[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37801-37821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-12669]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 145
[USCBP-2026-0761; CBP Dec. 26-13]
RIN 1685-AA45
Indefinite Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption for Mail
Shipments and New Postal Informal Entry Process
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) regulations to implement an indefinite suspension of the de
minimis administrative exemption for imports valued at $800 or less
arriving through the international postal network. This document also
establishes a new postal informal entry process for certain merchandise
entering the United States through the mail environment.
DATES: Effective date: This interim final rule is effective on July 24,
2026, except for amendatory instruction 4 (19 CFR 145.31), which is
effective on June 24, 2026.
Compliance date: The compliance date for 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v) and
(vi) is on October 22, 2026.
Comments due date: Comments on the rule must be received on or
before July 24, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number,
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number
USCBP-2026-0761.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and
submitted comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Mabelitini, Director,
Intellectual Property Rights & E-Commerce Division, Office of Trade,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 202-325-6915,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Participation
II. Background
A. Authority
1. The De Minimis Administrative Exemption
2. Entry Procedures
B. De Minimis and the Dangers of the Low-Value Shipment E-
Commerce Environment
1. Exponential Increase in the Volume of De Minimis Packages
2. Attempted Unlawful Importations
3. Significant Uncollected Duties Endangering the Revenue
4. January 2025 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Other
Potential Alternatives
C. Addressing the Dangers of the De Minimis Administrative
Exemption in the Postal Environment
1. Suspension of the De Minimis Administrative Exemption for
Merchandise Arriving Through the International Postal Network
2. New Informal Mail Procedures
a. Eligible Shipments of Merchandise
b. Eligible Parties
c. Bonding Requirements
d. New Regulatory Process and Data Requirements
e. No CBP Officer Manual Preparation of Forms
3. Reliance Interests
III. Explanation of Amendments to the CBP Regulations
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Congressional Review Act
V. Signing Authority
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this
rulemaking. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites
comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism
effects that might result from this rule, if relevant. If appropriate
to a specific comment, the commenter should reference the specific
portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include data, information, or authority that supports the recommended
change.
II. Background
On July 30, 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14324
(Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment For All Countries).\1\ Among
other things, E.O. 14324 suspended the availability of the de minimis
administrative exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) for most
imports, to address the national emergencies declared in E.O. 14193 of
February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs
Across Our Northern Border), E.O. 14194 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing
Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border), E.O. 14195 of
February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic Opioid
Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China), and E.O. 14257 of
April 2, 2025 (Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify
Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United
States Goods Trade Deficits).\2\ E.O. 14324 generally calls for
shipments that qualified for the de minimis exemption prior to the
effective date of the order, other than shipments sent through the
international postal network, to be entered using an appropriate entry
type in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by a party qualified
to make such entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 37775 (Aug. 5, 2025).
\2\ For more information regarding these national emergency
declarations, please see ``Notice of Implementation of the
President's Executive Order 14324, Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis
Treatment for All Countries'' at 90 FR 42418 (Sept. 2, 2025), which
is CBP's notice effectuating Executive Order 14324, inter alia:
Executive Order 14193, 90 FR 9113 (Feb. 7, 2025); Executive Order
14194, 90 FR 9117 (Feb. 7, 2025); Executive Order 14195, 90 FR 9121
(Feb. 7, 2025); and Executive Order 14257, 90 FR 15041 (Apr. 7,
2025). As noted in Executive Order 14389, 91 FR 9437 (Feb. 20,
2026), the national emergencies declared or described in the above
orders remain in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. __(2026), holding that the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq., does not authorize the President to impose additional tariffs.
That decision did not address the suspension of the de minimis
administrative exemption pursuant to IEEPA. In light of that decision,
E.O. 14389 of February 20, 2026 (Ending Certain Tariff Actions),\3\
terminated the additional duties that had been imposed under IEEPA in
[[Page 37802]]
certain Executive Orders (including the Executive Orders listed in the
preceding paragraph), while making clear that the national emergency
declarations underlying the imposition of the tariffs remain ongoing
and maintaining other measures adopted under those orders. On the same
day, E.O. 14388 of February 20, 2026 (Continuing the Suspension of
Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries),\4\ continued the
suspension of the duty-free de minimis exemption under 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(C), including for shipments sent through the international
postal network, and stated that CBP should continue to inspect such
goods and collect applicable duties, taxes, fees, exactions, and
charges on such shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 91 FR 9437 (Feb. 25, 2026).
\4\ 91 FR 9433 (Feb. 25, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 2(b) of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388,
shipments sent through the international postal network that would
otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption under 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(C) ``shall pass free of any duties except those specified in
section 3 of this order,'' and without the preparation of an entry by
CBP, ``until the effective date for the new entry process for postal
shipments established by CBP and published in the Federal Register.''
Section 3 of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, established an
interim process and new duty rates for covered products sent to the
United States through the international postal network, discussed in
more detail below, and directed that the duty rate ``shall be assessed
until the expiration date of the temporary import surcharge established
by Proclamation 11012 of February 20, 2026 (Imposing a Temporary Import
Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payment Problems), or
until the effective date of the new entry process for postal shipments
established by CBP, whichever date occurs first.'' \5\ In turn,
Proclamation 11012 invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and
pursuant to Section 122, imposed, for a period of 150 days, a 10
percent ad valorem surcharge on certain imports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The products subject to this interim process are shipments
of articles that formerly qualified for the de minimis exemption
under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C), and which are not identified in 50
U.S.C. 1702(b). A detailed description of this interim process prior
to E.O. 14388 appears in the Federal Register notice implementing
E.O. 14324. See 90 FR 42418 (Sept. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the policy objectives encapsulated by these
Executive Orders, and independently pursuant to CBP's own statutory
authorities, as discussed in further detail below, and after
considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant
considerations, this rulemaking implements in CBP regulations an
indefinite suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption under
19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) (hereinafter ``the de minimis administrative
exemption'' or ``the de minimis exemption'') for merchandise valued at
$800 or less and imported by one person on one day arriving through the
international postal network, consistent with 19 U.S.C. 1321(b), to
protect revenue, prevent unlawful importations, and for further reasons
discussed in more detail below. This rulemaking does not affect the
availability of the exemptions for bona fide gifts under 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(A) or personal or household articles accompanying travelers
under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B). Further, this rulemaking establishes a
new process for merchandise valued at $2,500 or less entering the
United States through the mail environment, including shipments that
would previously have been eligible for the de minimis exemption.
Although this rulemaking is implementing the indefinite suspension of
the de minimis administrative exemption for merchandise valued at $800
or less arriving through the international postal network (also
referred to in this document as mail or postal environment), CBP is
publishing a concurrent rulemaking announcing the indefinite suspension
of the de minimis administrative exemption for merchandise valued at
$800 or less arriving via all modes other than through the
international postal network.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Although CBP is issuing this interim final rule concurrently
with a separate interim final rule addressing related issues under
19 U.S.C. 1321, CBP views each rule as a distinct regulatory action.
CBP would have issued this interim final rule even if the other
interim final rule had not been issued, and CBP intends that this
interim final rule remain in effect even if the other interim final
rule is later amended, delayed, or held invalid in whole or in part,
unless CBP itself changes this rule through subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, and as discussed in more detail below, this
rulemaking addresses certain challenges CBP faces in the informal mail
entry environment related to the de minimis exemption. These challenges
concern efforts to protect the revenue and to identify violations of
U.S. customs and trade laws, health and safety requirements,
intellectual property rights, and consumer protection rules, as well as
to detect and prevent the entry of illicit drugs such as fentanyl
(including synthetic drug precursors and related chemicals and related
manufacturing equipment). To address these challenges, in addition to
announcing the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for
merchandise in the postal environment, this rule also makes changes
from what is currently required under the interim process announced in
Executive Order 14324, as amended, for goods arriving through the
international postal network and further specified in CBP's Notice of
Implementation of the President's Executive Order 14324, Suspending
Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 90 FR 42418 (Sept. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Authority
1. The De Minimis Administrative Exemption
Section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1321), as amended
by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA),
Section 901, Public Law 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury,\8\ ``in order to avoid expense and
inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of
revenue that would otherwise be collected,'' to provide by regulation
for administrative exemptions from duty and any tax imposed on or by
reason of importation for three categories of articles. These
categories include: bona-fide gifts valued at $100 or less ($200, if
the gift is from certain island possessions) sent from persons in
foreign countries to persons in the United States (19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(A)); certain personal or household articles valued at $200
or less accompanying persons arriving in the United States (19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(B)); and other articles when the value of the article is
$800 or less, referred to here as the de minimis administrative
exemption (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C)). The origin of the de minimis
exemption was to codify the Government's existing discretionary
``practice of waiving duties when, in the opinion of local customs
officials, collecting the duty would be an inefficient use of
government resources.'' \9\ Though Congress has several times amended
Section 321, including to adjust the statute's dollar
[[Page 37803]]
amounts, the purpose of Section 321 has remained the same.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Secretary of the Treasury has delegated this authority
to the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (see Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2142) and
Treasury Order 100-20 (Oct. 30, 2024), available at https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-and-directives/treasury-order-100-20.
\9\ Imports and the Section 321 (De Minimis) Exemption: Origins,
Evolution, and Use, Cong. Research Serv., R48380 at 5-6 (Jan. 31,
2025); see also, e.g., Customs Administrative Act of 1938, Public
Law 75-721, 52 Stat. 1081 (June 25, 1938), ch. 679, Sec. 7.
\10\ See, e.g., Simplification of Customs Administration:
Hearings on H.R. 1535 Before the Comm. on Ways and Means House of
Rep., 82nd Cong., at 19 (1951) (``the purpose'' of this provision
was ``to avoid waste of customs manpower in determining and
collecting trivial amounts of money,'' and ``[t]he object of the
[1953] amendment [was] the same as that of the original section[ ] .
. . [as it was] necessary in order to minimize the cost of
administering the customs service''); H.R. Rep. No. 83-760, at 123
(1953) (noting that Section 321 was ``intended to avoid dissipating
customs manpower in assessing and collecting duties in trivial
amounts''); H.R. Rep. No. 103-361, pt. 1, at 144-45 (1993) (changing
the statutory amount because ``inflation and the substantial
increases in passenger arrivals and low-value entries'' meant that
the statutory amounts that were then in place were ``not
sufficiently high for the statutorily stated goal of limiting
expense to the Government disproportionate to the revenue that is
collected''); S. Rep. No. 103-189, at 93 (1993); Customs
Modernization Act, Title VI of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, 651, 107 Stat.
2057, 2209 (1993); Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of
2015, Public Law 114-125, 901, 130 Stat. 122 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In granting this discretion to admit articles free of duty and of
any tax imposed by reason of importation, in order to avoid expense and
inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of
revenue that would otherwise be collected, Section 321(a)(2)(C) sets a
framework for any de minimis exemption that the Secretary of the
Treasury (Secretary) (and now the Secretary of Homeland Security)
chooses, in his or her discretion, to implement. In other words, the
Secretary's authority to implement the administrative exemptions
authorized under Section 321 is, and has always been, discretionary,
not mandatory. Nothing in Section 321 requires the Secretary to create
(or to maintain) a de minimis exemption. Instead, the creation (or the
maintaining) of the de minimis exemption is in the Secretary's
discretion.
Importantly, 19 U.S.C. 1321(b) also authorizes the Secretary to
promulgate regulations that except certain merchandise from eligibility
for the administrative exemptions in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) when the
Secretary finds that such an exception is consistent with the purpose
of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) or is necessary for any reason to protect the
revenue or to prevent unlawful importations.
