[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