.
322.25 Notice of arrival.
322.26 Inspection and handling.
322.27 Eligible ports for transit shipments.
Subpart E--Importation and Transit of Restricted Articles
322.28 General requirements; restricted articles.
322.29 Dead bees.
322.30 Export certificate.
322.31 Notice of arrival.
322.32 Mailed packages.
322.33 Restricted articles in a commercial bonded vehicle arriving
at a land border port in the United States.
322.34 Inspection; refusal of entry.
322.35 Ports of entry.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 281; 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.3.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 322.1 Definitions.
Administrator. The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, or an individual authorized to act for the
Administrator.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture.
Bee. Any member of the superfamily Apoidea in any life stage,
including germ plasm.
Beekeeping byproduct. Material for use in hives, including, but not
limited to, beeswax for beekeeping, pollen for bee feed, or honey for
bee feed.
Beekeeping equipment. Equipment used to house and manage bees,
including, but not limited to, bee boards, hive bodies, bee nests and
nesting material, smokers, hive tools, gloves or other clothing, and
shipping containers.
Beekeeping establishment. All of the facilities, including
apiaries, honey houses, and other facilities, and land that comprise a
proprietor's beekeeping business.
Brood. The larvae, pupae, or postovipositional ova (including
embryos) of bees.
Destination State. The State, district, or territory of the United
States that is the final destination of imported bees, beekeeping
byproducts, or beekeeping equipment.
Germ plasm. The semen and preovipositional ova of bees.
Hive. A box or other shelter containing a colony of bees.
Honeybee. Any live bee of the genus Apis in any life stage except
germ plasm.
Inspector. Any employee of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, or other individual authorized by the Administrator to carry
out the provisions of this part.
Office International des Epizooties (OIE). The organization in the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations responsible for
the International Animal Health Code, which includes a section
regarding bee diseases in international trade.
Package bees. Queen honeybees with attendant adult honeybees placed
in a shipping container, such as a tube or cage.
Queen. The actively reproducing adult female in a colony of bees.
Slumgum. Residue remaining after the beeswax rendering process. It
is composed of beeswax mixed with debris or refuse that accumulates
when wax cappings or comb are melted. The residue can include wax moth
cocoons, dead bees, bee parts, and other detritus from the colony.
Undesirable species or subspecies of honeybees. Honeybee species or
subspecies including, but not limited to, Apis mellifera scutellata,
commonly known as the African honeybee, and its hybrids; Apis mellifera
capensis, commonly known as the Cape honeybee; and Apis cerana,
commonly known as the Oriental honeybee.
United States. The States, District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of
the United States.
Sec. 322.2 General requirements for interstate movement and
importation.
(a) Interstate movement. (1) The following regions of the United
States are considered pest-free areas for Varroa mite, tracheal mite,
small hive beetle, and African honeybee: Hawaii.
(2) In order to prevent the introduction of Varroa mite, tracheal
mite, small hive beetle, and African honeybee into the pest-free areas
listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, interstate movement of
honeybees into those areas is prohibited.
(b) Importation. In order to prevent the introduction into the
United States of bee diseases and parasites, and undesirable species
and subspecies of honeybees:
(1) You may import bees, honeybee germ plasm, and beekeeping
byproducts into the United States only in accordance with this part.
(2) You may not import pollen derived from bee colonies and
intended for use as bee feed into the United States.
(3)(i) You may not import used beekeeping equipment into the United
States, unless that used beekeeping equipment either:
(A) Will be used solely for indoor display purposes and will not
come into contact with indigenous bees; or
(B) Consists of bee boards that contain live brood of bees, other
than honeybees, from a region listed in Sec. 322.4(c).
(ii) New, unused beekeeping equipment is eligible for importation
into the United States if it complies with all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
(c) Movements not in compliance. (1) Any honeybees, honeybee germ
plasm, bees other than honeybees, beekeeping byproducts, or used
beekeeping equipment not in compliance with this part that are imported
into the United States will be either:
(i) Immediately exported from the United States by you at your
expense; or
(ii) Destroyed by us at your expense.
(2) Pending exportation or destruction, we will immediately apply
any necessary safeguards to the bees, beekeeping byproducts, or used
beekeeping equipment to prevent the introduction of bee diseases and
parasites, and undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees into the
United States.
Sec. 322.3 Costs and charges.
We will furnish, without cost, the services of an inspector during
normal business hours and at the inspector's places of duty. You will
be responsible for all costs and charges arising from inspection
outside of normal business hours or away from the inspector's places of
duty.\1\ You are also responsible for all costs and charges related to
any exportation or destruction of shipments, in accordance with Sec.
322.2(c)(1).
