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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

61735

Vol. 69, No. 203

Thursday, October 21, 2004

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, §§ 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 

61736 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 322.6 of the proposed 

rule. Proposed § 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 § 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 § 322.6 that the bees or 

queens in a shipment originated in the 

exporting region is not objectively 

verifiable.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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-ofentry 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 inspectionrelated 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 riskrelated issue. General packaging 

requirements for shipments of 

honeybees and other bees were 

contained in § 322.8 of the proposed 

rule. Proposed § 322.9 pertained to 

mailed packages of honeybees, 

honeybee germ plasm, or other bees, 

and proposed §§ 322.10 and 322.11, to 

hand-carried packages containing those 

commodities. Similarly, proposed 

§§ 322.18 and 322.19 contained, 

respectively, general requirements for 

packaging of restricted organisms and 

specific requirements for mailed 

packages, and §§ 322.20 and 322.21 set 

out conditions for hand-carried 

packages. Proposed § 322.35 contained 

requirements for mailed packages of 

restricted articles, and hand-carrying 

requirements were set out in proposed 

§§ 322.36 and 322.37. Certain materials, 

such as brood, comb, pollen, or honey, 

were specifically prohibited in proposed 

§ 322.8, but shippers were allowed some 

latitude in packing methods, as long as 

the overarching objective, stated in 

§ 322.8(a)(1), that shipments must be 

packaged to prevent the escape of any 

bees, was met. Proposed § 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. 

61738 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 §§ 322.10, 322.11, 

322.20, and 322.36. Proposed §§ 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, 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 °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 °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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

61740 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 pestfree 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 sciencebased 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 multimonth 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 322.6 of the proposed rule 

pertaining to the importation of adult 

honeybees into Hawaii. Proposed 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of § 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 

61742 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 firstgeneration 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 

§ 322.2(b)(2) and our restrictions on the 

importation of used beekeeping 

equipment in proposed § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 322.12 of this final rule. 

As stated in § 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 § 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, § 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 § 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, § 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, § 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 § 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 § 322.24. 

We have not made any change to the 

final rule in response to this comment. 

The conditions of proposed § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 earlyspring 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, § 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 

61744 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

flexibility analysis, which is set out 

below, regarding the economic effects of 

this rule on small entities. The 

discussion also serves as our costbenefit 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 

Year Honeybee colonies Honey production

(in pounds) 

Value of production

(in 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 

State 

Inventory of all 

U.S. registered 

apiaries 1

Commercial sales of bee colonies and honey 

(a) Colonies of bees (b) Honey Value of sales 

(a + b) 

% of U.S. 

sales Apiaries Number Apiaries Pounds 

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. 1Both commercial and hobbyists’ apiaries. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 61745

1 ‘‘The Value of Honey Bees as Pollinators of U.S. 

Crops in 2000.’’ Bee Culture Magazine, March 2000.

2Hawaii is the only U.S. State that may export 

honeybees.

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

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 hornfaced 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 

Year Exporting country 

U.S. customs 

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.

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 § 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 

Year Honeybee

queens 

Honeybee

packages

(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%) 

61746 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5.—CANADIAN IMPORTS OF LIVE HONEYBEE QUEENS FROM MAJOR SUPPLIERS, 1996–2001—Continued

[in Canadian dollars] 

Countries 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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.

■ Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

chapter III as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES

■ 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.

§§ 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]

■ 2. In part 319, ‘‘Subpart—Exotic Bee 

Diseases and Parasites,’’ §§ 319.76 

through 319.76–8, is removed.

■ 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. 

61748 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Information on costs for services of an inspector 

are contained in part 354 of this chapter.

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

§ 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.

§ 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 

§ 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.

§ 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 § 322.2(c)(1). 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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.

Subpart B—Importation of Adult 

Honeybees, Honeybee Germ Plasm, 

and Bees Other Than Honeybees From 

Approved Regions

§ 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 § 322.12.

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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.

§ 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)

§ 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 

§ 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 

Notification@usda.gov.

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0207)

§ 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; 

61750 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

2To 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.

(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.

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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 

§ 322.6); 

(2) Timely notice of arrival (see 

§ 322.7); and 

(3) Adequate packaging (see § 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 § 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.

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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 § 322.4(a); 

(3) Honeybee germ plasm from any 

region other than those listed in 

§ 322.4(b); and 

(4) Bees other than honeybees, in any 

life stage, from any region other than 

those listed in § 322.4(c) or any species 

of bee other than those listed in 

§ 322.5(d)(2). 

(b) Restricted organisms may be 

imported into the United States only by 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 61751

3Mail 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/.

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.

