Notice of Decision To Deregulate Chrysanthemum White Rust and the Importation of Chrysanthemum spp. Cuttings, and In Vitro Plantlets, and Synonymous Taxa From Certain Countries Into the Continental United States

Issuing agencies

Abstract

We are advising the public of our decision to deregulate Chrysanthemum White Rust and authorize the importation of Chrysanthemum spp. cuttings, in vitro plantlets, and synonymous taxa from certain countries into the continental United States as described in this notice. Based on the findings of the pest risk analyses, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we modified and updated the commodity import evaluation and pest list documents and determined that the importation of Chrysanthemum spp. cuttings, in vitro plantlets, and synonymous genera from certain countries does not pose a risk of introducing quarantine pests into the United States.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64325-64330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20631]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2026 / 
Notices

[[Page 64325]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2021-0081]


Notice of Decision To Deregulate Chrysanthemum White Rust and the 
Importation of Chrysanthemum spp. Cuttings, and In Vitro Plantlets, and 
Synonymous Taxa From Certain Countries Into the Continental United 
States

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to deregulate 
Chrysanthemum White Rust and authorize the importation of Chrysanthemum 
spp. cuttings, in vitro plantlets, and synonymous taxa from certain 
countries into the continental United States as described in this 
notice. Based on the findings of the pest risk analyses, which we made 
available to the public for review and comment through a previous 
notice, we modified and updated the commodity import evaluation and 
pest list documents and determined that the importation of 
Chrysanthemum spp. cuttings, in vitro plantlets, and synonymous genera 
from certain countries does not pose a risk of introducing quarantine 
pests into the United States.

DATES: Imports may be authorized beginning November 9, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Heather Coady and Ms. Shannon 
Jarman, Regulatory Policy Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, PPQ, 
APHIS, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705; (240) 935-1598; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2929293ec8c83929290838297918683eca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5959594eb8b84959597848590968184eba2aab3">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under the regulations in ``Subpart H-Plants for Planting'' (7 CFR 
319.37-1 through 319.37-23, referred to below as the regulations), the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or 
restricts the importation of plants for planting into the United States 
from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being 
introduced into or disseminated within the United States.
    Section 319.37-4 provides that certain taxa of plants for planting 
are not authorized for importation into the United States pending pest 
risk analysis (NAPPRA) to prevent the introductions of quarantine pests 
into the United States. Paragraph (e) of that section describes the 
process of removing a taxon from the NAPPRA list. Under that process, 
APHIS proposes the importation of the taxon into the United States if, 
based on findings of a pest risk analysis, we determine that taxon-
specific restrictions can mitigate the pest risk associated with the 
importation of that taxon. APHIS then publishes a notice in the Federal 
Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis in 
response to the request to remove taxa from the NAPPRA list. Following 
the close of the comment period, APHIS will issue a subsequent Federal 
Register notice announcing whether or not we will remove the taxa.
    In accordance with that process, we published a notice \1\ in the 
Federal Register on April 17, 2023 (88 FR 23390-23391, Docket No. 
APHIS-2021-0081) in which we announced the availability, for review and 
comment, of pest risk analyses. One of the analyses evaluated the risks 
associated with the importation of Chrysanthemum (=Dendranthema) spp., 
Leucanthemella serotina, Nipponanthemum nipponicum and synonymous taxa 
cuttings (stems, leaves) and in vitro plantlets under a systems 
approach from Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, El 
Salvador, Ethiopia, Germany, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, 
Nicaragua, Panama, Spain, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, the United 
Kingdom, and Vietnam into the continental United States. The 20 
countries referenced above submitted a request related to the 
importation of Chrysanthemum spp. and synonymous genera cuttings and in 
vitro plantlets. The other analysis evaluated the risk associated with 
the importation of cuttings, in vitro tissue culture plantlets, in 
vitro tissue culture plants with roots, and bare-root plants of the 
same taxa from Canada under a separate protocol and in response to a 
request from Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the notice and the supporting documents, go to 
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Enter APHIS-2021-0081 in the Search field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also made available an economic evaluation (EE) analyzing 
Chrysanthemum White Rust's (CWR) regulatory status pursuant to 
biological research that revealed CWR can be systemic and survive in 
below-ground parts. (The EE was initially completed in 2019; however, 
APHIS reviewed the document in September 2026 and confirmed that the 
2019 data analyzed remains accurate.) Through the EE, APHIS determined 
that the United States eradication policy for CWR is no longer 
technically and economically justified. Specifically, APHIS found that 
efforts to eradicate CWR are costly because the pathogen can overwinter 
and survive in dormant below-ground parts, with a latency of 
expression. Additionally, APHIS found that fungicides are available and 
provide growers with a compliance alternative at a fraction of the cost 
of the value of a chrysanthemum plant. To that end, APHIS determined 
that CWR is no longer considered a pest of quarantine significance and 
should be moved to a management phase.
    We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days, ending on June 16, 
2023. We received 13 comments by that date.
    In response to the initial notice of availability, several 
commenters noted that we did not delineate ``synonymous genera'' and 
requested that the intended taxa be included by that term. Based on 
these comments, APHIS modified and updated the pest lists to clarify 
and refine references to regulatory taxa, consolidated both pest lists 
into one list, and revised the Commodity Import Evaluation Document 
(CIED). In addition, APHIS updated the list of affected nations and 
genera referenced in these documents to ensure that all descriptions 
are clear and accurate and in alignment with the regulations. Outside 
of the 20 countries identified in this notice, NAPPRA still applies to 
all other countries to prevent the