[[Page 61749]]
Further, if you import bees or germ plasm into a containment facility
for research or processing, you will be responsible for all additional
costs and charges associated with the importation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on costs for services of an inspector are
contained in part 354 of this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart B--Importation of Adult Honeybees, Honeybee Germ Plasm, and
Bees Other Than Honeybees From Approved Regions
Sec. 322.4 Approved regions.
(a) Adult honeybees. The following regions are approved for the
importation of adult honeybees into the continental United States (not
including Hawaii) under the conditions of this subpart: Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand.
(b) Honeybee germ plasm. The following regions are approved for the
importation of honeybee germ plasm into the United States under the
conditions of this subpart: Australia, Bermuda, Canada, France, Great
Britain, New Zealand, and Sweden.
(c) Bees other than honeybees. The following regions are approved
for the importation of bees other than honeybees into the continental
United States (not including Hawaii) under the conditions of this
subpart: Canada.
(d) If the name of the region from which you want to import adult
honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or bees other than honeybees into the
United States does not appear in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c),
respectively, of this section, refer to subpart C of this part,
``Importation of Restricted Organisms,'' for requirements.
(e) For information on approving other regions for the importation
of adult honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or bees other than honeybees
into the United States, see Sec. 322.12.
Sec. 322.5 General requirements.
(a) All shipments of bees and honeybee germ plasm imported into the
United States under this subpart must be shipped directly to the United
States from an approved region.
(b) Adult honeybees. (1) You may import adult honeybees under this
subpart only from regions listed in Sec. 322.4(a).
(2) The honeybees must be package bees or queens with attending
adult bees.
(c) Honeybee germ plasm. You may import honeybee germ plasm under
this subpart only from regions listed in Sec. 322.4(b).
(d) Bees other than honeybees. (1) You may import live adult bees
or live brood and essential nest substrate under this subpart only from
regions listed in Sec. 322.4(c).
(2) The live bees or brood must belong to one of the following
species:
(i) Bumblebees of the species Bombus impatiens;
(ii) Bumblebees of the species Bombus occidentalis;
(iii) Alfalfa leafcutter bee (Megachile rotundata);
(iv) Blue orchard bee (Osmia lignaria); or
(v) Horn-faced bee (Osmia cornifrons).
(3) If you want to import species of bees other than those listed
in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, refer to subpart C of this part,
``Importation of Restricted Organisms,'' for requirements.
Sec. 322.6 Export certificate.
Each shipment of bees and honeybee germ plasm arriving in the
United States from an approved region must be accompanied by an export
certificate issued by the appropriate regulatory agency of the national
government of the exporting region.
(a) Adult honeybees. (1) For adult honeybees, the export
certificate must:
(i) Certify that the hives from which the honeybees in the shipment
were derived were individually inspected by an official of the
regulatory agency no more than 10 days prior to export;
(ii) Identify any diseases, parasites, or undesirable species or
subspecies of honeybee found in the hive during that preexport
inspection; and
(iii) Certify that the bees in the shipment were produced in the
exporting region and are the offspring of bees or semen also produced
in the exporting region.
(2) If the export certificate identifies a bee disease or parasite
of concern to the United States, including, but not limited to, Thai
sacbrood virus, Tropilaelaps clareae, and Euvarroa sinhai, or an
undesirable species or subspecies of honeybee, including, but not
limited to, the Cape honeybee (Apis mellifera capensis) and the
Oriental honeybee (Apis cerana), as occurring in the hive from which
the shipment was derived, we will refuse the shipment's entry into the
United States.
(b) Honeybee germ plasm. (1) For honeybee germ plasm, the export
certificate must:
(i) Certify that the hives from which the germ plasm in each
shipment was derived were individually inspected by an official of the
regulatory agency no more than 10 days prior to export;
(ii) Identify any diseases, parasites, or undesirable species or
subspecies of honeybee found in the hive during that preexport
inspection; and
(iii) Certify that the bees in the hives from which the shipment
was derived were produced in the exporting region and are the offspring
of bees or semen also produced in the exporting region.
(2) If the export certificate identifies a bee disease or parasite
of concern to the United States, including, but not limited to, Thai
sacbrood virus, Tropilaelaps clareae, and Euvarroa sinhai, or an
undesirable species or subspecies of honeybee, including, but not
limited to, the Cape honeybee (Apis mellifera capensis) and the
Oriental honeybee (Apis cerana), as occurring in the hive from which
the shipment was derived, we will refuse the shipment's entry into the
United States.
(c) Bees other than honeybees. For bees other than honeybees, the
export certificate must certify that the bees in the shipment were
produced in the exporting region and are the offspring of bees or semen
also produced in the exporting region.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.7 Notice of arrival.