The de minimis exemption is implemented in part 10 of title 19 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 10) at 19 CFR 10.151 and
10.153, and is also referenced in 19 CFR parts 128, 143, and 145 (Mail
Importations), the general subject of this rulemaking.
2. Entry Procedures
All merchandise imported into the customs territory of the United
States is subject to entry and clearance procedures, unless
specifically excepted. These procedures ensure the proper appraisement,
valuation, and tariff classification of the merchandise for the purpose
of collecting the lawful amount of duties owed, as well as compliance
with all other laws and regulations administered and enforced by CBP.
Different types of entry procedures are used for the entry and
clearance of merchandise depending upon its value and other relevant
criteria.
Formal entry procedures, established by 19 U.S.C. 1484 and 1485,
are generally applicable to shipments of merchandise valued in excess
of $2,500.\11\ Informal entry procedures are authorized by 19 U.S.C.
1498(a)(1)(A) for shipments of merchandise valued at $2,500 or less,
and may incorporate formal entry procedures appearing in 19 U.S.C. 1484
and 1485.\12\ 19 U.S.C. 1498(b). Informal entry regulations are
generally found in 19 CFR part 143, subpart C. Specific procedures for
shipments imported by mail, including informal mail entries, are found
in part 145, Mail Importations (19 CFR part 145). Generally, informal
entry procedures are less burdensome and complex than formal entry
procedures. But CBP may require formal entry for any merchandise if
deemed necessary for purposes of admissibility, revenue protection, or
the efficient conduct of customs business. 19 CFR 143.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Part 142 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR part 142)
implements 19 U.S.C. 1484, as amended, and prescribes formal entry
procedures.
\12\ The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to ``prescribe
rules and regulations for the declaration and entry of merchandise
when the aggregate value of the shipment does not exceed an amount
specified . . . by regulation, but not more than $2,500.'' See 19
U.S.C. 1498(a)(1)(A). The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA)
generally transferred the functions of the U.S. Customs Service from
the Treasury Department to the Secretary of Homeland Security. See
Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2142; 6 U.S.C. 203 (``there shall be
transferred to the Secretary [of Homeland Security] the functions .
. . of (1) the United States Customs Service of the Department of
the Treasury, including the functions of the Secretary of the
Treasury relating thereto''). Nevertheless, pursuant to Section 412
of the HSA, the Treasury Department retained authority related to
various customs revenue functions, including those functions found
in the Tariff Act of 1930, Public Law 71-361, 46 Stat. 590, as
amended (codified at 19 U.S.C. 1202 et seq.). 6 U.S.C. 212(a)(1),
(2). But the Secretary of the Treasury may delegate any such
retained authority at the Secretary's discretion. 6 U.S.C.
212(a)(1). Consistent with this delegation authority, the Secretary
of the Treasury issued Treasury Order 100-20 (available at https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-and-directives/treasury-order-100-20), delegating the authorities contained in 6
U.S.C. 212 and 215 to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, specific procedures for shipments arriving through
the international postal network, including merchandise that could have
previously qualified for the de minimis exemption prior to its
suspension, are found in part 145, Mail Importations (19 CFR part 145).
CBP is publishing a separate rulemaking concurrently with this
rulemaking announcing the indefinite suspension of the de minimis
administrative exemption for merchandise valued at $800 or less
arriving via all modes other than through the international postal
network.
B. De Minimis and the Dangers of the Low-Value Shipment E-Commerce
Environment
The Customs Administrative Act of 1938 amended the Tariff Act of
1930 by adding Section 321, which authorized the original de minimis
exemption for articles imported by one person on one day which are
valued at $1 or less, in order to limit the ``expense and
inconvenience'' of collecting duty when ``disproportionate to the
amount of such duty.'' \13\ At that time, the amount of duty to be
collected for these low-value shipments was deemed to be so minimal
(especially when compared to the costs associated with collecting the
duties that would have been owed) that ``the purpose of [Section 321 as
added in 1938 was] to avoid waste of customs manpower in determining
and collecting trivial amounts of money.'' \14\ Congress subsequently
raised the value cap for articles eligible for the de minimis exemption
authorized by Section 321(a)(2)(C), as amended, to $5 in 1978, $200 in
1993, and most recently, to $800 in 2016.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Customs Administrative Act of 1938, Public Law 75-721, 52
Stat. 1077, 1081 (1938).
\14\ Hearings on H.R. 1535 before House Committee on Ways and
Means, Aug. 6, 1951, at 19 (Analysis of Customs Simplification Act
of 1951 at section 11, Administrative Exemptions) (analysis was
prepared by the Department of the Treasury and included as part of
the legislative record for the Customs Simplification Act of 1953
(Aug. 8, 1953)), Public Law 83-243, c. 397, Sec. 13, 67 Stat. 515.
\15\ Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978,
Public Law 95-410, 205(b)(3), 92 Stat. 888, 900 (1978) (raising the
daily value cap to $5); North American Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2209 (1993)
(raising the daily value cap to $200 and also removing the specific
authorization to the Secretary of the Treasury to diminish the
dollar amount of the administrative exemption); Trade Facilitation
and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-125, 130 Stat. 122
(2016) (raising the daily value cap to $800).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current regulatory framework for the de minimis exemption was
promulgated through two final rules in
[[Page 37804]]
1994 and 1995. The 1994 rule provided express consignment operators and
carriers the right to enter goods into the United States without a
registered customs broker.\16\ The 1995 rule amended the customs
regulations to implement the legislative increase of the value cap to
$200, and to specify the special informal entry procedures applicable
to qualifying low-value shipments.\17\ In 2016, Section 901(d) of the
Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) amended 19
U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) by increasing the value cap from $200 to $800.\18\
CBP published an interim final rule amending the regulations to
implement the new statutory value cap and to identify certain goods
excluded from eligibility for the de minimis exemption.\19\ Otherwise,
CBP has not made any significant changes to the regulatory requirements
since 1995. In those intervening three decades, however, as discussed
in more detail below, there have been significant changes in the trade
environment relating to the de minimis exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ T.D. 94-71 (59 FR 43283 (Aug. 23, 1994)).
\17\ T.D. 95-31 (60 FR 18983 (Apr. 14, 1995)).
\18\ Section 901 did not change the administrative exemptions
for bona-fide gifts and personal or household articles accompanying
travelers under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A) and (B), respectively.
\19\ CBP Dec. No. 16-13 (81 FR 58831 (Aug. 26, 2016)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, E.O. 14324 suspended duty-free de minimis treatment
under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) and established an interim process for
mail shipments formerly eligible for de minimis. Given the risks of
evasion of U.S. laws, fraud, and illicit-drug importations that create
health and safety risks, as well as risks to the revenue described in
the following sections, CBP is implementing a de minimis suspension for
all merchandise arriving through the international postal network in
its regulations pursuant to the authority provided for in 19 U.S.C.
1321.
Because these shipments are no longer eligible for the de minimis
exemption, they are also unable to use the special informal entry
procedures applicable to articles claiming the de minimis exemption.
Therefore, as explained in more detail below, these shipments will need
to use an appropriate method of entry, such as the new postal informal
entry process announced in this rulemaking, which is limited to
articles classifiable only in chapters 1-97 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). For merchandise arriving through
the international postal network that is subject to any additional
duties imposed under chapter 99 of the HTSUS, quota, antidumping or
countervailing duties (AD/CVD) orders, Partner Government Agency (PGA)
data requirements,\20\ or merchandise for which duty-free treatment is
claimed under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade
Agreement, formal entry is required, see 19 CFR 145.12(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As detailed below, CBP has provided a delayed compliance
date for the requirement that certain merchandise arriving through
the international postal network must file formal entry. During the
delayed compliance period, CBP will permit merchandise subject to
PGA requirements, merchandise subject to duties under Chapter 98 or
Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS), or for which duty-free treatment is claimed under Chapter
98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement (see new 19
CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v)-(vi)) to use the postal informal entry process
established by this rule. For more information on the compliance
date, please see Section III. Explanation of Amendments to the CBP
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this rule is consistent with and responsive to E.O. 14324
and related Presidential actions, CBP is herein independently
exercising its statutory authorities to implement a de minimis
suspension for merchandise arriving through the international postal
network. After considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing
the relevant considerations, CBP has determined that duty-free de
minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is no longer necessary
for shipments through the international postal network to avoid expense
and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of
revenue that would otherwise be collected. See 19 U.S.C. 1321(a).
Further, after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing
the relevant considerations, CBP has determined that the suspension of
duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is
consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a). See 19 U.S.C.
1321(b). Moreover, after considering the relevant issues and factors
and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has independently
determined that the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment under
19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is necessary to protect the revenue. See 19
U.S.C. 1321(b). In addition, after considering the relevant issues and
factors and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has independently
determined that the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment under
19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is necessary to prevent unlawful importations,
including unlawful importations of illicit or dangerous goods. See 19
U.S.C. 1321(b). Finally, after considering the relevant issues and
factors and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has determined
that any of the above reasons--separately, cumulatively, or in any
combination--justifies the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment
under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C).
In making these determinations, CBP considered the relevant issues
and factors and weighed the relevant considerations. For example, CBP
considered any potential reliance interests but determined that the
reliance interests are either not actually present or are outweighed by
the benefits of this rule. CBP also considered various alternatives but
determined that this rule is more reasonable than and preferable to
potential alternatives. In CBP's judgment, this rule is reasonable,
consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a), necessary to protect
the revenue, and necessary to prevent unlawful importations.
CBP is adopting these regulatory measures under its own statutory
authority and would do so even in the absence of E.O. 14324 or any
related Executive Orders. Moreover, this rulemaking aligns with U.S.
Government positions in trade and security negotiations with countries
regarding policy matters that are squarely within the foreign affairs
domain. The timing of this rulemaking is linked intimately with the
United States's overall foreign-affairs and national-security agenda
and affects relations with foreign countries.
1. Exponential Increase in the Volume of De Minimis Packages
The continued rise of e-commerce, with the internet empowering
individuals to easily make international purchases, the increase of the
value cap for the de minimis exemption to $800 in 2016, and the
establishment of the Entry Type 86 Test \21\ in which CBP authorized a
voluntary electronic entry process for qualifying low-value shipments
in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), led to drastic increases
in the volume of shipments using the $800 de minimis exemption,
including through the international postal environment. The dramatic
increase in the volume of de minimis shipments accelerated
overwhelmingly during the COVID-19 pandemic and never returned to pre-
pandemic levels. During Fiscal Year 2024, over 1.36 billion de minimis
shipments were processed by CBP, an almost ten-fold increase over the
139 million de minimis shipments
[[Page 37805]]
processed by CBP in 2015.\22\ Today, the crushing volume of these de
minimis shipments imposes a significant and costly burden on CBP
related to identifying violative merchandise and processing the
shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 84 FR 40079 (Aug. 13, 2019), suspended by 90 FR 42418
(Sept. 2, 2025).
\22\ Source: CBP's Automated Targeting System (ATS) Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the staggering volume of trade involved, CBP's current
regulations generally require minimal data for entry of shipments
claiming the de minimis administrative exemption, and no entry is
prepared for shipments claiming de minimis in the postal environment.
The risks associated with merchandise that would have previously
qualified for the de minimis exemption are even further exacerbated in
the mail environment. Prior to its suspension, de minimis shipments
sent via mail were processed initially at one of the U.S. Postal
Service's (USPS) International Service Centers (ISCs) that sort
international mail, before being transferred to a CBP facility for
further examination. Under the current regulatory framework for
informal entry of merchandise arriving by mail, there is a burdensome
and manual process for CBP to verify the information necessary for the
shipment to be deemed admissible and properly entered in accordance
with all applicable requirements, such as verifying origin and value to
ensure duties are accurately collected. Pursuant to 19 CFR
145.12(b)(1), subject to exceptions, a CBP officer must manually
prepare a mail entry form for a shipment valued at $2,500 or less, and
the recipient will pay the duties, taxes, and fees owed. Payment is
generally tendered at the local post office prior to the recipient
taking possession of the shipment.
