USDA Removes 48-Hour Pre-Export Examination Requirement for Horse Imports

Content

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are removing the requirement that horses offered for importation to the United States be accompanied by documentation of
pre-export examination occurring within 48 hours of departure from the port of embarkation endorsed by a salaried veterinary
medical officer. We have found that logistical barriers prevent affected parties from meeting this requirement at this time.
This action removes the requirement, while keeping in place other requirements of the regulations.

DATES:

Effective May 11, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Benjamin Kaczmarski, USDA-APHIS

     Regulatory Officer, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., #AP760, Beltsville, MD 20705; (240) 636-2149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals,
including horses, to protect U.S. livestock from communicable diseases.

On September 14, 2023, we published in the
Federal Register
a final rule (1) (88 FR 62993-63004) amending the horse import regulations to better align them with international standards and improve flexibility
for both the equine industry and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). One of the changes we made in that
final rule was to require, in §  93.314(a)(5), that horses offered for importation to the United States be accompanied by
documentation of pre-export examination occurring within 48 hours of departure from the port of embarkation endorsed by a
salaried veterinary medical officer. Since the publication of that final rule, APHIS has found that logistical barriers may
prevent affected parties from meeting this requirement as stated.

Accordingly, on June 20, 2025, we published in the
Federal Register
(90 FR 26224-26225, Docket No. APHIS-2025-0018) a proposed rule (2) to remove the requirement that horses offered for importation to the United States be accompanied by documentation of pre-export
examination occurring within 48 hours of departure from the port of embarkation endorsed by a salaried veterinary medical
officer. We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days, ending August 19, 2025. We received 12 comments by that
date. They were from industry associations, businesses, and private individuals.

The majority of comments supported our proposal, reiterating and elaborating on the concerns we described in the proposed
rule. We agree with these commenters that the requirement as written is overly prescriptive and understand that obtaining
a pre-export examination within 48 hours of departure from the port of embarkation, particularly with endorsement by a salaried
veterinary medical officer of the exporting country, may be logistically challenging.

One commenter disagreed, stating that the pre-examination of horses better protects animals and prevents biological infestation
and disease from entering the United States. Another commenter stated that health checks prevent disease spread.

As we explained in the proposed rule, we intended the requirement for a pre-export inspection to serve as one of multiple
measures to specifically address the issue of sick and injured horses arriving at a United States port of entry. Only horses
found free of communicable disease or exposure thereto at the mandatory port of entry inspection are allowed entry into the
United States (§ 93.306). Horses are quarantined at the port of entry until negative results to port of entry tests are obtained
and the horses are certified by the port veterinarian to be free from clinical evidence of disease (§ 93.308(a)). While APHIS
strives to prevent the arrival of sick horses at the port of entry, the port-of-entry inspection and quarantine protocols
that currently exist, and that this rule does not change, mitigate the risk of communicable disease entering the United States,
even if a horse exhibiting signs of communicable disease does arrive at the port of entry. We believe the above restrictions,
which this rule does not change, address the two commenters' concerns about disease risk.

We also note that additional measures exist in the regulations to reduce the possibility of sick horses arriving at the port
of entry. These measures include a mandatory inspection on the premises of origin that certifies the horses are free of evidence
of communicable disease and exposure to disease during the 60 days preceding exportation (§ 93.314(a)), as well as case-specific
inspections that the Administrator may perform pursuant to § 93.304 and §  93.301(a).

Additionally, as noted in the proposed rule, we strengthened the regulations to address the issue of sick or injured horses
arriving at the port of entry in multiple ways, not only by requiring an additional pre-export inspection. For example, we
clarified the health certificate requirements in §  93.314 to help us confirm the legitimacy of health certificates, and added
additional requirements to help decrease disease risk, such as requiring that a horse not be gelded shortly before importation.
We also added shipping container requirements in §  93.302, including measures to ensure that horses are transported safely.
These provisions, as well as all other requirements related to the importation of horses into the United States, will remain
in place and unchanged by this rule.

Finally, we note that several commenters stated that horses that were healthy upon embarkation to the United States could
become sick or injured during transit for a multitude of reasons, including stall construction, stall density, ventilation,
ambient temperature and humidity, water and feed intake, travel duration, and itinerary, and that the arrival of sick or injured
horses at ports of arrival could be indicative of stresses during transit rather than a regulatory failure in the shipping
country. We agree with these commenters that this is a plausible explanation for the arrival of sick or injured horses at
ports of entry into the United States.

One commenter stated that the regulations should be updated to differentiate export, import, and business activities.

We are unsure what specific changes the commenter is suggesting. However, activities other than the pre-export examination
of equines are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

One commenter asked us to clarify that certificates issued within seven days of departure remain valid if no health changes
occur and to allow APHIS-recognized private veterinarians to conduct inspections.

This is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

One commenter asked us to include documentation addressing the potential greenhouse gas impacts of this rule, as changes to
procedural timing or port of entry options may shift emissions profiles of aircraft used to transport horses, and adjustments
to pre-export examination requirements may require investments in new facilities or expanded operations abroad.

Meanwhile, another commenter pointed out that this rule could alleviate delays caused by staffing limitations and restricted
operations, resulting in a more streamlined transportation process. We are not changing port of entry options, and we are
merely removing the requirement for an additional inspection. Thus, this rule would not create a need for new facilities or
expanded operations, or have any direct effect on travel duration that would increase greenhouse gas emissions.

At the time the proposed rule was issued, we determined that this action was categorically excluded from the requirement to
prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4231 et seq.) and Agency

  implementing regulations as written at that time. Based on the comments received, we have no reason to believe this categorical
  exclusion was in error.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule,
without change.

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 14192, and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.
This regulation is also not a “regulatory action,” as the meaning of that term is set forth in Executive Order 14192 and implementing
guidance.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect
of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required,
however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. APHIS has concluded and hereby certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This recission
rule will only have minor and beneficial impacts on small entities engaged in the importation of equines by removing a requirement
that has proven logistically difficult to implement consistently. This recission rule will have a beneficial effect on these
small entities, lowering costs related to paperwork and otherwise improving regulatory compliance with the remaining provisions
of the regulations.

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.

Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Further, this rule will reduce the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 9 CFR 93.314.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93, subpart C, as follows:

PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND POULTRY, AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS

FOR MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS

Regulatory Text 1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

§ 93.314 [Amended] Regulatory Text 2. Amend § 93.314 by removing paragraph (a)(5), and redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) as paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6),
respectively.

Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of March 2026. Kelly Moore, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. 2026-06955 Filed 4-9-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

Footnotes

(1) To view the proposed rule, final rule, supporting documents, and public comments, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2016-0033-0031.

(2) To view the proposed rule and public comments, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2025-0018-0001.

Download File

Download