(a) At least 10 business days prior to the arrival in the United
States of any shipment of bees or honeybee germ plasm imported into the
United States under this subpart, you must notify APHIS of the
impending arrival. Your notification must include the following
information:
(1) Your name, address, and telephone number;
(2) The name and address of the receiving apiary;
(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the producer;
(4) The U.S. port where you expect the shipment to arrive. The port
must be staffed by an APHIS inspector (see Sec. 322.11);
(5) The date you expect the shipment to arrive at that U.S. port;
(6) The scientific name(s) of the organisms in the shipment;
(7) A description of the shipment (i.e., package bees, queen bees,
nest boxes, etc.); and
(8) The total number of organisms you expect to receive.
(b) You must provide the notification to APHIS through one of the
following means:
(1) By mail to the Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; or
(2) By facsimile at (301) 734-8700; or
(3) By electronic mail to [email protected].
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.8 Packaging of shipments.
(a) Adult honeybees. All shipments of adult honeybees imported into
the United States under this subpart:
(1) Must be packaged to prevent the escape of any bees or bee
pests;
[[Page 61750]]
(2) Must not include any brood, comb, pollen, or honey; and
(3) May include sugar water or crystallized sugar (e.g., candy) for
use as food during transit.
(b) Bees other than honeybees--(1) Adult bees. All adult bees other
than honeybees imported into the United States must be packaged to
prevent the escape of any bees or bee pests.
(2) Live brood. For live brood of bees other than honeybees,
packages:
(i) Must be securely closed;
(ii) May not include any soil, except for that which is present in
nest cells that include developing, immature bees;
(iii) May include only packing materials that were grown or
produced in the exporting region and that meet all other applicable
requirements of this chapter, such as the regulations pertaining to
unmanufactured wood in part 319 of this chapter and the plant pest
regulations in part 330 of this chapter; and
(iv) May consist of brood housed in new or used bee boards,
provided the bee boards meet all applicable requirements of this part.
Sec. 322.9 Mailed packages.
(a) If you import a package of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or
bees other than honeybees under this subpart through the mail or
through commercial express delivery, you must mark all sides of the
outside of that package with the contents of the shipment, i.e., ``Live
Bees,'' ``Bee Germ Plasm,'' or ``Live Bee Brood,'' and the name of the
exporting region. The marking must be clearly visible using black
letters at least 1 inch in height on a white background.
(b) If you import a package of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or
bees other than honeybees under this subpart through commercial express
delivery, you must provide an accurate description of the complete
contents of the shipment, i.e., ``Live Bees,'' ``Bee Germ Plasm,'' or
``Live Bee Brood,'' for the shipment's delivery manifest entry.
(c) In addition to the export certificate required in Sec. 322.6,
a package of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or bees other than
honeybees imported under this subpart by commercial express delivery
must be accompanied at the time of arrival in the United States by an
invoice or packing list accurately indicating the complete contents of
the shipment.
Sec. 322.10 Inspection; refusal of entry.
(a) Shipments of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, and bees other
than honeybees imported into the United States under this subpart will
be inspected at the port of entry in the United States for:
(1) Proper documentation (see Sec. 322.6);
(2) Timely notice of arrival (see Sec. 322.7); and
(3) Adequate packaging (see Sec. 322.8).
(b) If, upon inspection, any shipment fails to meet the
requirements of this part, that shipment will be refused entry into the
United States. In accordance with Sec. 322.2(c), the inspector will
offer you, or in your absence the shipper, the opportunity to
immediately export any refused shipments. If you, or in your absence
the shipper, decline to immediately export the shipment, we will
destroy the shipment at your expense.
Sec. 322.11 Ports of entry.
Shipments of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, and bees other than
honeybees imported under this subpart may enter the United States only
at a port of entry staffed by an APHIS inspector.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To find out if a specific port is staffed by an APHIS
inspector, or for a list of ports staffed by APHIS inspectors,
contact Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; toll-free (877) 770-5990; fax (301) 734-
8700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 322.12 Risk assessment procedures for approving countries.
(a) The national government of the region wishing to export must
request that we perform a risk assessment for the importation into the
United States of honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or bees other than
honeybees from that region.
