Rule2026-06955
Import Regulations for Horses; Pre-Export Examination
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 10, 2026
Effective
May 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 69 (Friday, April 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18277-18279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06955]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. APHIS-2025-0018]
RIN 0579-AE88
Import Regulations for Horses; Pre-Export Examination
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
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
[[Page 18278]]
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 Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, final rule, supporting documents,
and public comments, go to: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2016-0033-0031">https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2016-0033-0031</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To view the proposed rule and public comments, go to:
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2025-0018-0001">https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2025-0018-0001</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (Sec. 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 (Sec.
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 (Sec.
93.314(a)), as well as case-specific inspections that the Administrator
may perform pursuant to Sec. 93.304 and Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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
[[Page 18279]]
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
0
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.
Sec. 93.314 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 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
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 10, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.