[[Page 64326]]

introductions of quarantine pests into the United States. As a result, 
7 CFR 319.5 requires the national plant protection organization (NPPO) 
of such countries to submit a request for possible changes to import 
requirements for plants for planting from the countries, and Sec.  
319.37-4 of the regulations requires APHIS to conduct a pest risk 
analysis and take public comment using a notice-based process before 
removing certain taxa of plants for planting for importation into the 
U.S. from a requesting country.
    In accordance with Sec.  319.37-4(ii), on May 27, 2025, we 
published a subsequent notice in the Federal Register (90 FR 22225-
22226, Docket No. APHIS-2021-0081) reopening the comment period to 
allow interested persons time to review the revised supporting 
documents. We solicited comments on the notice for 30 days, ending on 
June 26, 2025. We received 21 comments by that date.
    APHIS received comments from businesses that import, export, and 
distribute flowers, trade associations, as well as local and foreign 
governments. Most commenters supported deregulating CWR and the systems 
approach for imports. Other commenters opposed to deregulating CWR 
noted concerns with the pest risks and compliance measures for 
movement. In addition, a few commenters provided technical comments 
regarding the CIED and economic comments. The comments are discussed 
below.
    Commenters in support of deregulating CWR stated that deregulation 
would reduce the impact on growers and stated that the technical basis 
for maintaining federal quarantine for CWR no longer exists. Others 
stated that deregulating CWR aligns with U.S. phytosanitary policy.
    APHIS agrees with the commenters. As detailed in the EE that 
accompanied the initial notice, the eradication policy for CWR is no 
longer technically and economically justified.