Federal, State, or university researchers 

for research or experimental purposes 

and in accordance with this part.

§ 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 § 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

(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)

§ 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

(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 

61752 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

5To 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.

6For 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.

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)

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 § 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)

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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.

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0207)

§ 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.

(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: 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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 § 322.24.

§ 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.

§ 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; 

61754 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

7To 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.

(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)

§ 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.

§ 322.27 Eligible ports for transit 

shipments. 

You may transit restricted organisms 

only through a port of entry staffed by 

an APHIS inspector.7

Subpart E—Importation and Transit of 

Restricted Articles

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 

°F (100 °C) for 30 minutes.

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0207)

§ 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 

Notification@usda.gov.

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0207)

§ 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 § 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)

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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 

§ 322.30) and that you provided notice 

of arrival for all shipments of restricted 

articles (see § 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 § 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)

§ 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; tollfree (877) 770–5990; fax (301) 734–8700.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 985 

[Docket No. FV04–985–2 IFR] 

Marketing Order Regulating the 

Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in 

the Far West; Revision of the Salable 

Quantity and Allotment Percentage for 

Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 

2004–2005 Marketing Year

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This rule revises the quantity 

of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil 

produced in the Far West that handlers 

may purchase from, or handle for, 

producers during the 2004–2005 

marketing year by increasing the salable 

quantity from 773,474 pounds to 

1,095,689 pounds, and the allotment 

percentage from 36 percent to 51 

percent. The Spearmint Oil 

Administrative Committee (Committee), 

the agency responsible for local 

administration of the marketing order 

for spearmint oil produced in the Far 

West, unanimously recommended this 

rule to avoid extreme fluctuations in 

supplies and prices and to help 

maintain stability in the Far West 

spearmint oil market.

DATES: Effective June 1, 2004, through 

May 31, 2005; comments received by 

December 20, 2004 will be considered 

prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this rule. Comments must be 

sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing 

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 

720–8938; E-mail: 

moab.docketclerk@usda.gov; or Internet: 

http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the docket 

number and the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register and 

will be made available for public 

inspection in the Office of the Docket 

Clerk during regular business hours, or 

can be viewed at: http://

www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan M. Hiller, Northwest Marketing 

Field Office, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 

SW. Third Avenue, suite 385, Portland, 

Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 326–

2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440; or George 

Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing 

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; telephone: 

(202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938.

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

985, as amended (7 CFR part 985), 

regulating the handling of spearmint oil 

produced in the Far West (Washington, 

Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of 

Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred 

to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. This rule will 

not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This rule revises the quantity of 

Native spearmint oil that handlers may 

purchase from, or handle for, producers 

during the 2004–2005 marketing year, 

which ends on May 31, 2005. 

Specifically, this rule increases the 

salable quantity from 773,474 pounds to 

1,095,689 pounds, and the allotment 

percentage from 36 percent to 51 

percent for Native spearmint oil for the 

2004–2005 marketing year. 

The salable quantity is the total 

quantity of each class of oil that 

handlers may purchase from, or handle 

for, producers during a marketing year. 

The total salable quantity is divided by 

the total industry allotment base to 

determine an allotment percentage. 

Each producer is allotted a share of the 

salable quantity by applying the 

allotment percentage to the producer’s 

individual allotment base for the 

applicable class of spearmint oil. 

The initial salable quantity and 

allotment percentages for Scotch and 

Native spearmint oils for the 2004–2005 

marketing year were recommended by 

the Committee at its October 8, 2003, 

meeting. The Committee recommended 

salable quantities of 766,880 pounds 

and 773,474 pounds, and allotment 

percentages of 40 percent and 36 

percent, respectively, for Scotch and 

Native spearmint oils. A proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register

on January 23, 2004 (69 FR 3272). 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

solicited from interested persons until 

February 23, 2004. No comments were 

received. Subsequently, a final rule 

establishing the salable quantities and 

allotment percentages for Scotch and 

Native spearmint oils for the 2004–2005 

marketing year was published in the 

Federal Register on March 22, 2004 (69 

FR 13213). 

Pursuant to authority contained in 

§§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the 

order, at its September 13, 2004, 

meeting, the Committee unanimously 

recommended that the allotment 

percentage for Native spearmint oil for 

the 2004–2005 marketing year be 

increased by 12 percent from 36 percent 

to 48 percent. The Committee held 

another meeting on October 6, 2004, 

where, based on an unanticipated 

increase in demand, they unanimously 

recommended that the allotment 

percentage for Native spearmint oil for 

the 2004–2005 marketing year be 

increased by an additional 3 percent 

from 48 percent to 51 percent. Taking 

into consideration the following 

discussion on adjustments to the Native