(b) When we receive a request, we will evaluate the science-based
risks associated with such importation. Our risk assessment will be
based on information provided by the exporting region, information from
topical scientific literature, and, if applicable, information we gain
from a site visit to the exporting region. The risk assessment will
include:
(1) Identification of all bee diseases, including fungi, bacteria,
viruses, mycoplasmas, and protozoa, that occur in the exporting region
but not in the United States or that are listed as significant for
international trade by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE);
(2) Identification of all bee parasites, including mites, that
occur in the exporting region but not in the United States or that are
listed as significant for international trade by the OIE;
(3) Identification of all species and subspecies of honeybees that
occur in the exporting region but not in the United States or that are
listed as significant for international trade by the OIE, if
applicable;
(4) Identification of all pests of bee culture, such as the small
hive beetle, that occur in the exporting region but not in the United
States or that are listed as significant for international trade by the
OIE;
(5) Evaluation of the probability of establishment, including
pathway, entry, colonization, and spread potentials, of any diseases,
parasites, undesirable species or subspecies of honeybees, or pests
identified in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of
this section;
(6) Evaluation of the potential consequences of establishment,
including economic, environmental, and perceived social and political
effects, of each disease, parasite, undesirable species or subspecies
of honeybees, or pest identified in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1),
(2), (3), or (4) of this section; and
(7) Consideration of the effectiveness of the regulatory system of
the exporting region to control bee diseases, parasites, undesirable
species and subspecies of honeybees, and pests that occur there and to
prevent occurrences of new bee diseases, parasites, undesirable species
and subspecies of honeybees, and pests.
(c) Based on the conclusions of the risk assessment, we will
either:
(1) Publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking
to allow honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or bees other than honeybees
to be imported into the United States from that region; or
(2) Deny the request in writing, stating the specific reasons for
that action.
(d) We will publish a notice of availability of all completed risk
assessments for public comment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Subpart C--Importation of Restricted Organisms
Sec. 322.13 General requirements; restricted organisms.
(a) For the purposes of this part, the following are restricted
organisms:
(1) Honeybee brood in the comb;
(2) Adult honeybees from any region other than those listed in
Sec. 322.4(a);
(3) Honeybee germ plasm from any region other than those listed in
Sec. 322.4(b); and
(4) Bees other than honeybees, in any life stage, from any region
other than those listed in Sec. 322.4(c) or any species of bee other
than those listed in Sec. 322.5(d)(2).
(b) Restricted organisms may be imported into the United States
only by
[[Page 61751]]
Federal, State, or university researchers for research or experimental
purposes and in accordance with this part.
Sec. 322.14 Documentation; applying for a permit to import a
restricted organism.
Any restricted organism imported into the United States must be
accompanied by both a permit, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section, and an invoice or packing list accurately indicating the
complete contents of the shipment, in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this section.
(a) Permit. You must submit a completed application for a permit to
import restricted organisms at least 30 days prior to scheduling
arrival of those organisms. You may import a restricted organism only
if we approve your application and issue you a permit. Our procedures
for reviewing permit applications are provided in Sec. 322.15. To
apply for a permit, you must supply, either on a completed PPQ Form 526
or in some other written form, the following information: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mail your completed application to Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236. A PPQ Form 526
may be obtained by writing to the same address, calling toll-free
(877) 770-5990, faxing your request to (301) 734-8700, or
downloading the form from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ss/permits/pests/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Applicant information. Your name, title, organization, address,
telephone number, facsimile number, and electronic mail address
(provide all that are applicable). You must also state whether you are
a U.S. resident. If you are not a U.S. resident, you must also supply
the name, title, organization, address, telephone number, facsimile
number, and electronic mail address (provide all that are applicable)
of a U.S. resident who will act as a sponsor for the permit
application.
(2) Application type. New permit, permit renewal, or amendment to
existing permit (if a renewal or amendment, provide the current permit
number).
(3) Type of movement. Select or write ``Import into the United
States.''
(4) Scientific name of organism. Genus, species, subspecies or
strain, and author (if known).
(5) Type of organism. Select or write ``Bees and/or bee germ
plasm.''
(6) Taxonomic classification. Family of restricted organisms.
(7) Life stage(s). Semen, preovipositional eggs, embryos,
postovipositional eggs, larvae, pupae, or adults. If adult queens,
please specify.
(8) Number of shipments.
(9) Number of specimens per shipment.
(10) Is the organism established in the United States?
(11) Is the organism established in the destination State?
(12) Media or species of host material accompanying the organism
(e.g., pollen, honey, wax, nesting material).
(13) Source of organism (include any that apply, and list region of
origin). Supplier (provide supplier's name and address), wild
collected, or reared under controlled conditions.
(14) Method of shipment. Airmail, express delivery (list company
name).
(15) Port(s) of entry.
(16) Approximate date(s) of arrival at the port of entry.
(17) Destination. Provide the address of the location where the
organism will be received and maintained, including building and room
numbers where applicable.
(18) Intended use (include any that apply). Select or write
``Scientific Study.''
(19) Has your facility been evaluated by APHIS? If yes, list
date(s) of approval. Is your facility approved for the species of bees
or bee germ plasm for which you are seeking a permit?
(20) Provide your signature and the date of your signature under
the following certification: ``I certify that all statements and
entries I have made on this document are true and accurate to the best
of my knowledge and belief. I understand that any intentional false
statement or misrepresentation made on this document is a violation of
law and punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment
of not more than 5 years, or both. (18 U.S.C. 1001).'' If you are
required to have a sponsor for your permit application, your sponsor
must also sign and date under the same certification.