In addition to the time-intensive and costly manual process of
preparing an entry and collecting duties for informally entered mail
articles, the high volume and the lack of advance entry information to
aid in risk assessment and targeting creates substantial problems for
CBP. CBP also lacks advance information regarding the volume of
shipments arriving, preventing CBP from effectively allocating
resources to aid in the processing of mail shipments.
As noted above, E.O. 14324 resulted in the implementation of an
interim entry process for low-value mail shipments valued at $2,500 or
less, including shipments formerly eligible for the de minimis
exemption. This process did not require CBP to prepare a manual entry
for those mail shipments, but did mandate duty collection that
necessitates manual auditing by CBP to ensure proper duty remittance.
Pursuant to section 2(b) of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, the
interim process is applicable to mail shipments until such time as CBP
establishes a new entry process and implementing regulations published
in the Federal Register take effect.
Under the Executive Order's interim process as specified by the CBP
notice, qualified third parties transmit entry data and duties owed to
CBP. The foreign post office would receive the package from the
shipper, collect the required information and duties, and transmit
relevant information and duties owed to the qualified third party. The
qualified third party would then transmit the following information to
CBP via email in the form of an Excel spreadsheet:
Carrier
Flight Number
Tracking Number (generated by the foreign post operator)
Arrival Port
Arrival Date
Duty Rate
Country of Origin
Value
Total Duty Owed
The spreadsheet is required to be transmitted to CBP on the 7th day
of the month following the arrival of the postal shipment. At the same
time, the qualified third party would transmit payment for duties owed
for all shipments arriving the prior month, via Pay.gov. For example,
for a package that arrived on April 15th, the spreadsheet and payment
would be due no later than May 7th. Qualified third parties
transmitting data to CBP are required to have a basic importation and
entry bond, consistent with 19 CFR 113.62.
Although this interim process was critical to address the urgent
issues leading to the emergency declarations detailed in E.O. 14324,
concerns regarding minimal shipment data and the need for manual
verification by CBP remain. As explained in more detail in the economic
analysis section below, the volume of merchandise imported by mail has
decreased \23\ since the Executive Order's effective date, but the
overall burden on CBP to assess admissibility of the merchandise and
collect the relevant duties continues to present challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ There has been an estimated two-thirds reduction in mail
shipments following the global suspension of the de minimis
exemption in E.O. 14324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Attempted Unlawful Importations
There is an apparent perception amongst transnational criminal
organizations and other bad actors that low-value shipments, including
those through the international postal environment, are less likely to
be interdicted due to the sheer volume of entries and because these
shipments are generally not subject to the more extensive formal entry
procedures. This has resulted in attempts to enter illicit and
dangerous goods, such as firearms, counterfeit merchandise, illicit
fentanyl, and other illicit drugs, by claiming the de minimis
exemption.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., E.O. 14324, 90 FR at 37776-77 (``For example,
many shippers go to great lengths to evade law enforcement and hide
illicit substances in imports that go through international
commerce. These shippers conceal the true contents of shipments sent
to the United States through deceptive shipping practices. Some of
the techniques employed by these shippers to conceal the true
contents of the shipments, the identity of the distributors, and the
country of origin of the imports include the use of re-shippers in
the United States, false invoices, fraudulent postage, and deceptive
packaging. The risks of evasion, deception, and illicit-drug
importation are particularly high for low-value articles that have
been eligible for duty-free de minimis treatment.''). For more
information regarding the national emergency declarations, see 90 FR
42418 (Sept. 2, 2025) discussing, inter alia, E.O. 14193 of February
1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across
Our Northern Border), E.O. 14194 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing
Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border), and E.O.
14195 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic
Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the overwhelming volume of low-value shipments,
including in the postal environment, makes it more challenging for CBP
to conduct targeting for purposes of identifying violations of U.S.
customs and trade laws, health and safety requirements, intellectual
property rights, and consumer protection rules, as well as preventing
illicit drugs, such as fentanyl (including synthetic drug precursors
and related chemicals and related manufacturing equipment) from
entering the country. Moreover, the fact that many consumers ordering
goods online that were shipped through the international postal network
are not familiar with the customs and trade laws increases the danger
that an item they are purchasing may not comply with U.S. health and
safety standards or pose other risks. Taken together, if not addressed,
the enforcement challenges in the current environment have the capacity
to put American consumers' well-being and lives at risk.
3. Significant Uncollected Duties Endangering the Revenue
Because of the significant burdens that de minimis valued
merchandise imposes on CBP relating to targeting and processing,
allowing for the de minimis exemption to remain in place for
merchandise arriving through the
[[Page 37806]]
international postal network is no longer consistent with the purpose
of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a), which is to avoid a cost and inconvenience to the
government that is outweighed by the duties that would be collected. To
put it plainly, despite collecting no revenue, the burden of work
imposed on CBP related to the de minimis exemption was growing with
each passing year until the exemption was suspended.
Moreover, advances in technology have facilitated the electronic
filing of an entry along with the automation of data verification and
duty collection. As a result, where an electronic entry is filed for
dutiable merchandise, the cost to and burden on CBP from collecting
duties is negligible, particularly when compared to the burden and
amount of duties that would otherwise be owed but for the de minimis
exemption. Additionally, there have been significant improvements in
CBP's automation regarding the targeting, verification, and processing
of entry or related data, which removed a significant time burden that
was part of the original justification for establishing the de minimis
exemption.
Today, the outdated and burdensome tasks, involving CBP employees
having to manually review documents and process money or paper checks
to collect duties, stand ready to be replaced by fully electronic
processes. These newer processes minimize the cost to CBP to assess and
collect duty payments, enforce compliance with applicable PGA
requirements, and determine admissibility. Technological advances,
including expanded use of Pay.gov, have significantly reduced the
burden on CBP personnel pertaining to general duty collection and
enforcement.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For example, CBP recently announced Pay.gov as being
available to pay bills at the importer's convenience. For more
information, see https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/revenue/bill-payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the revenue forgone due to the de minimis exemption has
steadily increased, as even low-value merchandise would otherwise be
subject to additional duties pursuant to trade actions addressing
discriminatory trade practices and threats to national security and
domestic industries.\26\ In addition, given CBP's challenges in the de
minimis enforcement environment, the volume of shipments that claimed
the de minimis exemption but did not actually qualify resulted in
significant lost revenue. Therefore, the cost to and burden on CBP to
collect the duties owed, given advances in technology, pale in
comparison to the vast aggregate amount of duties uncollected due to
the de minimis exemption, which endangers the revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For example, additional duties imposed pursuant to Section
232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 201 of the Trade Act
of 1974, and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. See 90 FR 6852
(Jan. 21, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, in addition to CBP implementing in the regulations the
indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption pursuant to its
authority in 19 U.S.C. 1321 for merchandise arriving through the
international postal network, as discussed in more detail below, CBP is
implementing a new postal informal entry process to better address
unlawful and potentially dangerous importations, and the risks to the
revenue of the United States, arising from de minimis packages sent
through the international postal network.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As noted elsewhere, CBP is also publishing a concurrent
rulemaking regarding the suspension of the de minimis exemption for
merchandise arriving via all modes other than through the
international postal network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. January 2025 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Other Potential
Alternatives
In January 2025, CBP published two notices of proposed rulemaking
that proposed changes to the entry process for low-value shipments. The
first of these, the ``Entry of Low-Value Shipments'' (ELVS) proposed
rule, proposed new ``enhanced'' and ``basic'' entry processes and
associated data requirements for shipments qualifying for and seeking
the benefit of the de minimis duty exemption authorized under 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(C) and 19 CFR 10.151 (90 FR 3048, Jan. 14, 2025). The
second, the ``Trade and National Security Actions and Low-Value
Shipments'' (TranSALS) proposed rule, proposed to make merchandise
subject to specified Sections 232, 201, and 301 actions ineligible for
the administrative exemption and to require 10-digit HTSUS
classification for shipments entered under both the basic and enhanced
processes (90 FR 6852, Jan. 21, 2025).
But CBP proposed these two rulemakings under very different
circumstances. Since that time, additional legal and factual
developments, including E.O. 14324, as revised, subsequent national
emergency declarations, enactment of legislation terminating the de
minimis exemption effective July 1, 2027,\28\ and further experience
with the interim mail process, have demonstrated that these proposed
rulemakings are not the appropriate course of action at this time and
do not adequately address revenue and public safety risks associated
with low-value shipments to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, Section
70531(b)(3), 139 Stat. 72, 283 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As further discussed below, although this rulemaking represents a
different approach from those proposed in ELVS and TranSALS, ELVS and
TranSALS demonstrate the path CBP has taken in its attempts to get
control of the overwhelming volume of low-value shipments, as well as
the associated risks discussed throughout this document. While the ELVS
proposed rule was intended to assist CBP in acquiring additional data
regarding low-value shipments, the TranSALS proposed rule was designed
to limit the availability of the de minimis exemption in certain
scenarios. Neither of the rules went far enough to address the current
issues CBP faces in the de minimis and low-value shipment environment,
particularly with respect to the postal environment. Unlawful
importation concerns exist for all imports that could qualify for the
de minimis exemption. Further, limited exceptions to the de minimis
exemption would raise circumvention or evasion concerns. Lastly, the
sheer volume of shipments claiming the de minimis exemption, including
shipments sent through the international postal network, combined with
the technological advances CBP has implemented in recent years, means
that allowing the exemption is no longer consistent with the purpose
stated in Section 321(a); that is, the administrative burden of
collecting the duties no longer outweighs the revenue to be collected
for low-value shipments.
Accordingly, considering its past efforts and the changed
landscape, CBP has determined that it is necessary to move forward with
the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for merchandise
arriving through the international postal network, under CBP's own
authorities. As described throughout this preamble, the indefinite
suspension of the de minimis exemption for goods valued at $800 or less
arriving through the international postal network will help CBP address
the risks to the revenue and public safety consistent with long-
standing and recent developments, including the policy objectives of
this Administration.
