APHIS proposes cutting bird-flu import wait to 28 days from 90 for poultry, eggs and live birds; comments due Nov. 23

In 2004, the international animal health code said a country that stamped out highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) could call itself free “3 months after the slaughter of the last infected poultry and disinfection of all affected establishments.” U.S. import rules still use that 90-day clock. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposed on Sept. 24 to cut it to 28 days, the standard the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has used since May 2021^[1].

The change would reach live birds, live poultry, hatching eggs, table eggs and poultry meat from foreign premises or zones touched by the disease. Comments are due Nov. 23, 2026^[1].

What the proposal changes

APHIS administrator Kelly Moore signed the proposal on Sept. 17, and it was published at 91 FR 60521 under Docket No. APHIS-2023-0069^[1]. It rewrites the HPAI language in two parts of title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations: part 93, which governs live birds and poultry, and part 94, which governs meat, eggs and other products^[1].

Today those rules lump HPAI with Newcastle disease and every other communicable poultry disease. A certificate for live poultry must state that, during the 90 days before movement, the birds were not exposed to communicable poultry diseases and the premises were not under quarantine, and that no case of HPAI or Newcastle disease occurred on the premises or next door during that period^[2]. The proposal pulls HPAI out of that group and gives it its own window^[1]:

• Live poultry (9 CFR 93.205). No HPAI exposure and no quarantine for the disease during the 28 days before movement; 90 days still applies to every other communicable poultry disease.
• Hatching eggs. The same split, applied to the flock of origin.
• Pet, commercial, zoological and research birds (9 CFR 93.104). Certificates would attest to no HPAI exposure in the 28 days before export, and none to Newcastle disease, chlamydiosis or other poultry diseases in 90 days. The permit exceptions in 9 CFR 93.101 and 93.201 get the same split.
• Table eggs (9 CFR 94.6). Eggs laid in a region where Newcastle disease or HPAI is considered to exist now need a certificate stating that neither disease occurred on the premises of origin or adjoining premises during the 90 days before signing^[4]. The proposal would keep 90 days for Newcastle disease and set 28 for HPAI^[1].
• Admission (9 CFR 93.207). Poultry would be admitted if free of communicable disease, with no exposure to other diseases in 90 days and no HPAI exposure in 28 days.

Several conditions stay put. Poultry vaccinated against the H5 or H7 subtypes of avian influenza remain barred. Live poultry must still have lived in the exporting region since hatch or for at least 90 days before movement. And poultry may not originate from, or pass through, a region APHIS lists under 9 CFR 94.6(a) as one where any form of HPAI exists^[1].

The rule also updates permit addresses and websites. Under the revised footnotes, import permits would be requested through APHIS’s online eFile system on form VS 17-129^[1].

What changes for the European Poultry Trade Region?

Europe gets the largest practical change. Under 9 CFR 94.28, poultry meat, eggs and live birds from a restricted zone set up after Newcastle disease or HPAI in commercial poultry are blocked until the country lifts the zone or until “3 months (90 days)” after depopulation and the cleaning and disinfection of the last affected premises, whichever is later^[3]. The proposal keeps that 3-month rule for Newcastle disease and writes a separate paragraph for HPAI that ends the restriction 28 days after depopulation and disinfection, again whichever is later^[1].

Why APHIS says 28 days is enough

The science argument is about incubation. APHIS says WOAH’s Scientific Commission on Animal Diseases concluded from the literature that HPAI’s incubation period is 14 days, not the 21 days assumed earlier, and that the minimum recovery period for regaining free status could fall from 90 to 28 days, or “two flock-level incubation periods”^[1]. WOAH revised its Terrestrial Animal Health Code to that effect in May 2021^[1].

APHIS has already tried the shorter window with one partner. In 2022, at Canada’s request, the agency entered an import protocol applying 28 days to live birds and avian products from Canada “on a provisional basis and pending future rulemaking”^[1]. The proposal would make that allowance general to all foreign regions^[1].

The legal authority is section 8303 of the Animal Health Protection Act, which lets the Secretary of Agriculture restrict imports of any animal or article when needed to keep livestock diseases out^[1].

In the field: broilers, layers and hatcheries

APHIS puts the value of the U.S. poultry sector at $81.7 billion in 2025, citing the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and calls it “highly integrated into global markets”^[1]. Most of the businesses the rule touches, from poultry producers and hatcheries to processors and wholesalers, qualify as small entities under Small Business Administration standards, the agency says^[1].

Egg buyers and breakers. The analysis puts a dollar value on only one benefit, and it concerns eggs. Faster access to imported eggs from the European Poultry Trade Region “could yield benefits of $1.1 million to $4.4 million annually,” APHIS writes, and it pitches the shorter wait as a way to minimize supply disruptions, “particularly during HPAI-related product shortages”^[1].

Domestic egg and broiler producers. The same analysis states the other side plainly: “In some instances, entities may bear some level of additional business competition sooner than they would with the 90-day restriction in place”^[1]. For a layer operation competing with imported shell eggs or breaker stock, that is the trade-off in one sentence. APHIS does not estimate how much product would arrive sooner, from where, or at what price effect.

Hatcheries and genetics companies. The certificate change for hatching eggs is the same 28-day split^[1]. APHIS argues that extending the approach in its own rules would strengthen U.S. negotiations with additional trading partners while supporting continuity in poultry trade^[1]. The proposal does not say whether any partner has agreed to apply 28 days to U.S. exports in return.

Data gaps. APHIS says it sees “no reason to conclude” the rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, but concedes “we do not currently have all the data necessary” for a full analysis and asks commenters for the number and kind of small entities that would gain or lose^[1].

On the Hill and in the agency pipeline

No vote is needed. The Animal Health Protection Act already gives the Secretary the authority, delegated to APHIS^[1].

The rule has moved slowly. The docket number dates to 2023^[1]. In the Spring 2025 regulatory agenda, APHIS ranked it “Other Significant” and projected a proposal in March 2026^[6]. By the 2026 agenda, it had been reclassified as “Substantive, Nonsignificant,” designated deregulatory under Executive Order 14192, flagged as likely to have international trade effects, and slated for July 2026^[5]. The proposal itself says the action is not significant under Executive Order 12866, so the Office of Management and Budget did not review it, and that as a proposed rule it is not subject to Executive Order 14192^[1].

The comment docket opened on Sept. 24, so for now the public record holds mainly the agency’s own arguments. APHIS’s case rests on the WOAH standard, the Canadian precedent and the egg-supply benefit. The case for caution sits in the agency’s own text: competitors could reach U.S. buyers sooner, and the small-business data are incomplete^[1].

One more provision matters to states. If adopted, the rule would preempt state and local laws and regulations inconsistent with it, though it would have no retroactive effect^[1].

What to watch

• Nov. 23, 2026: comments close on Docket APHIS-2023-0069 at regulations.gov^[1].
• Final rule: neither the proposal nor the 2026 agenda sets a date for one^{[1, 5]}.
• Reciprocity: the proposal describes the shorter window as a bargaining asset with trading partners but does not condition it on how those partners treat U.S. poultry^[1].

The question the proposal leaves open is the one commenters are being asked to answer: how many U.S. businesses would see more competition, and how many would see steadier supply, if the clock drops from 90 days to 28.