(b) Invoice. Any restricted organism must be accompanied at the
time of arrival in the United States by an invoice or packing list
accurately indicating the complete contents of the shipment and the
exporting region.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.15 APHIS review of permit applications; denial or
cancellation of permits.
(a) Review of permit applications to import restricted organisms--
(1) Consultation. During our review of your permit application, we may
consult with any Federal officials; appropriate officials of any State,
Territory, or other jurisdiction in the United States in charge of
research or regulatory programs relative to bees; and any other
qualified governmental or private research laboratory, institution, or
individual. We will conduct these consultations to gain information on
the risks associated with the importation of the restricted organisms.
(2) Review by destination State. We will transmit a copy of your
permit application, along with our anticipated decision on the
application, to the appropriate regulatory official in the destination
State for review and recommendation. A State's response, which we will
consider before taking final action on the permit application, may take
one of the following forms:
(i) The State recommends that we issue the permit;
(ii) The State recommends that we issue the permit with specified
additional conditions;
(iii) The State recommends that we deny the permit application and
provides scientific, risk-based reasons supporting that recommendation;
or
(iv) The State makes no recommendation, thereby concurring with our
decision regarding the issuance of the permit.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If a State regulatory official does not respond within 20
business days, we will conclude that the State has chosen to make no
recommendation regarding the issuance of the permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Results of review. After a complete review of your application,
we will either:
(1) Issue you a written permit with, if applicable, certain
specific conditions listed for the importation of the restricted
organisms you applied to import. You must initial each condition on the
proposed permit and return the proposed permit conditions to the Permit
Unit before we will issue you a signed valid permit; or
(2) Notify you that your application has been denied and provide
reasons for the denial.
(c) Denial of permit applications. APHIS will deny an application
for a permit to import a restricted organism regulated under this
subpart when, in its opinion, such movement would involve a danger of
dissemination of an exotic bee disease or parasite, or an undesirable
species or subspecies of honeybee. Danger of such dissemination may be
deemed to exist when:
(1) Existing safeguards against dissemination are inadequate and no
adequate safeguards can be arranged; or
(2) The potential for disseminating an exotic bee disease or
parasite, or an undesirable species or subspecies of honeybee, with the
restricted organism outweighs the probable benefits that could be
derived from the proposed movement and use of the restricted organism;
or
(3) When you, as a previous permittee, failed to maintain the
safeguards or otherwise observe the
[[Page 61752]]
conditions prescribed in a previous permit and have failed to
demonstrate your ability or intent to observe them in the future; or
(4) The proposed movement of the restricted organism is adverse to
the conduct of an eradication, suppression, control, or regulatory
program of APHIS.
(d) Cancellation of permits. (1) APHIS may cancel any outstanding
permit whenever:
(i) We receive information subsequent to the issuance of the permit
of circumstances that would constitute cause for the denial of an
application for permit under paragraph (c) of this section; or
(ii) You, as the permittee, fail to maintain the safeguards or
otherwise observe the conditions specified in the permit or in any
applicable regulations.
(2) Upon cancellation of a permit, you must either:
(i) Surrender all restricted organisms to an APHIS inspector; or
(ii) Destroy all restricted organisms under the supervision of an
APHIS inspector.
(e) Appealing the denial of permit applications or cancellation of
permits. If your permit application has been denied or your permit has
been canceled, APHIS will promptly inform you, in writing, of the
reasons for the denial or cancellation. You may appeal the decision by
writing to the Administrator and providing all of the facts and reasons
upon which you are relying to show that your permit application was
wrongfully denied or your permit was wrongfully canceled. The
Administrator will grant or deny the appeal as promptly as
circumstances allow and will state, in writing, the reasons for the
decision. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, you may
request a hearing to resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning
the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.16 Packaging of shipments.
(a) Restricted organisms must be packed in a container or
combination of containers that will prevent the escape of the organisms
and the leakage of any contained materials. The container must be
sufficiently strong to prevent it from rupturing or breaking during
shipment.
(b) The outer container must be clearly marked with the contents of
the shipment, i.e., either ``Live Bees,'' ``Bee Germ Plasm,'' or ``Live
Bee Brood,'' and the name of the region of origin.
(c) Only approved packing materials may be used in a shipment of
restricted organisms.
(1) The following materials are approved as packing materials:
Absorbent cotton or processed cotton padding free of cottonseed; cages
made of processed wood; cellulose materials; excelsior; felt; ground
peat (peat moss); paper or paper products; phenolic resin foam;
sawdust; sponge rubber; thread waste, twine, or cord; and vermiculite.