General Comments

    One commenter stated that deregulating CWR opens trade channels and 
aligns with international best practices. Specifically, the commenter 
stated that the current restriction has limited innovation and has 
placed U.S. growers at a disadvantage in global markets. The commenter 
added that opening trade channels supports a more dynamic, diverse, and 
economically resilient ornamental plant industry. In addition, the 
commenter claimed that it would align with international best practices 
and reduce unnecessary trade barriers.
    APHIS agrees that deregulating CWR opens trade channels and aligns 
with international best practices. Based on our EE, APHIS determined 
that CWR is no longer considered to be a quarantine pest and that 
moving CWR to a management phase is appropriate and aligns with the 
International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM).
    On the other hand, some commenters stated that the proposed pathway 
of regulatory change would encourage a reduction of regulatory 
harmonization between U.S. and Canada and cause unintended trade 
disruption. One commenter requested that APHIS consider a working group 
with APHIS and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on a 
coordinated approach to deregulation in order to minimize any potential 
trade disruptions.
    In response to these comments, CFIA has repeatedly indicated to 
APHIS that they intend to harmonize with the U.S. on the deregulation 
of CWR. This will include harmonization through the U.S.-Canada 
Greenhouse-Grown Plant Certification Program (GCP), and requiring a 
phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration regarding the 
pests of concern from the pest list for Canadian origin Chrysanthemum 
(=Dendranthema) spp., Leucanthemella serotina, Nipponanthemum 
nipponicum and synonymous taxa being shipped other than under the GCP 
program or systems approach. As explained in the CIED and in the 
technical requirements document of the GCP referenced in the CIED, the 
GCP is a bilateral audit-based export certification program wherein 
facilities authorized by APHIS or CFIA must meet all of the 
phytosanitary import requirements of both the U.S. and Canada in 
addition to completing all requirements of the GCP. A working group 
with APHIS and CFIA representatives related to this matter already 
exists and communicates frequently with each other to promote alignment 
of regulatory approaches between the U.S. and Canada.
    Some commenters expressed concerns that deregulation could prove 
disruptive to U.S. exports to Canada. The commenters stated that the 
GCP was not designed to address possible deregulation of CWR, and that 
Canadian exports would thus have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary 
certificate. The commenters opined that the implementation of the 
proposed deregulation would result in additional restrictions on U.S. 
exporters of chrysanthemums to Canada due to their plants being deemed 
ineligible for entry into Canada under the GCP or under a phytosanitary 
certificate.
    As noted above, Canada has indicated to APHIS that they intend to 
harmonize with the U.S. on deregulation of CWR, including within the 
GCP. As noted in the CIED, APHIS has determined that the measures and 
requirements of the GCP are equivalent to the systems approach required 
for the above-specified NAPPRA countries. The minimum standards for the 
places of production in the GCP meet most requirements in the systems 
approach program above. Furthermore, these GCP facilities have a 
minimum of two audits annually, which encourages compliance.
    Three commenters opposed to deregulating CWR on imported plants for 
planting stated concerns with the biological security of U.S. 
ornamental and agricultural industries and the impact on domestic 
producers work towards pathogen-free propagation systems. For example, 
according to the commenters, CWR is very contagious within a mum 
planting, and can be spread to other plantings by wind during rainy 
weather. One of these commenters indicated that the domestic 
chrysanthemum industry has done an effective job under the current 
domestic eradication protocols at controlling outbreaks of CWR and 
managing its spread. Another commenter stated that CWR should remain 
regulated in order to protect native chrysanthemum species within the 
United States.
    For reasons set forth in the EE that accompanied the initial 
notice, we disagree that the current domestic eradication-based 
protocols are proving effective. As noted in the EE, chrysanthemum 
cuttings imported for propagation have largely been from South America, 
Europe and Africa; however, the sources of outbreaks in Eastern States 
were likely from California rather than from imports. The EE also noted 
that the linked genotypes between the West Coast and East Coast appear 
to indicate that CWR is endemic within the United States.
    We acknowledge CWR has limited host range and spore survival with 
limited natural distribution. However, as noted in the EE, CWR spores 
can overwinter in below-ground parts, such as roots, and the disease 
can become systemic but asymptomatic in affected plants. Provided that 
CWR is likely already established in the environment, APHIS' position 
remains that the removal of the CWR eradication policy may be the most 
efficient option from society's benefit-cost point of view. To that 
end, best management practices are available for growers to manage 
disease

[[Page 64327]]