CBP has considered other alternatives and determined that at this
time, this rule is still more reasonable than and preferable to
potential alternatives. For example, CBP has considered excepting from
the de minimis exemption some low-value imports but not other low-value
imports, as in the TranSALS
[[Page 37807]]
proposed rule discussed above.\29\ But unlawful importation concerns
exist for all low-value imports that could qualify for the de minimis
exemption. And in general, the expense and inconvenience of imports
under the de minimis exemption exist for all such imports; a limited
suspension of the de minimis exemption would not resolve the imbalance
of the expense and inconvenience of administering the exemption vis-
[agrave]-vis the potential revenue collection. A limited exception to
the suspension of the de minimis exemption also raises circumvention or
evasion concerns that are obviated by applying the suspension to all
shipments. So a limited suspension of only certain low-value imports is
not as consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) as this rule,
and would not as effectively protect the revenue or prevent unlawful
importations. In CBP's judgment, this rule is more reasonable than and
preferable to this alternative approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ This rule does not suspend the exemptions for bona fide
gifts under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A) or personal or household
articles accompanying travelers under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B). The
lower volume and lower value threshold of these exemptions raise
different issues. Bona fide gifts and personal or household articles
accompanying travelers do not raise the same unlawful-importation or
revenue concerns or at least do not do so anywhere near the same
extent. In CBP's judgment, it is not necessary at this time to
suspend the exemptions for bona fide gifts under 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(A) or personal or household articles accompanying
travelers under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP has considered the option of requiring additional information
while not indefinitely suspending the de minimis exemption, as proposed
in the ELVS proposed rule discussed above.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ In this interim final rule, CBP is also modifying entry
requirements for shipments through the international postal
environment to ensure the accurate collection of duties, taxes, and
fees, and to better enable CBP to prevent unlawful importations. In
CBP's judgment, these modifications, in tandem with the indefinite
suspension of the de minimis exemption, are necessary to protect the
revenue and to prevent unlawful importations. Still, as noted above,
although CBP is issuing this interim final rule concurrently with a
separate interim final rule addressing related issues under 19
U.S.C. 1321 for the non-postal environment, CBP views each rule as a
distinct regulatory action. CBP would have issued this interim final
rule even if the other interim final rule had not been issued, and
CBP intends that this interim final rule remain in effect even if
the other interim final rule is later amended, delayed, or held
invalid in whole or in part, unless CBP itself changes this rule
through subsequent rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But merely requiring additional entry requirements without the
suspension of de minimis does not adequately address the revenue and
unlawful-importation concerns. Indeed, even if increased information
could as effectively address unlawful importation, increased
information does not protect the revenue and, in fact, exacerbates the
expense and inconvenience to the Government, making such expenses and
inconvenience even more disproportionate to the amount of revenue that
would otherwise be collected. So this alternative is not as consistent
with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) as this rule and does not as
effectively protect the revenue or prevent unlawful importations as
this rule.
Finally, CBP has considered other alternatives, including a
combination of the above alternatives, but CBP has determined that at
this time, this rule's approach is more consistent with the applicable
statutory provisions and more effectively protects the revenue and
prevents unlawful importations than potential alternatives. In CBP's
judgment and based on CBP's experience, this rule is better than
alternative approaches and is the most reasonable approach for
addressing the relevant issues.
C. Addressing the Dangers of the De Minimis Administrative Exemption in
the Postal Environment
1. Suspension of the De Minimis Administrative Exemption for
Merchandise Arriving Through the International Postal Network
As discussed above, the de minimis exemption is discretionary under
Section 321. Moreover, 19 U.S.C. 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary to
promulgate regulations that except merchandise from eligibility for the
administrative exemptions otherwise authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)
when such exceptions are consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C.
1321(a), or necessary to protect the revenue or to prevent unlawful
importations. Pursuant to this statutory authority, and consistent with
E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, CBP is implementing a regulatory
suspension of the exemption authorized in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C).\31\
Accordingly, this rule amends 19 CFR 145.31 to announce the indefinite
suspension of the de minimis exemption at 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) for
merchandise arriving through the international postal network. Any
subsequent modification or revocation of this suspension will be
announced in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Again, CBP issues this rule independently of the Executive
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No other duty exemptions specified in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2) are
affected by this rulemaking. Specifically, the requirements for
entering shipments exempt from duty under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A),
bona-fide gifts valued at $100 or less ($200, if the gift is from
certain island possessions) sent from persons in foreign countries to
persons in the United States, and under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B),
certain personal or household articles valued at $200 or less
accompanying persons arriving in the United States, remain unchanged.
As noted elsewhere in this document, CBP is also publishing a
concurrent rulemaking regarding the suspension of the de minimis
exemption for merchandise arriving via all modes other than through the
international postal network.
2. New Informal Mail Procedures
Considering the issues discussed above and the shifting of mail
volumes formerly eligible for the de minimis exemption to other
informal entry processes, CBP has determined it is necessary to amend
the regulations to include a new informal entry process for mail
shipments valued at $2,500 or less that will replace the interim
process applied pursuant to Executive Order 14324, as amended. The
modified entry process and requirements will allow CBP to collect all
applicable duties, taxes, and other fees (rather than a subset); better
ensure the accuracy of the collection of applicable duties, taxes, and
other fees; better enable CBP to police undervaluation, evasion, and
fraud; and better prevent unlawful importation through the
international postal environment. Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR
145.31(b), as well as making other conforming changes throughout part
145, to provide for this new postal informal entry process. Notably,
the requirements for this new process are related to the entry and
release of merchandise imported into the United States through the
postal network and are distinct from, and in addition to, Universal
Postal Union (UPU) requirements.
a. Eligible Shipments of Merchandise
Except during the delayed compliance period described below, the
new postal informal entry process provided for in this rulemaking is
available only to shipments of merchandise valued at $2,500 or less,
that are sent to the United States via mail, and are classifiable only
in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) chapters 1-
97. Merchandise subject to quota, antidumping or countervailing duties
(AD/CVD) orders, any duties imposed under chapters 98 and 99 of the
HTSUS, import and entry-related Partner Government Agency (PGA)
requirements, or merchandise for which duty-free treatment is claimed
under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to
[[Page 37808]]
a Free Trade Agreement, is ineligible to use the new informal postal
entry process. Such merchandise must instead use formal entry
procedures (see 19 CFR 145.12(a)).
b. Eligible Parties
The process for filing under this new postal informal entry process
is limited to parties with the right to make entry under 19 CFR
143.26(a), that is, an owner or purchaser of the merchandise being
mailed to the United States, or a licensed customs broker appropriately
designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee. See 19 CFR 143.26(a).
c. Bonding Requirements
The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of CBP have
broad legal authority to require bonds or other security ``by
regulation or specific instruction'' when necessary to protect the
revenue of the United States or to assure compliance with any law,
regulation, or instruction that CBP is authorized to enforce. 19 U.S.C.
1623(a); \32\ 19 CFR 113.1. The Secretary and the Commissioner also
have the authority to prescribe the conditions and form of the bond,
the manner in which the bond may be filed, and the amount of the bond.
19 U.S.C. 1623(b); 19 CFR 113.2. In 19 CFR part 113, CBP has
promulgated regulations exercising this authority, detailing
requirements for the execution and filing of bonds required by Chapter
I of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Subpart G of 19 CFR
part 113 enumerates the terms and conditions for regulatory bonds
required by CBP. The terms and conditions for the Basic Importation and
Entry Bond are found in 19 CFR 113.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) generally
transferred the functions of the U.S. Customs Service from the
Treasury Department to the Secretary of Homeland Security. See
Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2142; 6 U.S.C. 203 (``there shall be
transferred to the Secretary [of Homeland Security] the functions .
. . of (1) the United States Customs Service of the Department of
the Treasury, including the functions of the Secretary of the
Treasury relating thereto''). Nevertheless, pursuant to Section 412
of the HSA, the Treasury Department retained authority related to
various customs revenue functions, including those functions found
in the Tariff Act of 1930, Public Law 71-361, 46 Stat. 590, as
amended (codified at 19 U.S.C. 1202 et seq.). 6 U.S.C. 212(a)(1),
(2). But the Secretary of the Treasury may delegate any such
retained authority at the Secretary's discretion. 6 U.S.C.
212(a)(1). Consistent with this delegation authority, the Secretary
of the Treasury issued Treasury Order 100-20 (available at https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-and-directives/treasury-order-100-20), delegating the authorities contained in 6
U.S.C. 212 and 215 to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To protect the revenue, and ensure compliance with applicable laws
and regulations, CBP is requiring that the party filing a postal
informal entry have a bond to secure the transaction. Accordingly, CBP
is amending the regulations for informal mail entries by adding a new
regulation at 19 CFR 145.15 to clarify that the party making entry must
obtain a basic importation and entry bond (either a single transaction
bond (STB) or a continuous bond), with the conditions found in 19 CFR
113.62, sufficient to secure the entries using the new mail process for
informal entries provided for in this rulemaking.
This bonding requirement secures the revenue to be collected from
such imported merchandise. A basic importation and entry bond also
secures redelivery of merchandise, e.g., when additional information is
necessary to determine admissibility, and obligates an importer of
record to correct non-compliance with an applicable law or regulation
pertaining to admissibility, thereby ensuring the safety and security
of American consumers. Importantly, as noted above, qualified third
parties participating in the current interim process for mail shipments
are already required to have a bond.
d. New Regulatory Process and Data Requirements
CBP is establishing in the regulations a new process for informal
mail shipments. This new regulatory process improves upon the interim
process established pursuant to Executive Order 14324, as amended.
Under the new regulatory process, the filer will be responsible for
obtaining and transmitting the following required information to CBP
via email in the form of an Excel spreadsheet:
Filer Code
Bond Number
Description of Merchandise
Country of Origin of Merchandise
All Applicable 10-digit HTSUS Classification(s)
Quantity/Weight (conditional and required ONLY if using a specific
duty rate)
Duty Rate
Value
Total Duty Owed
Carrier
Flight/Conveyance Number
Tracking Number (generated by the foreign post operator)
Arrival Port
Arrival Date
The Excel spreadsheet must be transmitted to [email protected] no
later than the 7th day of the month following the package's arrival.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1315(a)(1), the duty rate for a mail article is
based on the ``rate or rates in effect when the preparation of the
entry is completed[.]'' Because CBP is no longer preparing the entry,
the regulations are being amended to reflect that the preparation of
the informal mail entry is completed upon the filing of the entry in
proper form, meaning in accordance with 19 CFR 141.68(h) and all other
applicable requirements, including the timely transmittal of the Excel
spreadsheet. Payment must be transmitted via Pay.gov no later than the
7th day of the month following the arrival of the shipment. For
example, for a package that arrived on April 15th, the spreadsheet and
payment would be due no later than May 7th.
e. No CBP Officer Manual Preparation of Forms
As part of the transition to this new postal informal entry process
for mail shipments, CBP officers will no longer manually prepare entry
forms for such shipments, and duties will not be collected upon
delivery of such shipments to addressees. Accordingly, CBP is amending
19 CFR 145.12(b)(1) to remove the relevant language providing for
manual preparation of the entry forms.
3. Reliance Interests
It is well established that there is no protectable legal interest
in importing merchandise, let alone doing so free of duty.\33\ Indeed,
importers lack any constitutional right to the maintenance of an
existing rate of duty. But to the extent importers may have reliance
interests tethered to the regulatory status quo, CBP has determined
that they in no event outweigh the United States's interest in
indefinitely suspending the de minimis exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See, e.g., Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 791
F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (``As we noted, `the Constitution
does not provide a right to import merchandise under a particular
classification or rate of duty,' . . . or even afford `a protectable
interest to engage in international trade.''' (quoting,
respectively, A Classic Time v. United States, 123 F.3d 1475, 1476
(Fed. Cir. 1997), and Am. Ass'n of Exporters & Importers-Textile &
Apparel Grp. v. United States, 751 F.2d 1239, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
1985))); The Abby Dodge v. United States, 223 U.S. 166, 176-77
(1912) (``[N]o one can be said to have a vested right to carry on
foreign commerce with the United States.''); Norwegian Nitrogen
Prods. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 318 (1933) (``No one has
a legal right to the maintenance of an existing rate or duty.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever reliance interest related to the de minimis exemption
importers may have, the interest is not weighty. The existence of the
de minimis administrative exemption has always been at the discretion
of the Secretary under Section 321 and in any event, has always been
subject to an express statutory authorization for reduction or
modification through regulatory action. Plus, the de minimis exemption
has been suspended since at least August
[[Page 37809]]
29, 2025.\34\ Moreover, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was
enacted on July 4, 2025, terminated the de minimis exemption effective
July 1, 2027.\35\ Thus, any reliance interests from prior regulatory
policy are significantly minimized by the fact that the de minimis
exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) was always subject to change
under Section 321, is currently suspended, has been suspended for
months, and will in 2027 be permanently terminated pursuant to a recent
statute. Though CBP is cognizant that importers may have some minimal
residual reliance interests in the de minimis exemption, CBP has
determined that such reliance interests are outweighed by the benefits
of eliminating the de minimis exemption. Indeed, CBP has determined at
this time that any of the above reasons--separately, cumulatively, or
in any combination--outweighs any reliance interests created by a prior
policy allowing the de minimis exemption for low-value imports through
the international postal environment and any benefits from a prior
policy allowing the de minimis exemption for low-value imports through
the international postal environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See E.O. 14324, 90 FR 37775 (suspending duty-free de
minimis treatment for low-value imports of all countries since
August 29, 2025); E.O. 14256, 90 FR 14899 (suspending duty-free de
minimis treatment for low-value imports from the People's Republic
of China since May 2, 2025). To be sure, due to practical
limitations, only certain duties were collected for low-value
imports sent through the international postal environment under the
current suspension of de minimis treatment under IEEPA. But
importers were on notice that CBP would issue new processes to
address these practical limitations, greatly reducing (if not
eliminating) any reliance interest. See Suspending Duty-Free De
Minimis Treatment for All Countries, 90 FR 37775, 37777 (allowing
low-value postal shipments to pass without entry and only limited
duties ``until such time as CBP establishes a new entry process and
publishes that process in the Federal Register.'').
