The Hawaii Invasive Species Protection Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture (through APHIS), working with federal partners and the government of Hawaii, to perform preclearance quarantine screenings of persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles before direct movement to or from Hawaii. The bill applies to domestic and international travel and authorizes seizure and disposal of high‑risk items.
To fund the program, the bill amends existing fee authorities so the Department can collect inspection fees and user fees to recover costs. For businesses and operators moving goods or people to or from Hawaii, the bill moves the point of screening upstream and creates recurring operational and compliance obligations for carriers, shippers, and postal operations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires APHIS-led preclearance quarantine screening of passengers, baggage, cargo, and other articles destined for direct travel to or from Hawaii, in cooperation with multiple federal agencies and the government of Hawaii. It also authorizes seizure and disposal of identified high‑risk items and adds fee authorities to recover inspection costs.
Who It Affects
Commercial carriers (airlines, shipping lines), freight forwarders, USPS sectional center operations, travelers and shippers moving goods to or from Hawaii, and APHIS and partner federal agencies tasked with carrying out inspections.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts biosecurity screening from arrival in Hawaii to departure points, which can reduce infestation risk but redistributes inspection burden and costs to departure infrastructure and private operators. It uses fee mechanisms to fund operations rather than relying solely on annual appropriations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a standing preclearance quarantine regime for anything moving directly to or from Hawaii. APHIS will be the lead operational agency but must work with Interior, Homeland Security, Commerce, Treasury, and the government of Hawaii; these partners are explicitly named to reflect shared responsibilities across natural resources, customs, and law‑enforcement functions.
The screenings cover people and goods and are intended to catch ‘‘high‑risk’’ invasive species and agricultural materials before those items ever arrive in the islands.
Rather than leaving screening to ports of entry in Hawaii, the requirement is to inspect at points of departure. The bill tasks APHIS and Hawaii officials with developing a screening list — specific items and categories deemed high risk — and directs publication of that list so carriers and the public know what to expect.
Where inspectors find prohibited or dangerous organisms or materials, the bill authorizes seizure and disposal under existing statutory authority.The measure also changes underlying statute to make sure these new screenings are explicitly covered by plant‑protection law and by the Department’s inspection and fee authorities. It amends the Plant Protection Act language that governs preclearance for plants, and it expands fee statutes so the Department can collect inspection fees and prescribe user fees intended to cover the program’s costs.
That creates a direct funding path for APHIS to scale up operations without depending only on annual appropriations.Operationally, the bill imposes new compliance checkpoints for carriers, shippers, and postal operations handling shipments or passengers on routes to Hawaii. Those entities will need processes to present cargo and manifest information for screening and to handle diversion, seizure, or disposal decisions when inspections turn up high‑risk material.
The law leaves APHIS the job of designing the operational details — who inspects, how screening integrates with carrier operations, and how inspections are staffed and funded — but makes clear the federal government can require and charge for those inspections.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires visual, x‑ray, and canine preclearance screenings as inspection methods.
Domestic inspections must take place at departure and interline airports, at ports of departure, and at United States Postal Service destination sectional center facilities before direct travel to or from Hawaii.
APHIS must publish the list of items subject to screening in the Federal Register within 180 days of enactment.
High‑risk invasive species and agricultural materials identified by inspectors may be seized and disposed of under section 10407.
The Secretary of Agriculture must prescribe and collect user fees sufficient to cover the full cost of the preclearance inspections.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a statutory preclearance inspection program for Hawaii
This provision inserts a new §10811 that directs the Secretary, through APHIS and in cooperation with specified federal agencies and the government of Hawaii, to carry out preclearance quarantine inspections for high‑risk invasive species and agricultural materials. It spells out the screening subjects (persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles) and ties inspection authority to a list of screened items that APHIS will develop with Hawaii. Practically, this is the core operational authority: it gives APHIS express statutory backing to require inspections before movement to or from Hawaii.