occurrences economically. Similarly, we disagree that Federal control 
of CWR is warranted. The ability of P. horiana to overwinter and 
survive in plants renders it costly to eliminate in accordance with the 
current domestic eradication protocols, and available fungicides are 
effective and economical alternatives to compliance with the current 
domestic eradication protocols. APHIS is aware of six fungicides that 
are labeled for general use for CWR, however the total number of 
fungicides in use varies among States. Finally, while the commenter did 
not specify which purportedly native species of chrysanthemum they had 
in mind, Chrysanthemum arcticum, in northern, coastal Alaska, is the 
only known native species within the United States. Due to climatic 
conditions in northern, coastal Alaska, this species will not be 
significantly impacted by deregulation of CWR due to the limited 
distribution of Chrysanthemum arcticum in northern coastal Alaska.
    Two commenters expressed concern that overseas production systems 
for chrysanthemums may not be equivalent to domestic production systems 
for chrysanthemums, and relaxing import restrictions could, the 
commenters indicated, result in the introduction of other pests and 
diseases into the domestic production system.
    The systems approach that we proposed for chrysanthemum imports is 
designed to have equivalent safeguards to those used by U.S. ornamental 
and agricultural industries. The mitigations proposed for imports would 
control many pests, not just CWR and the pests identified in the pest 
list, and the justification for their efficacy, which the commenters 
did not directly challenge, was detailed at length in the revised CIED 
that we issued. Additionally, with respect to Canada, as noted above, 
the GCP program is a bilateral program ran jointly by CFIA and APHIS, 
and all import requirements of both Canada and the U.S. must be met for 
authorized facilities to import.
    One commenter stated that, instead of deregulation of CWR, 
additional resources should be devoted to hiring and training 
additional resources as identifiers and eradicators of CWR.
    The EE indicates that eradication under the current protocol would 
be increasingly costly and resource intensive with limited feasibility 
of success. As stated above, fungal pathogens like P. horiana can 
infect plants systemically, even when they appear asymptomatic, which 
provides a mechanism for overwintering and long-term survival in the 
environment. This undermines eradication efforts because plants can 
harbor early-stage infections that are unable to be visually detected. 
Furthermore, CWR is likely already endemic throughout the United 
States, which further complicates the current eradication protocol. As 
noted in the EE, many potted plants are sold for landscape use in local 
U.S. areas. As a result, the number of backyards and other sites that 
would require inspections to effectively eliminate the disease would be 
burdensome. Additionally, chrysanthemum hobbyists often exchange 
cuttings. This swapping has created another pathway for spreading CWR 
making it difficult to regulate. To that end, APHIS maintains that the 
EE's conclusions are correct and that CWR should not be considered a 
quarantine pest subject to Federal eradication protocols.
    With that being said, we do acknowledge that maintaining technical 
expertise in diagnostic capabilities in the identification and 
management of plant pathogens is important, and APHIS devotes both 
Federally appropriated and user-fee funds to this purpose. We will also 
continue to collaborate with State agencies, industry partners, and 
diagnostic networks to ensure robust early response to new plant pest 
outbreaks.
    The same commenter expressed the opinion that CWR deregulation 
would directly contribute to increased fungicide usage, which the 
commenter considered to have a negative environmental impact.
    APHIS acknowledges that there could potentially be an increase in 
fungicide usage, provided that the usage varies by State. However, 
fungicide usage remains subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136-136y) which allows for the 
registration of pesticides if it is determined that the product will 
not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' \2\ To 
that end, APHIS is confident that any increased fungicide usage will 
not cause substantial economic and environmental costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 7 U.S.C. 136(bb) defines the term ''unreasonable adverse 
effects on the environment'' to mean: ''(1) any unreasonable risk to 
man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, 
and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or 
(2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a 
pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under 
section 346a of title 21.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter encouraged USDA to develop policy to support 
farmers who grow native and heirloom varieties, rather than non-native 
species such as Chrysanthemum spp.
    This comment is outside the scope of this notice.

Systems Approach Comments

    Several commenters noted concerns with the proposed systems 
approach. APHIS proposed that a written agreement, known as an 
Operational Work Plan (OWP), would have to be established and signed by 
APHIS and the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of the 
exporting country to outline the conditions for producing and 
monitoring plant production.
    Some commenters stated that the importation of Chrysanthemum spp. 
and related genera should be regarded as normal trade, and therefore 
not subject to an OWP but rather treated equivalently to cuttings or 
in-vitro material from other admissible plant commodities, which are 
not subject to an OWP requirement.
    The commenters misunderstand the manner in which the initial notice 
was developed. As long as CWR remained of quarantine significance, the 
importation of Chrysanthemum spp. and related genera from CWR-affected 
countries remained subject to CWR-specific restrictions and 
prohibitions.
    Based on the findings of our EE, we determined that CWR should no 
longer be considered of quarantine significance. This allowed for 
possible analysis of the plant pest risks associated with the 
importation of Chrysanthemum spp. and related genera other than those 
posed by CWR, and predicated on the possible removal of CWR-specific 
restrictions and prohibitions. This, in turn, made other sections of 
the regulations operative.
    Section 319.37-20 of the regulations provides restrictions on the 
importation of specific types of plants for planting. As described in 
this section, changing the import status of taxa involves pest risk 
analysis and measures related to the pests found. The PRA identified 
several pests which require specific mitigations that must be adhered 
to within the exporting country in a standardized manner that aligns 
with the CIED. Based on this information, APHIS found that a systems 
approach program, subject to an OWP, is required to ensure that every 
grower adheres to the requirements outlined in the CIED.
    On the other hand, commenters in support of the systems approach 
stated that CWR needs to move from a quarantine and eradication phase 
to a management phase. Supporters noted that the systems approach 
focuses on high phytosanitary standards to prevent infection, with 
appropriate auditing and inspection by APHIS, as well as pathogen 
prevention and control on part of the U.S. grower. Others noted that