\35\ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, Section
70531(b), 139 Stat. 72, 283 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Explanation of Amendments to the CBP Regulations
Amendments to Part 145
CBP is amending part 145, in accordance with the new requirements
described above. Specifically, CBP is making the following changes:
CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.12 in multiple places. CBP is amending
19 CFR 145.12(a) by removing the requirement that formal entries be
made at the customhouse, and further enumerating the circumstances
where a formal mail entry is required. Additionally, as mentioned
above, CBP is providing a narrow and short-term delayed compliance
window regarding the enforcement of 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v)-(vi), during
which CBP will permit merchandise subject to PGA requirements,
merchandise subject to duties under Chapter 98 or Chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), or for which
duty-free treatment is claimed under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or
pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement to use the postal informal entry
process established by this rule. Accordingly, until the date specified
in the DATES section of this document for 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v)-(vi),
mail shipments valued at $2,500 or less and subject to PGA data
requirements, merchandise subject to duties under Chapter 98 or Chapter
99 of the HTSUS, or for which duty-free treatment is claimed under
Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement, may use
the new postal informal entry procedures provided for in this
rulemaking. CBP is providing this flexible and narrow delayed
compliance window in order to provide the trade with sufficient time to
adjust to the new requirements and in consideration of the business
process changes that may be necessary to achieve full compliance.
Concurrently with this rulemaking, CBP is also announcing a test of a
new voluntary electronic mail process for shipments valued at $2,500 or
less, known as the Entry Type 13 test, which will provide an optional
alternative to filing formal entry in those cases. The opening of the
Entry Type 13 test will coincide with the end of the delayed compliance
window. Accordingly, at the end of the delayed compliance window for
those specified shipments, filers may choose to utilize formal entry
procedures (in accordance with 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v)-(vi)) or
participate in the Entry Type 13 test.
CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.12(b) in multiple places to provide for
the new postal process for informal mail entries discussed throughout
this rulemaking, as well as removing the requirement that a CBP Officer
prepare manual entries.
CBP is adding a new Section 145.15 (19 CFR 145.15) to state that an
informally entered mail shipment entered using the new postal informal
entry process provided for in 19 CFR 145.12(b) will not be released
from CBP custody, and the entry will not be accepted, unless a single
transaction or continuous bond, containing the bond conditions set
forth in Sec. 113.62 of this chapter, executed by an approved
corporate surety, or secured by cash deposits as provided for in Sec.
113.40 of this chapter, has been transmitted to CBP pursuant to part
113.
CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.31 to provide for the indefinite
suspension of the de minimis exemption for merchandise arriving through
the international postal network. CBP's determinations and amendments
in this interim final rule are intended to operate independently of one
another. Each provision, including the suspension of the de minimis
administrative exemption for merchandise arriving through the
international postal network, the new postal informal entry process and
its associated data requirements, and the bonding requirements for
informal mail entries, is supported by the record and authorities
described in this preamble, and CBP would have adopted each provision
even in the absence of any other provision in this interim final rule.
Accordingly, if any provision, or the application of any provision to a
particular person or circumstance, is held unlawful or unenforceable,
CBP intends that the remaining provisions, and their application to
other persons or circumstances, continue in effect to the maximum
extent permitted by law. For example, if a particular data element or
procedural requirement in the postal informal entry process were set
aside by a court, CBP would continue to implement the suspension of the
de minimis administrative exemption for postal shipments, as well as
the remaining aspects of the postal informal entry process and the
bonding requirements.
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
generally requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register and provide interested persons the opportunity
to submit comments prior to issuing a final rule. Notice and comment,
however, is not required here because this rule involves a foreign
affairs function of the United States and because CBP finds good cause,
as notice and public comment here is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), (b)(B).
First, the requirements of the APA do not apply to the extent that
the rulemaking involves a foreign affairs function of the United
States. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Because this rule involves a foreign
affairs function of the United States, notice and comment is not
required.
Proceeding before notice and comment will prevent definitely
undesirable international
[[Page 37810]]
consequences.\36\ It will allow the U.S. Government to more promptly
address sensitive foreign-policy and national-security matters that
affect relations with foreign governments. Proceeding before notice and
comment will reduce the risk that a delay in acting would undermine the
strength of U.S. Government positions in trade and security
negotiations with foreign countries, which implicate this rulemaking.
For example, the United States is currently in negotiations regarding
imports of certain articles and derivative articles that the President
has found under Section 232 are being imported into the United States
in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair
the national security of the United States.\37\ This rule directly
implicates the collection of duties for such imports and how such
imports enter the United States. In addition, the United States is
negotiating trade and security agreements with foreign governments, as
well as issuing joint statements on framework trade and security
agreements.\38\ Again, this rule could implicate the collection of
duties and the terms of entry for imports that are at issue in these
negotiations and framework trade and security agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See, e.g., Am. Ass'n of Exporters & Importers-Textile &
Apparel Grp. v. United States, 751 F.2d 1239, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(``The purpose of the exemption was to allow more cautious and
sensitive consideration of those matters which `so affect relations
with other Governments that, for example, public rule-making
provisions would provoke definitely undesirable international
consequences.' '').
\37\ See, e.g., Proclamation 10976 of September 29, 2025,
Adjusting Imports of Timber, Lumber, and Their Derivative Products,
90 FR 48127 (Oct. 6, 2025) (imposing tariffs under Section 232 on
certain imports of wood products and directing senior officials to
pursue negotiations of agreements regarding the national security
threat posed by imports of wood products); Proclamation 11002 of
January 14, 2026, Adjusting Imports of Semiconductors, Semiconductor
Manufacturing Equipment, and Their Derivative Products Into the
United States, 91 FR 2443 (Jan. 20, 2026) (imposing tariffs under
Section 232 on certain semiconductors and directing senior officials
to pursue negotiations of agreements regarding the national security
threat posed by imports of semiconductors, semiconductor
manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products);
Proclamation 11020 of April 2, 2026, Adjusting Imports of
Pharmaceuticals and Pharmaceutical Ingredients Into the United
States, 91 FR 18183 (Apr. 9, 2026) (similar with respect to imports
of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients).
\38\ See, e.g., Executive Order 14346 of September 5, 2025,
Modifying the Scope of Reciprocal Tariffs and Establishing
Procedures for Implementing Trade and Security Agreements, 90 FR
43737 (Sept. 10, 2025); General Terms for the United States of
America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Economic Prosperity Deal, White House (May 8, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/05/general-terms-for-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-economic-prosperity-deal/; Joint
Statement on a United States-European Union Framework on an
Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balance Trade, White House (Aug.
21, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/joint-statement-on-a-united-states-european-union-framework-on-an-agreement-on-reciprocal-fair-and-balanced-trade/; United States-
India Joint Statement, White House (Feb. 6, 2026), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/02/united-states-india-joint-statement/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, proceeding before notice and comment will reduce the risk
of impairing relations with other countries through advance public
discussion of whether certain imports from certain countries are a
potential danger to the national security and revenue collection of the
United States. It will also reduce the risk of the United States
suffering retaliation from foreign countries for the action in this
interim final rule before the rule takes effect.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See, e.g., Executive Order 14259 of April 8, 2025,
Amendment to Reciprocal Tariffs and Updated Duties as Applied to
Low-Value Imports From the People's Republic of China, 90 FR 15509
(Apr. 14, 2025); Executive Order 14266 of April 9, 2025, Modifying
Reciprocal Tariff Rates to Reflect Trading Partner Retaliation and
Alignment, 90 FR 15625 (Apr. 15, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, advance public notice and comment here would hamper the
President and his Administration's ability to conduct foreign policy
regarding matters that are squarely within the foreign-affairs domain.
The timing and substance of this rulemaking are linked intimately with
the United States's overall foreign-affairs and national-security
agenda and relations with foreign countries.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ CBP has determined that the 30-day delayed effective date
for the new postal informal entry process provided for in this
rulemaking strikes the appropriate balance between sufficient
preparation time without undue interruption in implementation. The
30-day delayed effective date is designed to provide adequate time
to affected parties to prepare for the changes set forth in this
rule while not unduly delaying the implementation of the critical
measures needed to target illicit and dangerous goods, protect the
national security of the United States, and protect the revenue of
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, proceeding before notice and comment may prevent the
flooding of low-value merchandise into the United States, including the
illegal importation or smuggling of illicit drugs and other harmful
unlawful imports in these low-value shipments. Before completion of
advance notice and comment, manufacturers and importers may have a
significant incentive to flood as much low-value merchandise as
possible into the United States before this rule takes effect, thereby
frustrating the purpose of the rule.\41\ The flooding concern is
particularly acute here, where current implementation of the suspension
of the de minimis exemption under IEEPA does not practically enable
full collection of applicable duties for shipments through the
international postal environment, while this rule would enable full
collection of applicable duties for shipments through the international
postal environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Am. Ass'n of Exporters & Importers-Textile & Apparel
Grp., 751 F.2d at 1249 (concluding that the foreign affairs function
exception applied in part because ``prior announcement of CITA's
intention to impose stricter quotas pending consultations creates an
incentive for foreign interests and American importers to increase
artificially the amount of trade in textiles prior to a final
administrative determination. American importers would want to
increase inventories in the face of the prospect that foreign
supplies could drop below current levels. Foreign manufacturers
would have a great incentive to dump (in the literal and technical
senses of the word) as much merchandise as possible into the United
States, since the quotas CITA imposes are based on the levels of
trade in the preceding months. The expansion in American imports
between the date of notice and date of the final rule would
exacerbate the market disruption which led CITA to act in the first
place.'' (citation modified)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's actions under IEEPA confirm that this interim final
rule falls under the foreign affairs function exception.\42\ In E.O.
14324, as modified by E.O. 14388, discussed in more detail above, the
President took several actions ``to deal with the unusual and
extraordinary threats, which have their source in whole or substantial
part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign
policy, and economy of the United States.'' As noted in E.O. 14324 and
related Executive Orders, these threats include the public health
crisis caused by fentanyl and other illicit drugs, and the activities
of chemical precursor suppliers, money launderers, and other
transnational criminal organizations. To address these threats, E.O.