(2) Other materials, such as host material for the organism, soil,
or other types of packing material, may be included in a container only
if identified in the permit application and approved by APHIS on the
permit.
Sec. 322.17 Mailed packages.
(a) If you import a restricted organism through the mail or through
commercial express delivery, you must attach a special mailing label
(APHIS Form 599), which APHIS will provide with your permit, to the
package or container. The mailing label indicates that APHIS has
authorized the shipment.
(b) You must address the package containing the restricted organism
to the containment facility or apiary identified on the permit (post
office boxes are not allowed).
(c) If the restricted organism arrives in the mail without the
mailing label described in paragraph (a) of this section or addressed
to a containment facility or apiary other than the one listed on the
permit, an inspector will refuse to allow the organism to enter the
United States.
Sec. 322.18 Restricted organisms in a commercial vehicle arriving at
a land border port in the United States.
(a) If you import a restricted organism through a land border port
in the United States by commercial vehicle (i.e., automobile or truck),
then the person carrying the restricted organism must present the
permit required by Sec. 322.14 and an invoice or packing slip
accurately indicating the complete contents of the shipment to the
inspector at the land border port.
(b) The restricted organisms must be surrendered at the port of
entry and can continue on to the destination identified on the permit
only by a bonded carrier (commercial express delivery).
(c) If you fail to present a copy of the permit and an invoice or
packing list accurately indicating the complete contents of the
shipment at the port of entry, an inspector will refuse the organism's
entry to the United States or confiscate and destroy the refused
material.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.19 Inspection; refusal of entry.
(a) APHIS may inspect any restricted organism at the time of
importation to determine if the organism meets all of the requirements
of this part.
(b) If, upon inspection, any shipment fails to meet the
requirements of the regulations, that shipment will be refused entry
into the United States. In accordance with Sec. 322.2(c), the
inspector will offer the shipper the opportunity to immediately export
any refused shipments. If the shipper declines to immediately export
the shipment, we will destroy the shipment at his or her expense.
Sec. 322.20 Ports of entry.
A restricted organism may be imported only at a port of entry
staffed by an APHIS inspector.\5\ After a restricted organism has been
cleared for importation at the port of entry, the organism can only be
transported by a bonded commercial carrier immediately and directly
from the port of entry to the containment facility or apiary identified
on the permit. You may open the package containing the restricted
organism only within the containment facility or apiary identified on
the permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ To find out if a specific port is staffed by an APHIS
inspector, or for a list of ports staffed by APHIS inspectors,
contact Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; toll-free (877) 770-5990; fax (301) 734-
8700.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.21 Post-entry handling.
(a) Immediately following clearance at the port of entry, a
restricted organism must move by a bonded commercial carrier directly
to a containment facility or apiary that has been inspected and
approved by APHIS.\6\ We must inspect and approve the containment
facility or apiary before we will issue a permit to import a restricted
organism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a list of approved facilities, or to arrange to have a
facility inspected by APHIS, contact Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; toll-free (877) 770-
5990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Inspection of premises. Prior to issuing a permit to import
restricted organisms, we will inspect the apiary or containment
facility where you intend to contain the restricted organisms. In order
to approve the apiary or containment facility, an inspector must
determine that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent the release
of diseases or parasites of bees, or of undesirable species or strains
of honeybees. We will use the following criteria to determine whether
adequate safeguards are in place:
[[Page 61753]]
(1) Enclosed containment facilities. (i) Will the facility's
entryways, windows, and other structures, including water, air, and
waste handling systems, contain the restricted organisms, parasites and
pathogens, and prevent the entry of other organisms and unauthorized
visitors?
(ii) Does the facility have operational and procedural safeguards
in place to prevent the escape of the restricted organisms, parasites,
and pathogens, and to prevent the entry of other organisms and
unauthorized visitors?
(iii) Does the facility have a means of inactivating or sterilizing
restricted organisms and any breeding materials, pathogens, parasites,
containers, or other material?
(2) Containment apiaries. (i) Is the apiary located in an area
devoid of indigenous bees and sufficiently isolated to prevent contact
between indigenous bees and imported restricted organisms? Is the area
extending from the apiary to the nearest indigenous bees constantly
unsuitable for foraging individuals of the imported restricted
organisms?
(ii) Does the apiary have sufficient physical barriers to prevent
the entry of unauthorized visitors?
(iii) Does the apiary have operational and procedural safeguards in
place to prevent the escape of the restricted organisms, parasites, and
pathogens, and to prevent the entry of other organisms and unauthorized
visitors?
(iv) Does the apiary have a means of inactivating or sterilizing
restricted organisms, and any hives, wax, pathogens, parasites,
containers, or other materials?
(3) Containment apiaries for honeybees resulting from germ plasm
imported from nonapproved regions.