[[Page 64328]]

they have confidence in the industry's ability to safely manage the 
importation of the cuttings and plantlets under the systems approach. 
The commenters also noted that both domestic and offshore growers have 
access to new and effective fungicides with systemic activity, capable 
of controlling CWR and other pathogens. It is their belief that CWR 
falls into the management category and should no longer be considered a 
pathogen of quarantine concern.
    APHIS agrees with these commenters. The systems approach 
recommended is in accordance with the integrated pest risk management 
measures (IPRMM) in Sec.  319.37-21 of the regulations. To that end, 
APHIS is confident that the systems approach of moving CWR to a 
management phase is appropriate for the reasons described in the CIED.
    Some commenters raised issues with source cuttings from a third 
country subsequently sold or finished in the United States. It is 
general APHIS policy that all third-country origin chrysanthemum are 
required to meet the same requirements when re-exported from outside 
the United States as they would directly into the United States. Below, 
we discuss different scenarios related to this issue.
    For clarity, shipment among approved facilities is permissible 
under the systems approach, pursuant to certain conditions. Production 
that entails movement of the commodity among approved facilities within 
the same country is permissible because, if the chrysanthemums are from 
within the same country, the pest mitigations would be the same for all 
facilities. On the other hand, facilities in different countries are 
not guaranteed to have the same pest risk profile. In these situations, 
APHIS would consider requests to ship between countries with APHIS-
approved facilities growing Chrysanthemum (=Dendranthema) spp., 
Leucanthemella serotina, Nipponanthemum nipponicum and synonymous taxa 
on a case-by-case basis through the OWPs for the receiving countries. 
This would include identifying appropriate pest mitigation strategies 
to ensure the phytosanitary security of the plants moving between 
approved facilities in the different countries.
    Though Canada currently restricts chrysanthemum import from 
countries other than the U.S., in the future if that status changes, 
APHIS would consider allowing Canada to re-export chrysanthemum to the 
United States if the plants met U.S. requirements when they entered 
Canada and the plants are shipped to the United States through the GCP.