14324 suspended the de minimis exemption, mandated certain filing
requirements for shipments that qualified for the de minimis exemption
prior to the effective date of the order, and established an interim
process and new duty rate for covered products sent to the United
States through the international postal network. The President also
recognized that to more efficiently and effectively implement the
suspension of the de minimis exemption under IEEPA, CBP would need to
supplement the interim process that the Executive Order, as amended,
established for international mail shipments with a new entry process
that enables collection of all
[[Page 37811]]
applicable duties for the postal environment.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See, e.g., United States v. Quinn, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80, 94,
n.12 (D.D.C. 2005) (``IEEPA-based regulations are likely to be
exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act as relating to the `foreign affairs
function of the United States,' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553(a)(1).'').
\43\ See E.O. 14324, 90 FR at 37778 (``until such time as CBP
establishes a new entry process and publishes that process in the
Federal Register''); E.O. 14388, 91 FR at 9434 (``until the
effective date for the new entry process for postal shipments
established by CBP and published in the Federal Register'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though this interim final rule is under CBP's independent statutory
authority, it is grounded in, and addresses, the same foreign unusual
and extraordinary threats on which the President's suspension of the de
minimis exemption under IEEPA was based. Specifically, as discussed
above, this interim final rule implements the regulatory suspension of
the de minimis exemption for merchandise arriving through the
international postal network under CBP's own statutory authority, and
expands upon the very measures taken in E.O. 14324, as amended, to
address those foreign threats (e.g., establishing an additional postal
process for informal entries for merchandise entering through the mail
environment). Therefore, this interim final rule involves foreign
affairs functions of the United States.
Second, the APA provides an exception to advance notice and comment
requirements ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates
the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules
issued) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
CBP finds that good cause exists to issue this rule as an interim
final rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments,
under the APA's good cause exception. Delaying the publication of this
interim final rule for purposes of providing public notice and comment
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. CBP finds
that due and timely execution of its functions would be significantly
impeded by advance notice and comment.\44\ CBP finds that immediate
implementation of this rule directly affects public safety and
addresses imminent hazards to persons or property within the United
States. CBP finds that delay for advance notice and comment would
create a significant threat of serious damage to important public
interests, would harm the public welfare, and would tend to defeat the
purpose of the action in this interim final rule.\45\ In CBP's judgment
and based on CBP's experience, the urgency here is one that does not
always exist in the trade context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See, e.g., Tom C. Clark, Attorney General's Manual on the
Administrative Procedure Act, at 30 (1947) (``In general, it may be
said that a situation is `impracticable' when an agency finds that
due and timely execution of its functions would be impeded by the
notice otherwise required in section 4 (a).''); S. Doc. No. 248,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. 200 (1946); Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1179
(D.C. Cir. 2004); NRDC v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 894
F.3d 95, 114 (2d Cir. 2018).
\45\ See, e.g., Tom C. Clark, Attorney General's Manual on the
Administrative Procedure Act, at 30-31 (1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, as explained above, further delaying the
interim final rule's effectiveness for notice and comment will have
significant foreign affairs implications and undesirable international
consequences. Further, as explained above, it may also result in the
flooding of low value shipments into the United States that undermines
this rule and the foreign policy, national security, and economy of the
United States. And as noted above, this interim final rule addresses
the unusual and extraordinary foreign threats acknowledged in E.O.
14324 and other related Executive Orders, consistent with the
Administration's direction and foreign policy priorities. As discussed
above, and for the reasons cited above, as well as those cited in E.O.
14324 and E.O. 14388, to address the unusual and extraordinary threats
to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United
States, this rule establishes a new process for informal mail entries,
to replace the temporary process set forth in E.O. 14324, as amended,
including additional data elements to aid in targeting and processing,
thereby protecting the revenue of the United States, and most
importantly, protecting the health and safety of the public.
Moreover, given the critical public health and safety implications
of continued shipments of illegal opioids into the United States in the
de minimis mail environment, to delay the implementation of this rule
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. With this
rulemaking, CBP is addressing various issues threatening public safety
and posing risks to the revenue in the de minimis informal mail
environment, while facilitating lawful importers in complying with
their statutory and regulatory responsibilities.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 93 (D.C. Cir.
2012) (citing as an example of a proper showing, ``possible imminent
hazard to aircraft, persons, and property'' and rules of ``life-
saving importance'' necessary to ``stave off any imminent threat to
the environment or safety or national security''); see also Util.
Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(citing the Attorney General's Manual for the proposition that the
contrary to the public interest prong is applicable where advance
notice would defeat the purpose of the rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the mail environment, under current regulations at 19 CFR
145.31, de minimis shipments would (in the absence of the Executive
Orders) pass free of duty and tax without preparing an entry, such that
the processes applicable to mail shipments eligible for the de minimis
exemption provide insufficient and untimely data for CBP to handle the
extreme volume of low-value shipments while also addressing the influx
of illicit shipments, including dangerous and harmful drugs, being
shipped to the United States in the mail environment. Though the
interim process for mail shipments implemented pursuant to Executive
Order 14324, as amended, provides a pathway for the entry of low-value
mail shipments, it was intended to be temporary until CBP establishes a
new entry process, and did not fully address the information gaps in
the mail environment required to fully collect duties on shipments
formerly eligible for the de minimis exemption.\47\ This interim final
rule provides important additional entry processes to ensure the full
collection of information and duties for postal shipments beyond those
in E.O. 14324, as amended, which will reduce unlawful importation and
protect the revenue. The new postal informal entry process provided for
in this rulemaking is needed to ensure that CBP has more information
about shipments arriving in the mail environment, to interdict
dangerous and illegal shipments, including those with fentanyl and
other illicit drugs, chemical precursors, and other dangerous goods.
The new postal process will also allow lawful importers to enter
merchandise in a safer and more secure mail environment. Moreover, this
rule requires goods subject to the requirements of PGAs to be entered
under formal entry procedures. This allows the Government to ensure
compliance with the health and safety requirements of PGAs under the
more robust formal entry process, to prevent dangerous and illegal
merchandise from entering the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Indeed, the applicable Executive Orders anticipated that
CBP would need to continue to establish additional entry processes
for postal environment, including to collect all applicable duties
in the postal environment. See E.O. 14324, 90 FR at 37778 (``until
such time as CBP establishes a new entry process and publishes that
process in the Federal Register''); E.O. 14388, 91 FR at 9434
(``until the effective date for the new entry process for postal
shipments established by CBP and published in the Federal
Register'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, delaying implementation of these requirements, for
purposes of notice-and-comment proceedings, would delay action that
immediately addresses risks to the public's health and safety. A delay
would also result in multiple burdens for the Government.
[[Page 37812]]
As discussed above, the threat to the revenue posed by the sheer volume
of shipments claiming the de minimis exemption has defeated the
underlying purpose of the de minimis exemption. That is, there was no
revenue being collected, yet the burden of processing the vast numbers
of de minimis mail shipments continued to grow. The suspension of de
minimis for mail, in conjunction with the establishment of a new postal
process allowing for the full collection of duties, is essential to
protect the revenue of the United States. Moreover, under this rule,
goods subject to quota, AD/CVD, or additional duties imposed under
Chapters 98 and 99 of the HTSUS, or for which a claim for duty-free
treatment is made under Chapter 98 or pursuant to a Free Trade
Agreement, are required to enter under formal entry procedures. This
ensures that CBP has adequate data and processes to collect the revenue
in these special circumstances. Accordingly, it would be impracticable
and contrary to the public interest to further delay implementation of
these requirements, which will provide CBP with more data to help
protect the American public from dangerous and illegal goods entering
from abroad, and to protect the revenue of the United States.
CBP is publishing this rulemaking with a request for comments to
allow the public to weigh in on the regulatory changes. Additionally,
CBP is publishing this rulemaking with a delayed effective date for the
requirements regarding the new postal informal entry process in order
to give the lawful importing community time to modify the relevant
processes. However, the substantial additional delays in implementation
that would result from advance notice and comment or a more protracted
delayed effective date would risk frustrating the Administration's
chosen and appropriate means of addressing the very issues targeted by
this rulemaking. Such delays would also create a degree of uncertainty
that would undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the United
States's emergency trade and counter-narcotics measures and could
incentivize attempts to send more illicit shipments into the country
before this rulemaking enters into effect. Nevertheless, CBP is
voluntarily soliciting public comments on this interim final rule and
will consider all timely submitted comments in determining whether and
how to revise the rule in a subsequent final rulemaking.
In sum, for the reasons discussed, this rule is exempt from the
prior public notice and comment requirements of the APA under both the
foreign affairs exception and the good cause exception. For more
information and statistics on the volume of attempted illicit
shipments, including dangerous and harmful drugs, and informal entry
shipments generally, please see the analysis below.
B. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly
reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations and provides that ``any new incremental costs associated
with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset
by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.''
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action''
that is economically significant, under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. Pursuant to section 5(a) of Executive Order
14192, the requirements of that Executive Order do not apply to
regulations issued with respect to foreign affairs-related functions of
the United States. As discussed above, this interim final rule is
issued with respect to foreign affairs-related functions of the United
States Government. Accordingly, this rule is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 14192. CBP discusses both quantified
and qualitative effects of the rule in the analysis below. The
estimated quantified net annualized costs of the rule equal $169,794 at
a 7% discount rate or $172,980 at a 3% discount rate. The rule will
also result in an increase in tariff revenue, discussed in the
Transfers section. The estimated annualized tariff revenue that would
result from the rule is $166,130,323 at a 7% discount rate or
$163,007,696 at a 3% discount rate. Table 1 shows an accounting
statement for the effects of the rule.
Table 1--A-4 Accounting Statement for the Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized estimate (in 2025 USD) over
mid-2026 to mid-2036
Category ---------------------------------------
3-percent discount 7-percent discount
rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
Monetized benefits.......... None.............. None.
Quantified, non-monetized None.............. None.
benefits.
---------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified) Stricter enforcement of trade
benefits. enforcement actions through greater
parity between postal informal
entries and ET11 informal entries.
---------------------------------------
Costs
Monetized costs............. $172,980.......... $169,794.
Quantified, non-monetized None.............. None.
costs.
---------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified) Costs resulting from possible short-
costs. term postal shipment hiatuses, the
need for some importers to find a
licensed customs broker, additional
importer compliance burdens for
shipments excluded from postal
informal entry, and deadweight loss
from reduced imports.
---------------------------------------
Cost Savings
Monetized cost savings...... None.............. None.
Quantified, non-monetized None.............. None.
cost savings.
[[Page 37813]]
Qualitative (unquantified) None.............. None.
cost savings.
Transfers
Monetized budgetary $163,007,696...... $166,130,323.
transfers (Increased duties
from duty payers to Federal
government ).
Other monetized transfers... None..............
Distributional Effects
Effects on State, local, and/ Not estimated..... Not estimated.
or tribal governments.
---------------------------------------
Effects on small businesses. Because a general notice of proposed
rulemaking was not necessary for this
rule, CBP did not prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis to
analyze the effects on small
businesses.
---------------------------------------
Effects on wages............ Not estimated..... Not estimated.
Effects on growth........... Not estimated..... Not estimated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Calculations using data sources described throughout the main
text.
Background
The Customs Administrative Act of 1938 amended the Tariff Act of
1930 by adding Section 321, which authorized a general de minimis
exemption for imported merchandise valued at $1 or less in order to
limit the ``expense and inconvenience'' of collecting duty when
``disproportionate to the amount of such duty.'' \48\ The duties
potentially owed for such shipments were considered de minimis because
the revenue associated with collecting the duties that would have been
owed would not have covered the cost of collecting the duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Customs Administrative Act of 1938, Public Law 75-721, 52
Stat. 1077, 1081 (1938).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current regulatory framework for the de minimis exemption was
promulgated through a final rule in 1995, which, among other things,
amended the customs regulations to implement the legislative increase
of the exemption to $200 and specify the special informal entry
procedures applicable to qualifying low-value shipments.\49\ Such
shipments were not subject to the same formal customs entry procedures
and data requirements as higher-value shipments entering the United
States.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 60 FR 18983 (Apr. 14, 1995). See 19 U.S.C. 1498(a)(1)(A)
(authorizing regulations to prescribe special rules for the
declaration and entry of merchandise when the aggregate value of the
shipment does not exceed an amount specified by the Secretary by
regulation, but not more than $2,500).