(i) Does the apiary have sufficient physical barriers to prevent
the entry of unauthorized visitors?
(ii) Are there sufficient physical barriers (e.g., excluders) in
hives in the apiary to prevent the escape of all adult queen and drone
honeybees resulting from the germ plasm?
(iii) Does the apiary have operational and procedural safeguards in
place to prevent the escape of all queen and drone honeybees resulting
from the germ plasm?
(iv) Does the apiary have a means of destroying colonies of
honeybees with undesirable characteristics that may result from
imported germ plasm?
(c) Holding in containment. (1) If we issue a permit for importing
restricted organisms into an approved containment facility or apiary,
you may not remove or release the restricted organisms, or the progeny
or germ plasm resulting from the restricted organisms, from the apiary
or facility without our prior approval.
(2) You must allow us to inspect the apiary or facility and all
documents associated with the importation or holding of restricted
organisms at any time to determine whether safeguards are being
maintained to prevent the release of the restricted organisms, their
progeny and germ plasm, parasites, and pathogens.
(3) You must inform us immediately, but no later than 24 hours
after detection, if restricted organisms escape from the facility
(d) Release from containment apiary or facility. (1) After rearing
the restricted organisms in an approved containment facility or apiary
through at least 4 months of active reproduction with no evidence of
nonindigenous parasites or pathogens or of undesirable characteristics,
you may submit a request to us for the release of the bees. The request
must include:
(i) Inspection protocols;
(ii) Inspection frequencies;
(iii) Names and titles of inspectors;
(iv) Complete information, including laboratory reports, on
detection of diseases and parasites in the population;
(v) Complete notes and observations on behavior, such as
aggressiveness and swarming; and
(vi) Any other information or data relating to bee diseases,
parasites, or adverse species or subspecies.
(2) Mail your request for release to the Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, or fax to (301)
734-8700.
(3) When we receive a complete request for release from
containment, we will evaluate the request and determine whether the
bees may be released. Our evaluation may include an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. We may conduct an
additional inspection of the bees during our evaluation of the request.
You will receive a written statement as soon as circumstances allow
that approves or denies your request for release of the bees.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Subpart D--Transit of Restricted Organisms Through the United
States
Sec. 322.22 General requirements.
(a) You may transit restricted organisms from any region through
the United States to another region only in accordance with this part.
For a list of restricted organisms, see Sec. 322.13(a).
(b) You may ship restricted organisms only aboard aircraft to the
United States for transit to another country.
(c) You may transload a shipment of restricted organisms only once
during the shipment's entire transit through the United States and only
at an airport in the continental United States. You may not transload
restricted organisms in Hawaii. In Hawaii, the restricted organisms
must remain on, and depart for another destination aboard, the same
aircraft on which the shipment arrived at the Hawaiian airport.
Sec. 322.23 Documentation.
Each shipment of restricted organisms transiting the United States
must be accompanied by a document issued by the appropriate regulatory
authority of the national government of the region of origin stating
that the shipment has been inspected and determined to meet the
packaging requirements in Sec. 322.24.
Sec. 322.24 Packaging of transit shipments.
(a) Restricted organisms transiting the United States must be
packaged in securely closed and completely enclosed containers that
prevent the escape of organisms and the leakage of any contained
materials. The container must be sufficiently strong and durable to
prevent it from rupturing or breaking during shipment.
(b) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, each pallet of cages containing honeybees transiting the
United States must be covered by an escape-proof net that is secured to
the pallet so that no honeybees can escape from underneath the net.
(c) The outside of the package must be clearly marked with the
contents of the transit shipment, i.e., either ``Live Bees,'' ``Bee
Germ Plasm,'' or ``Live Bee Brood,'' and the name of the exporting
region.
Sec. 322.25 Notice of arrival.
At least 2 business days prior to the expected date of arrival of
restricted organisms at a port in the continental United States for in-
transit movement, you or your shipper must contact the port to give the
following information:
(a) The name of each U.S. airport where the shipment will arrive;
(b) The name of the U.S. airport where the shipment will be
transloaded (if applicable);
(c) The date of the shipment's arrival at each U.S. airport;
(d) The date of the shipment's departure from each U.S. airport;
(e) The names, phone numbers, and addresses of both the shipper and
receiver;
[[Page 61754]]
(f) The number of units in the shipment (i.e., number of queens or
number of cages of package bees); and
(g) The name of the airline carrying the shipment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.26 Inspection and handling.
(a) All shipments of restricted organisms transiting the United
States are subject to inspection at the port in the United States for
compliance with this part. If, upon inspection, a transit shipment of
restricted articles is found not to meet the requirements of this part,
we will destroy the shipment at your expense.