Pest/Pest List Comments

    Some commenters noted issues with specific pests and the PRA. One 
commenter stated that the supporting documents are insufficient and not 
ready for implementation. Specifically, the commenter stated that the 
proposed changes to the current chrysanthemum cuttings regulations will 
increase disease risks beyond CWR. The commenter further stated that 
there is a potential increase in two key viroid diseases, Chrysanthemum 
Stunt Viroid (CSVd) and Chrysanthemum Chlorotic Mottle Viroid (CChMVd), 
which are both mechanically transmissible and can spread easily through 
vegetative propagation.
    CSVd is not a candidate for risk management because it occurs in 
the U.S. and is not under official control and CChMVd does not occur in 
any of the countries assessed.
    Another commenter noted specific concerns about pest risk. The 
commenter requested the removal of the two lepidopterans, Mamestra 
brassicae and Phlogophora meticulosa, stating that they were not 
associated with the Chrysanthemum spp. and related genera and are also 
visually identifiable.
    APHIS has determined that there is evidence that chrysanthemum and 
related species are hosts for Mamestra brassicae and Phlogophora 
meticulosa, as cited in the pest list document. So long as 
Chrysanthemum (=Dendranthema) spp., Leucanthemella serotina, 
Nipponanthemum nipponicum and synonymous taxa propagative material are 
a potential pathway for the two lepidopterans to enter the U.S., APHIS 
is unable to remove the pests from the pest list as requested. 
Furthermore, the ability of a pest to be visually identified on a host 
commodity may impact the assigned risk rating; however, it has no 
impact on whether it is a pest of concern.
    One commenter had concerns regarding the implementation and 
timeline of the program. Specifically, the commenter questioned how the 
OWP would be created, implemented and enforced; whether the plan would 
be incorporated into the existing Offshore Greenhouse Certification 
Program (OGCP); whether growers will be permitted to grow 
chrysanthemums in the same greenhouse as other genera; and whether 
media sterilized by steaming or other sanitation methods will be 
allowed.
    Due to the systems approach requirements, Chrysanthemum 
(=Dendranthema) spp., Leucanthemella serotina, Nipponanthemum 
nipponicum and synonymous taxa plants will not be eligible for the 
OGCP, which operates under different requirements, and APHIS has no 
intentions to incorporate the OWP into the existing OGCP.
    OWPs are created with the NPPOs for each country as requested. The 
OWP must describe the parties responsible for implementation and 
enforcement pursuant to Sec.  319.37-21 of the regulations. Currently 
only plants that are generally admissible are eligible for the OGCP. 
Chrysanthemum (=Dendranthema) spp., Leucanthemella serotina, 
Nipponanthemum nipponicum and synonymous taxa are not eligible for the 
OGCP due to being restricted taxa.
    Next, more than one commodity may be grown in the same greenhouse 
provided that all import restrictions are met for all taxa being grown. 
This has no impact on the requirements in the CIED, specifically 
requirement 6, which states that ``plants must be grown in approved 
greenhouses used solely for plants grown in compliance with the 
requirements outlined in the OWP.'' The Agency's intent is to address 
the requirements for growing other taxa in the greenhouse in the OWP on 
a case-by-case basis, as opposed to a general restriction. The language 
``plants in the greenhouse'' refers to the plant listed in the OWPs, in 
this case Chrysanthemum (=Dendranthema) spp., Leucanthemella serotina, 
Nipponanthemum nipponicum and synonymous taxa plants. Finally, growing 
media is not permitted if previously used; however, some sterilization 
methods may be considered, if requested, and would need APHIS' approval 
and inclusion in the OWP.
    A few commenters provided technical comments for the CIED. Some 
commenters mentioned concerns with quarantine-designated pests that 
conflict with international standards. Commenters stated that data for 
Puccinia horiana, Liriomyza huidobrensis, and Thrips palmi do not 
fulfill all criteria required to be designated as quarantine pests 
under international standards, which require the pest either to not be 
present in the United States or be present only in limited distribution 
and under official control. Specifically, they argued that Puccinia 
horiana is no longer considered a regulated pest for the U.S. and 
therefore no phytosanitary measures or additional declarations should 
be required. Furthermore, they argued that Liriomyza huidobrensis and 
Thrips palmi are not expected to follow the in vitro plant propagation 
pathway and therefore should be removed from the list of pests to be 
regulated for in vitro plants.

[[Page 64329]]