\50\ See 60 FR 18983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, TFTEA increased the administrative exemption from $200 to
$800.\51\ CBP published an interim final rule amending the regulations
to implement the new statutory amount and to specify certain goods
excluded from the administrative exemption.\52\ Otherwise, CBP has not
made any significant changes to the regulatory requirements since 1995.
In the intervening three decades, however, there have been significant
changes in the trade environment relating to the de minimis exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Section 901 did not change the administrative exemptions
for bona-fide gifts and personal or household articles accompanying
travelers under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A) and (B), respectively.
\52\ 81 FR 58831 (Aug. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The continued rise of e-commerce, with the internet empowering
individuals to easily make international purchases, the increase of the
value cap for the de minimis exemption to $800 in 2016, and the trade's
usage of the Entry Type 86 Test \53\ in which CBP authorized a
voluntary new electronic entry process for qualifying low-value
shipments in ACE, have led to drastic increases in the volume of
shipments using the $800 de minimis exemption (and low-value informal
entries more generally, i.e., shipments valued at $2,500 or less). The
dramatic increase in the volume of de minimis shipments (and low-value
shipments generally) accelerated overwhelmingly during the COVID-19
pandemic and has shown no signs of returning to pre-pandemic levels.
During Fiscal Year 2024, over 1.36 billion de minimis shipments were
processed by CBP, an almost ten-fold increase over the 139 million de
minimis shipments processed by CBP in 2015.\54\ Today, the crushing
volume of these shipments imposes a significant and costly burden on
CBP relating to targeting and processing the shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 84 FR 40079 (Aug. 13, 2019); suspended by 90 FR 42418
(Sept. 2, 2025).
\54\ Source: CBP's Automated Targeting System (ATS) Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 4, 2025, the President signed into law the ``One Big
Beautiful Bill'' Act, which, among other things, enacted the
termination of the de minimis exemption effective July 1, 2027.\55\ On
July 30, 2025, the President signed E.O. 14324 (Suspending Duty-Free De
Minimis Treatment For All Countries), which discussed multiple declared
national emergencies and announced that the President determined that
it was necessary and appropriate to suspend duty-free de minimis
treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) for most imports, to deal with
the continuing unusual and extraordinary threats, which have their
source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the
national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United
States.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, Section
70531(b), 139 Stat. 72, 283 (2025).
\56\ For more information regarding the multiple national
emergency declarations, please see 90 FR 42418 (Sept. 2, 2025),
which is CBP's notice effectuating Executive Order 14324,
discussing, inter alia, Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025
(Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our
Northern Border), Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025
(Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border),
and Executive Order 14195 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To
Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic
of China).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to E.O. 14324, mail shipments claiming the administrative
exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) did not have an entry prepared
and were not required to pay duties. E.O. 14324, which suspended de
minimis treatment for most importations, established an interim mail
duty process and mail shipments previously eligible for duty-free de
minimis treatment were subject to duty payments for the first time.
Unlike for other entry methods, the Executive Order permitted two duty
calculation methodologies for shipments sent through the international
postal network that were no longer eligible for de minimis
[[Page 37814]]
treatment--an ad valorem duty methodology and a specific duty
methodology assessed on each package. The duties were allowed to be
paid by carriers or qualified parties. So far, only qualified parties
have submitted the international mail duty worksheets needed to
calculate duties, and all qualified parties have chosen to pay using
the ad valorem method.
On February 20, 2026, the President signed E.O. 14388 (Continuing
the Suspension of Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment For All Countries),
which, among other things, continued the suspension of duty-free de
minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C), including for
shipments sent through the international postal network, and confirmed
that CBP should continue to collect applicable duties, taxes, fees,
exactions, and charges on such shipments. Section 3 of E.O. 14324, as
revised by E.O. 14388, established an interim process and new duty
rates for covered products sent to the United States through the
international postal network and directed that the duty rate ``shall be
assessed until the expiration date of the temporary import surcharge
established by Proclamation 11012 of February 20, 2026 (Imposing a
Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payment
Problems), or until the effective date of the new entry process for
postal shipments established by CBP, whichever date occurs first.''
\57\ In turn, Proclamation 11012 invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act
of 1974, and pursuant to Section 122, imposed, for a period of up to
150 days, a 10 percent ad valorem surcharge on certain imports to
address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with
large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ The covered products subject to this interim process are
shipments of articles that formerly qualified for the de minimis
exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C), and which are not
identified in 50 U.S.C. 1702(b). A detailed description of this
interim process prior to E.O. 14388 appears in the Federal Register
notice implementing E.O. 14324. See 90 FR 42418 (Sept. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the de minimis exemption has been suspended for both
postal and non-postal environments, there is a disparity between postal
and non-postal modes in terms of the information submitted and duties
applied. Low-value non-postal shipments that would have claimed the de
minimis exemption are now generally entered through entry type 11
(ET11), and CBP applies all applicable duties, taxes, and fees to those
shipments. Low-value postal shipments that would have claimed the de
minimis exemption are now entered through the interim postal process,
and, unlike ET11, the postal process only applies the simple 10% ad
valorem duty mentioned above. To declare the value of the imports and
the duties owed to CBP, qualified parties must submit a monthly
International Mail Duty Worksheet (IMDW) that details the value of each
shipment and the corresponding duty owed.\58\ Furthermore, even if CBP
wanted to apply other duties to postal entries, the interim postal
process does not currently collect enough data on entries to be able to
apply all the duties to which ET11 entries are subject. Namely, postal
shipments are not required to provide HTSUS classifications, which
determine the appropriate duty rate in many cases. Accordingly, with
this rule, CBP is requiring the relevant information needed to properly
collect duties owed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Even if a qualified party has many clients, the party
submits only one worksheet per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose of Rule
CBP had been overwhelmed by the number of low-value shipments being
brought into the country with little or no accurate and reliable data
which CBP could use to properly assess admissibility, duty
requirements, and PGA requirements. By 2025, the administrative
exemption had become a substantial risk to the revenue and the health
and welfare of U.S. residents, and, through E.O. 14324, the
administrative exemption was suspended for most importations in 2025.
This rule makes several changes to address various issues that remain
unresolved by the current interim mail process.
Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption for Postal Shipments
Due to the high volume of de minimis shipments and the lack of
reliable data for admissibility determinations, administering the de
minimis exemption had become a significant time burden to CBP. CBP
officers needed to manually review data submitted and, often,
physically inspect the package to know what was in the shipment. At the
same time, advances in technology that facilitate automation and
electronic filing of entry and collection of duties reduced the burden
of collecting duties on shipments. Combined, the increased burden of
administering the de minimis exemption and the reduced burden of
collecting duties made the current environment no longer consistent
with the purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a), which is to avoid a cost and
inconvenience to the government that is outweighed by the possible
duties that would be collected. E.O. 14324 suspended use of the
administrative exemption for most importations in 2025, and E.O. 14388
continued the suspension of the administrative exemption. For the
reasons described in this rule and to establish new procedures for
informal mail entry made necessary by the suspension of the
administrative exemption, CBP is also amending the regulations under
its own authorities to suspend the use of the Section 321(a)(2)(C)
administrative exemption. As a result, the administrative exemption
will no longer be available for formerly de minimis postal shipments
pursuant to Section 321(a)(2)(C). Shipments must instead go through the
new postal informal entry process or through a different entry type,
such as formal entry. With the suspension of de minimis, importers of
postal shipments will need to provide additional data for these
shipments compared to the old de minimis processes.
While CBP is exercising its own authority to suspend de minimis for
postal shipments, E.O. 14324 has been in effect since August 29, 2025,
and the statutory repeal of the basis for de minimis will take effect
starting on July 1, 2027. This rule does not, in practice, change the
existing suspension of de minimis for postal shipments; rather it
matches the existing suspension to a regulatory suspension implemented
in this rule, providing better clarity. CBP considers the effects of
the suspension of de minimis for postal shipments to belong to the
Executive Orders (from August 29, 2025 until July 1, 2027) and the
statutory repeal of the basis for the de minimis exemption (from July
1, 2027 on).
Should the Executive Order be amended or removed prior to the
statutory repeal of de minimis, CBP's regulatory suspension would
remain in effect and take on the effects of the suspension of de
minimis for postal shipments that would have otherwise belonged to the
Executive Orders between the effective date of the change in the
Executive Orders and the statutory change. Once the statutory repeal of
de minimis is effective, the effects of the de minimis suspension
belong to the statutory change and not this rule.
New Postal Informal Entry Process
CBP has determined that it is necessary to update the temporary,
interim postal process established by the Executive Order 14324, as
amended by E.O. 14388 (with the new process to
[[Page 37815]]
be called the new postal informal entry process) to reduce the
disparity between postal and non-postal informal shipments. Filers will
now need to submit on their international mail duty worksheets, the
filer code, bond number, all applicable 10-digit HTSUS classifications
for each shipment,\59\ and a description of the merchandise. If the
applicable duty is dependent on the quantity or weight of the
merchandise, then that information must be submitted as well. These
additional data elements will allow CBP to apply the duties to postal
shipments that are already being collected from non-postal ET11
entries, improving parity between postal and non-postal shipments.
Because the new postal informal entry process will require the filer to
provide more detailed information, CBP is requiring that the filer be a
party with the right to make entry, including a duly-authorized,
licensed customs broker. The filer code is being added as a required
data element so that CBP can validate that the broker is licensed. As
with the baseline interim postal process, the filer will submit the
information to CBP through a monthly IMDW, which will cover all the
shipments handled by the filer that month. This method of data
submission differs from the method of other entry types, for which a
separate entry form is submitted for each shipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Some goods, like watches, may require multiple HTSUS
classifications, corresponding to the different duties that all
apply to that good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed later in this analysis, CBP estimates that the new
postal informal entry process will lead to an increase in duties of
more than $100 million per year. Therefore, CBP is protecting the
revenue of the U.S. Government by requiring proper classification of
merchandise and subjecting all informal mail entries to the appropriate
duties, unless excepted pursuant to another exception.
Baseline and Regulatory Alternative Scenarios
This regulatory impact analysis estimates the net effects of the
rule by comparing the baseline scenario with the regulatory alternative
scenario. In the baseline, the President already suspended the use of
the de minimis administrative exemption for most imports, including
postal shipments, and postal shipments continue to be entered through
the interim mail process that was put in place in 2025, pursuant to
E.O. 14324, as amended by E.O. 14388. Additionally, the ``One Big
Beautiful Bill'' Act, as enacted, eliminates the de minimis exemption
effective July 1, 2027. This rule considers the effects of deviations
from the baseline. In the regulatory alternative scenario, the interim
postal process is updated to require additional data elements so that
CBP may apply non-Section 122 duties to informal postal shipments. The
benefits and costs of the rule are the benefits and costs of changing
from the baseline to the regulatory alternative scenario. Because the
rule takes effect midway through 2026, this analysis considers the
effects of the rule over a 10-year regulatory period from mid-2026 to
mid-2036. CBP deals with the shortened first and last year of the
analysis by cutting the estimates of most costs and benefits in 2026
and 2036 by half.