Operational mandate and inspection sites
Subsection (a) names the federal partners and mandates the screening modalities; subsection (b) identifies where domestic preclearance must occur—departure and interline airports, ports of departure, and USPS destination sectional center facilities. That combination directs agencies to embed quarantine activities into transportation and mail infrastructure rather than at Hawaiian arrival ports, which has direct implications for how carriers and postal operations will redesign workflows and allocate personnel.
List development, publication, and disposition authority
Subsection (c) requires APHIS, consulting with Hawaii, to develop the list of items subject to inspection; subsection (d) requires publication of that list in the Federal Register within a set period; subsection (e) ties discovered items to existing seizure/disposal procedures. Those mechanics create a rulemaking and notice cycle and lean on pre‑existing disposal law to handle confiscated material, avoiding the need for a new disposal framework but raising practical questions about chain‑of‑custody and administrative appeals.
Integrates Hawaii screenings into plant protection provisions
The bill amends three subparagraphs of §421(b) to insert language explicitly covering high‑risk invasive species and agricultural materials into the State of Hawaii in accordance with the new §10811 list. That aligns plant screening authorities with the new preclearance regime and removes potential ambiguity about whether existing plant‑protection inspection powers reach departures bound for Hawaii.
Authorizes fee collection and user fees to cover inspection costs
Section 4 modifies fee language in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to include costs associated with screening tied to §10811, while Section 5 adds a clause to the Department of Agriculture Organic Act requiring the Secretary to prescribe and collect user fees sufficient to cover the full cost of the new preclearance inspections. Together these changes create the statutory basis for APHIS to charge for services and aim to make the program self‑sustaining via fees rather than relying solely on appropriations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Hawaii agriculture and native‑species managers — reducing the probability that new pests, pathogens, or invasive plants and animals will arrive and impose economic and ecological damage.
- The tourism sector in Hawaii in the medium term — by protecting landscapes, crops, and native ecosystems that underpin the state's tourism brand and agricultural attractions.
- APHIS and federal resource managers — the law expands statutory authority and provides fee mechanisms that can fund a scaled biosecurity program tailored to Hawaii’s unique exposure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Airlines and shipping companies — they must accommodate preclearance workflows at departure points, potentially absorb delays, and implement documentation and handler changes.
- United States Postal Service and mailers — USPS destination sectional center facilities are explicitly added as inspection sites, which could slow mail flows and increase handling costs for parcel and mail services to Hawaii.
- Shippers, freight forwarders, and travelers — inspection fees and user charges, plus possible diversion or destruction of goods, will create outlays and operational friction that may be passed through in prices.
- State and local authorities outside Hawaii (departure jurisdictions) — airports, ports, and local customs authorities will face coordination and space/staffing impacts as inspections move onto their infrastructure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems by pushing biosecurity screening upstream (which reduces arrival risk) and the cost and operational friction that upstream inspections impose on carriers, postal systems, and commerce—creating economic burdens and logistical complexity to achieve ecological protection.
The bill is straightforward about the goal—prevent invasive species—but leaves several operational and legal details unresolved. It requires APHIS to work with multiple federal agencies and the government of Hawaii, but it does not spell out staffing, hours of operation, or how inspections will be scheduled to avoid disrupting time‑sensitive freight and passenger operations.
Embedding quarantine inspections into departure airports and postal sorting centers raises questions about physical space, who pays for fixed capital changes (inspection booths, x‑ray machines), and liability for delays or misprocessed goods.
The fee provisions intend to cover full program costs, but the bill does not set transitional funding, so APHIS will need near‑term resources to scale up operations before fee revenues stabilize. The statute references seizure and disposal under existing law but omits procedural detail on notice, appeals, or reimbursement when lawful property is seized and later found to be compliant.
Finally, the ‘‘direct movement’’ phrasing and the interplay with interline and connecting itineraries create ambiguity about which segments trigger inspection, which could produce uneven enforcement and operational workarounds unless APHIS issues clear implementing rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.