    In the pest list, APHIS provided the reasons for the inclusion of 
the pests. Pucciana horiana was included to capture its quarantine 
significance at the time the pest list was finalized and prior to this 
deregulation. Contrary to the commenters' concerns, APHIS determined 
that there is a reasonable likelihood of Liriomyza huidobrensis and 
Thrips palmi following the in vitro plant propagation pathway from the 
countries those plant pests have been reported in as listed in the pest 
list. The comments suggesting the removal of Liriomyza huidobrensis and 
Thrips palmi do not meet the criteria for removal.
    APHIS acknowledges that there are historic records of the presence 
of Liriomyza huidobrensis in California. However, molecular analysis 
\3\ shows that L. huidobrensis was misidentified, and only L. langei 
occurs there. APHIS found no other substantiated references for the 
presence of this pest in the U.S; therefore, no changes to the pest 
list are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For more information on the analysis see journal article 
here: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1603/EC13279">https://doi.org/10.1603/EC13279</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Thrips palmi remains a quarantine pest for the United 
States and is therefore actionable at ports of entry. Thrips palmi is 
on the regulated pest list and is captured in the web-based database, 
the Agricultural Risk Management (ARM) system, which is used by APHIS 
and Customs and Border Protection to track agricultural imports, 
inspections, and pest quarantines. Currently, APHIS has no intention to 
change, and the scientific literature and port-of-entry pest 
interception used in formulating the Pest List do not warrant a change 
in, the status of the Thrips palmi. Additionally, the mitigations 
listed in the CIED would remain the same with the removal of Thrips 
palmi provided that the mitigations would apply to other arthropod 
pests on the pest list.
    The Colombian NPPO raised an issue with regard to Maconellicoccus 
hirsutus. Their concern was that the pest is widespread in the United 
States and not under official control. Additionally, they noted that M. 
hirsutus has not been recorded affecting chrysanthemum production 
systems in Colombia and therefore should be removed from the list of 
pests to be regulated for trade in chrysanthemum propagating material 
of Colombian origin.
    Other commenters noted concerns with the International Standards 
for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs); specifically, ISPM No. 1 and ISPM 
No. 5. One commenter stated that in accordance with the principle of 
transparency established in ISPM No. 1, since M. hirsutus is only 
present in the state of Florida, the detailed distribution of this pest 
in the U.S. should be included. Another commenter stated that M. 
hirsutus should not be a quarantine pest according to ISPM No. 5, which 
defines a quarantine pest as ``a pest of potential economic importance 
to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present 
but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.''
    As stated above, M. hirsutus is a quarantine pest and is therefore 
regulated at ports of entry. APHIS reviewed the States and references 
that were sent and determined that we are unable to confirm 
establishment of this species in many of the referenced States. 
However, APHIS agrees the distribution of M. hirsutus in the U.S. is 
likely wider than in the previous version of the pest list. To that 
end, APHIS revised the pest list to include additional States in the 
description of the distribution of M. hirsutus in the U.S.
    With regard to the Colombian NPPO's comments about its absence in 
Colombia, there is evidence of Chrysanthemum and related species as 
hosts of M. hirsutus cited in the pest list document. Regardless of 
whether M. hirsutus has been reported on Chrysanthemum in Colombia, 
Chrysanthemum propagative material is still a potential pathway for M. 
hirsutus to enter the United States from other countries covered by the 
provisions of the revised CIED.
    Other commenters, including the Netherlands, stated that there are 
viruses that are classified as quarantine pests in the CIED but are 
currently absent in their territory. The viruses mentioned were 
Carnation Italian Ringspot Virus (CIRV), Chrysanthemum stem necrosis 
virus (CSNV), and Tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus (ToLCNDV).
    While addressing the comment from the Netherlands on CIRV, APHIS 
reevaluated the evidence of chrysanthemum as a host of this species. In 
2015, a viral species termed CIRV was identified,\4\ however, this 
species had only 88% identity to a reference isolate of CIRV, which is 
below the 95% threshold normally used for considering isolates. As a 
result, we considered the association between CIRV and chrysanthemum to 
be tenuous and removed CIRV from the pest list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For more information on the first report of CIRV see journal 
article here: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-15-0267-PDN">https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-15-0267-PDN</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those viruses that are classified as quarantine pests in the 
CIED but absent in a territory, specifically CSNV and ToLCNDV, the pest 
list describes which of the 21 countries where the pest is present. For 
example, CSNV is only listed as being present in Brazil and Belgium and 
ToLCNDV is only listed as being present in Spain and Tunisia. 
Accordingly, testing for CSNV will only be required for parental stock 
used in Brazil and Belgium and testing for ToLCNDV will only be 
required for parental stock plants used in Spain and Tunisia as 
specified in the NPPO's respective OWPs.
    Finally, some commenters noted some economic concerns with the 
proposed deregulation. One commenter stated that foreign imports should 
be capped at current levels to mitigate oversupply. Another commenter 
stated that the costs of the current eradication policy outweigh the 
economic consequences.
    APHIS' authority under the Plant Protection Act, as amended 7 
U.S.C. 7701, et seq., to prohibit or restrict imports is limited to 
when the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is 
necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest 
or noxious weed in the U.S., APHIS' authority does not extend to the 
control for market supply. To that end, APHIS agrees with the latter 
commenter in that the costs associated with deregulating CWR outweigh 
any economic consequences.
    Therefore, in accordance with paragraph (e) of Sec.  319.37-4 and 
paragraph (c)(2) of Sec.  319.37-20, we are announcing that APHIS is 
revising conditions governing the importation of Chrysanthemum 
(=Dendranthema) spp., Leucanthemella serotina, Nipponanthemum 
nipponicum and synonymous taxa cuttings (stems, leaves) from Belgium, 
Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, 
Germany, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, 
Spain, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam into 
the continental United States in accordance with conditions specified 
in the final CIED that accompanies this notice. Additionally, we are 
providing public notification that we are no longer considering CWR a 
pest of quarantine significance either domestically or on imported 
products.

Congressional Review Act and Executive Order 12866

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this action 
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action has 
been designated not significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866.

[[Page 64330]]

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 
and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of September 2026.
Kelly Moore,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-20631 Filed 10-7-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>