(b) Transloading--(1) Adult bees. You may transload adult bees from
one aircraft to another aircraft at the port of arrival in the United
States only under the supervision of an inspector. If the adult bees
cannot be transloaded immediately to the subsequent flight, you must
store them within a completely enclosed building. Adult bees may not be
transloaded from an aircraft to ground transportation for subsequent
movement through the United States.
(2) Bee germ plasm. You may transload bee germ plasm from one
aircraft to another at the port of arrival in the United States only
under the supervision of an inspector.
Sec. 322.27 Eligible ports for transit shipments.
You may transit restricted organisms only through a port of entry
staffed by an APHIS inspector.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ To find out if a specific port is staffed by an APHIS
inspector, or for a list of ports staffed by APHIS inspectors,
contact Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; toll-free (877) 770-5990; fax (301) 734-
8700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart E--Importation and Transit of Restricted Articles
Sec. 322.28 General requirements; restricted articles.
(a) The following articles from any region are restricted articles:
(1) Dead bees of any genus;
(2) Beeswax for beekeeping; and
(3) Honey for bee feed.
(b) Restricted articles may only be imported into or transit the
United States in accordance with this part.
Sec. 322.29 Dead bees.
(a) Dead bees imported into or transiting the United States must be
either:
(1) Immersed in a solution containing at least 70 percent alcohol
or a suitable fixative for genetic research;
(2) Immersed in liquid nitrogen; or
(3) Pinned and dried in the manner of scientific specimens.
(b) Dead bees are subject to inspection at the port of entry in the
United States to confirm that the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section have been met.
Sec. 322.30 Export certificate.
Each shipment of restricted articles, except for dead bees,
imported into or transiting the United States must be accompanied by an
export certificate issued by the appropriate regulatory agency of the
national government of the exporting region. The export certificate
must state that the articles in the shipment have been treated as
follows:
(a) Beeswax. Must have been liquefied, and slumgum and honey must
be removed.
(b) Honey for bee feed. Heated to 212 [deg]F (100 [deg]C) for 30
minutes.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.31 Notice of arrival.
(a) At least 10 business days prior to the arrival in the United
States of any shipment of restricted articles, you must notify APHIS of
the impending arrival. Your notification must include the following
information:
(1) Your name, address, and telephone number;
(2) The name and address of the recipient of the restricted
articles;
(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the producer;
(4) The date you expect to receive the shipment;
(5) A description of the contents of the shipment (i.e., dead bees,
honey for bee feed, etc.); and
(6) The total number of restricted articles you expect to receive.
(b) You must provide the notification to APHIS through one of the
following means:
(1) By mail to the Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; or
(2) By facsimile at (301) 734-8700; or
(3) By electronic mail to [email protected].
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.32 Mailed packages.
(a) If you import a restricted article through the mail or through
commercial express delivery, you must mark all sides of the outside of
that package with the contents of the shipment and the name of the
exporting region. The marking must be clearly visible using black
letters at least 1 inch in height on a white background.
(b) If you import a restricted article through commercial express
delivery, you must provide an accurate description of the complete
contents of the shipment for the shipment's delivery manifest entry.
(c) In addition to the export certificate required in Sec. 322.30
(if applicable), a restricted article that is imported by mail or
commercial express delivery must be accompanied by an invoice or
packing list accurately indicating the complete contents of the
shipment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.33 Restricted articles in a commercial bonded vehicle
arriving at a land border port in the United States.
If you import a restricted article through a land border port in
the United States by commercial vehicle (i.e., automobile or truck),
then the person carrying the package containing the restricted article
or the driver of the vehicle must present the export certificate
required by Sec. 322.30 (if applicable) and an invoice or packing slip
accurately indicating the complete contents of the shipment to the
inspector at the land border port.
Sec. 322.34 Inspection; refusal of entry.
(a) You must present shipments of restricted articles to the
inspector at the port of entry in the United States. Shipments of
restricted articles must remain at the port of entry until released by
the inspector.
(b) The inspector at the port will confirm that all shipments of
restricted articles have proper documentation (see Sec. 322.30) and
that you provided notice of arrival for all shipments of restricted
articles (see Sec. 322.32).
(c) If, upon inspection, any shipment fails to meet the
requirements of this part, that shipment will be refused entry into the
United States. In accordance with Sec. 322.2(c), the inspector will
offer you, or in your absence the shipper, the opportunity to
immediately export any refused shipments, or confiscate and destroy the
refused shipments.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0207)
Sec. 322.35 Ports of entry.
A restricted article may be imported only at a port of entry
staffed by an APHIS inspector. To find out if a specific port is
staffed by an APHIS inspector, or for a list of ports staffed by APHIS
inspectors, contact Permit Unit, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133,
Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1236; toll-free (877) 770-5990; fax (301)
734-8700.
[[Page 61755]]
Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of October 2004.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-23416 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P