The WHO declared the Ebola outbreak in Central and East Africa a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on May 17. The U.S. quickly responded with enhanced screening and designated arrival procedures for individuals recently present in DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan.

That window is 21 days.

A passenger who transited Entebbe three weeks ago on a separate commercial itinerary can now affect where your aircraft arrives in the United States and what arrival procedures may apply. The flight does not need to originate in Africa. The restriction follows the traveler.

U.S. Restrictions Include Designated Arrival Airports

The United States has implemented the most operationally significant aviation measures so far.

Under current DHS procedures, passengers and crew recently present in DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan are subject to designated airport arrival requirements and enhanced screening. CDC guidance has identified the following airports as enhanced screening locations:

• Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD)
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)
• George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

For flight planners, the 21-day travel-history window is the critical variable. A traveler’s recent presence in an affected country can trigger additional arrival procedures even if the current flight departs from Europe, the Middle East, or another African gateway.

Other Governments Are Following

The U.S. is not alone. India has implemented passenger self-declaration and health screening for arrivals from or transiting through affected countries. Kenya has increased screening at airports and transit points, which is particularly relevant for operators using Nairobi as a regional gateway. The United Kingdom has updated its travel-health guidance and infectious-disease advisories tied to DRC and Uganda.

Procedures across all jurisdictions continue evolving. Confirm current requirements locally before departure and arrival.

Why Passenger Travel History Is Now an Operational Variable

The pattern across all of these measures is the same: restrictions follow the traveler, not the aircraft. That changes how operators need to approach pre-trip planning.

The most common mistake is assuming these procedures apply only to flights departing directly from affected countries.

They do not.

Current measures in several jurisdictions are tied to where a passenger or crew member has recently been, not where the aircraft is departing from. That distinction matters for routing decisions, arrival airport selection, and APIS submissions.

Operators should verify the following before finalizing any international itinerary:

• Passenger and crew travel history during the previous 21 days
• Separate commercial or private itineraries preceding the current trip
• Transit through affected countries, including brief layovers
• APIS and manifest consistency across all legs
• Whether the planned arrival airport can accommodate current screening requirements
• Local self-declaration or screening requirements at the departure point

Where Operators May Run Into Problems

Operational exposure points include late passenger additions after routing is finalized, travel-history issues identified after APIS submission, indirect itineraries involving East African gateway airports, and manifest revisions that create documentation inconsistencies.

In most cases, the problem is not the restriction itself. It is discovering applicability too late in the planning process.

Planning Takeaway

The U.S. framework is the most operationally defined right now, but other governments are actively adjusting procedures and screening requirements. What is in place today may not reflect what is in place when your trip departs.

Build the travel-history check into your passenger intake process now, before routing is finalized and before APIS is submitted.

The operators who get caught are not the ones flying into affected regions. They are the ones who found out too late that a passenger’s history made the trip look like they were.