Projected Entry Counts
In this section, CBP presents its projections for postal de minimis
entry counts from 2026-2036, which CBP uses for its calculations in the
Transfers section. Although the rule could affect import volumes, CBP
assumes, for the purposes of calculating the effect of the rule on
government revenue, that annual entry counts would be the same in the
regulatory scenario as in the baseline scenario.\60\ This simplifying
assumption allows CBP to calculate total tax revenue and other costs
using the same projected entry counts used in the baseline. However,
the rule will result in certain higher duties and shipping costs for
postal shipments, and these changes will likely cause total imports to
fall by some amount. As a result of this decrease in imports, the total
increase in government revenue will likely be lower than in the
analysis, which assumes the rule will have no effect on the quantity of
imports. The fall in imports will also lead to a deadweight loss,
increasing the total cost of the rule to society beyond CBP's cost
estimates in the analysis. CBP discusses these limitations of the
analysis further below. Table 1 displays the annual entry counts for
postal entries from FY 2021 to FY 2024. Over this time period, the
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for postal de minimis entries was -
11.63%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The rule could lead to some entries shifting from postal to
non-postal modes, but such a shift would not affect our quantified
cost estimates. After all, the increase in duties would be the same
whether a postal shipment uses the new postal informal entry process
or switches to ET11 as a result of the rule.
Table 1--Annual Entry Counts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Postal de minimis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021...................................... 108,400,000
2022...................................... 83,600,000
2023...................................... 81,200,000
2024...................................... 74,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source for postal de minimis shipments: CBP, De Minimis Statistics, last
modified December 8, 2025. Available at https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/e-commerce. Accessed December 17, 2025.
In 2025, the imposition of new duties, the suspension of the de
minimis exemption for most imports, and the creation of an interim mail
process led to a large decrease in import volume. The de minimis
exemption was suspended for most imported products of all countries
effective August 29, 2025. Therefore, CBP uses entry counts from the
following three months, September through November of 2025, to estimate
the inflow of entries under the current status quo. From September 1 to
November 30, 7,254,980 postal entries arrived in the United States. At
that rate, 29,099,645 postal shipments would arrive annually. These
numbers are shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Entry Counts for September 1-November 30, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept.-Nov. 2025......................................... 7,254,980
Projected annual........................................ 29,099,645
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Obtained from Office of Trade (OT) on December 4, 2025. The
projected annual counts equal the counts from September 1 to November
30, 2025, multiplied by 365/91.
Compared to the 2024 entry counts, the figures in Table 2 show that
the suspension of de minimis led to a fall in postal shipments. As de
minimis will remain suspended (in either scenario), CBP does not expect
postal volumes to return to pre-2025 levels. Moreover, now that the
interim mail process is being updated, postal shipments could face even
higher duties and data requirements than they did under the baseline
interim mail process, making it even less likely that postal entry
counts will rebound. To project postal entry counts during the
regulatory period, 2026-2036, CBP applies the CAGR from 2021-2024 to
the projected annual count in Table 2. These projections are shown in
Table 3.
[[Page 37816]]
Table 3--Projected Entry Counts in Regulatory Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Postal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026................................................. 25,714,522
2027................................................. 22,723,187
2028................................................. 20,079,829
2029................................................. 17,743,969
2030................................................. 15,679,837
2031................................................. 13,855,823
2032................................................. 12,243,994
2033................................................. 10,819,666
2034................................................. 9,561,029
2035................................................. 8,448,807
2036................................................. 7,465,969
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
The rule will result in costs due to increased information
requirements, the exclusion of certain goods from the new postal
informal entry process, deadweight loss from higher duties, and the
possibility of temporary hiatuses of postal shipments.
CBP
Although more data will be submitted under the new postal informal
entry process than under the interim process provided for in Section 3
of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, CBP does not expect that
handling this extra data will be more work on CBP's part, other than
requiring some modifications to the current database to accommodate
additional data elements.\61\ The cost to CBP of making those
modifications is negligible.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Information received from OT on May 20, 2026.
\62\ Information received from OT on May 28, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filers
The new postal informal entry process will require filers to submit
additional data elements, namely the filer code, bond number, all
applicable 10-digit HTSUS classifications, and a description of the
merchandise. Moreover, if the duty depends on the quantity or weight of
the merchandise, then that data will also be required. Filers will
submit these additional data elements to CBP on the monthly IMDW.
Brokers may file a monthly IMDW that covers all shipments for all of
the broker's clients that month. CBP estimates that the updated IMDW
will take 6 hours to complete each month, which is 4 hours more than
the time burden in the baseline.\63\ In both the baseline and in the
regulatory scenario, CBP estimates that there will be 100 filers who
submit the IMDW once a month. The total time burden of the IMDW will
therefore increase by 400 hours per month, or 4,800 hours per year. CBP
assumes that, under the rule, most if not all IMDWs will be submitted
by brokers. Applying an average broker wage of $36.57, the added annual
time burden equals $175,536 per year.\64\ CBP estimates that the cost
in 2026 and in 2036 will be $87,768 (=$175,536/2) because the period of
analysis starts in the mid-2026 and ends in mid-2036. Although CBP is
including this cost in the filer subsection, importers may bear some of
the burden, as they may have to start giving brokers more information
about the shipments so that the brokers can classify the goods.
Moreover, brokers could shift some of the monetary burden onto
importers by charging higher fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Source: CBP. Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction
Act Submission OMB Number 1651-0147: International Mail Duty
Worksheet. August 28, 2025. Available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202508-1651-006. Accessed May 27,
2026.
\64\ CBP calculated this loaded wage rate by first multiplying
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2024 median hourly wage rate
for Cargo and Freight Agents ($23.99), which CBP assumes best
represents the wage for brokers, by the ratio of BLS' Q4 2024 total
compensation to wages and salaries for Office and Administrative
Support occupations (1.4886), the assumed occupational group for
brokers, to account for non-salary employee benefits. CBP uses an
annual growth rate of 2.42% based on the prior year's change in the
implicit price deflator, published by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, ``May 2024
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.''
Updated April 2, 2025. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2024/may/oes_nat.htm. Accessed June 17, 2025. The total compensation to
wages and salaries ratio is equal to the total compensation cost per
hour worked for Office and Administrative Support occupations
($35.86) divided by the wages and salaries cost per hour worked for
the same occupation category ($24.09). See ``Table 2. Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation for civilian workers by occupational and
industry group.'' Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation--December 2024.'' Released March 14, 2025.
Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142025.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2025. To adjust to 2025
dollars, multiply by the 2023-2024 percent change in the Bureau of
Economic Analysis's Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic
Product (125.230/122.273-1). See ``Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price
Deflators for Gross Domestic Product,'' Line 1 Gross Domestic
Product, annual. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Updated May 30, 2025.
Available at https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&categories=survey#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDMsM10sImRhdGEiOltbImNhdGVnb3JpZXMiLCJTdXJ2ZXkiXSxbIk5JUEFfVGFibGVfTGlzdCIsIjEzIl0sWyJGaXJzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAxNiJdLFsiTGFzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyNCJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCIwIl0sWyJTZXJpZXMiLCJBIl1dfQ==. Accessed June
17, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importers
Exclusion of Non-Broker Qualified Parties From Submitting an IMDW
Because the new version of the IMDW will require product
classifications, submission of the IMDW will now be considered customs
business. Therefore, if not the owner or purchaser, only licensed
customs brokers will be allowed to submit the IMDW. Currently, about
half of qualified parties are brokers. Importers and foreign postal
operators (FPOs) that are working with non-broker qualified parties
will need to find a licensed customs broker. Based on conversations
with non-broker qualified parties representing a majority of IMDW
submissions to CBP, these parties typically have an existing
relationship with a broker, sometimes where the broker is part of the
company or a subsidiary, so many of the importers will not be affected
by this provision. This change will be an inconvenience to the
importers and FPOs who do not already have a relationship with a
broker, as it will take time to find a broker and perhaps for the FPO
to sign a contract with that new party. Of course, the exclusion of
non-broker qualified parties from submitting IMDWs will also hurt said
qualified parties, but we count this effect as a pure transfer from
non-brokers to brokers and discuss it in the Transfers section below.
Exclusion of Certain Goods From the New Postal Informal Entry Process
Under the rule, importers will not be allowed to import goods
subject to Section 201, Section 232, or Section 301 duties, or goods
subject to AD/CVD orders, or goods subject to PGA data requirements
through the new postal informal entry process. Technically, goods
subject to PGA data requirements were already excluded from the interim
postal process in the baseline, but enforcement of this rule could
improve as a result of the product classification data that CBP will be
requiring. To continue importing these goods excluded from the new
postal informal entry process, importers will need to switch to another
entry type. These other entry types require the importer to submit more
data, and they also require the broker to do more work, which could
entail significant broker fees. Importers who are not using the new
postal informal entry process will have to provide data for CBP Forms
3461 and 7501 for entry and entry summary, respectively. The time
burden for CBP Form 3461 is 10 minutes,\65\ and that of CBP Form 7501
is 5 minutes.\66\ Our
[[Page 37817]]
estimate for the average hourly wage of importers is $36.57.\67\ The
average costs of the time burdens for submitting CBP Forms 3461 and
7501 are therefore $6.10 and $3.05. Furthermore, these entry forms have
to be submitted much sooner than the IMDW, which is not due until 7
days after the end of the current month. Due to the present lack of
product classification data in the postal environment, CBP does not
know what share of postal entries will no longer be eligible for the
new postal informal entry process. Therefore, CBP cannot estimate the
total cost resulting from some postal shipments having to use a
different entry type as a result of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Source: CBP. Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction
Act Submission OMB Number 1651-0024: Entry/Immediate Delivery
Application and ACE Cargo Release. December 1, 2025. Available at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202511-1651-004. Accessed May 27, 2026.
\66\ Source: CBP. Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction
Act Submission OMB Number 1651-0147: Entry Summary. December 1,
2025. Available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202511-1651-003. Accessed May 27, 2026.
\67\ CBP calculated this loaded wage rate by first multiplying
the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2024 median hourly wage rate
for Cargo and Freight Agents ($23.99), which CBP assumes best
represents the wage for importers, by the ratio of BLS' Q4 2024
total compensation to wages and salaries for Office and
Administrative Support occupations (1.4886), the assumed
occupational group for importers, to account for non-salary employee
benefits. CBP uses an annual growth rate of 2.42% based on the prior
year's change in the implicit price deflator, published by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Source of median wage rate: U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics,
``May 2024 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
United States.'' Updated April 2, 2025. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2024/may/oes_nat.htm. Accessed June 17, 2025. The
total compensation to wages and salaries ratio is equal to the total
compensation cost per hour worked for Office and Administrative
Support occupations ($35.86) divided by the wages and salaries cost
per hour worked for the same occupation category ($24.09). See
``Table 2. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation for civilian
workers by occupational and industry group.'' Bureau of Labor
Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--December
2024.'' Released March 14, 2025. Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142024.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2025. To
adjust to 2025 dollars, multiply by the 2023-2024 percent change in
the Bureau of Economic Analysis's Implicit Price Deflators for Gross
Domestic Product (125.230/122.273-1). See ``Table 1.1.9. Implicit
Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product,'' Line 1 Gross Domestic
Product, annual. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Updated May 30, 2025.
Available at https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&categories=survey#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDMsM10sImRhdGEiOltbImNhdGVnb3JpZXMiLCJTdXJ2ZXkiXSxbIk5JUEFfVGFibGVfTGlzdCIsIjEzIl0sWyJGaXJzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAxNiJdLFsiTGFzdF9ZZWFyIiwiMjAyNCJdLFsiU2NhbGUiLCIwIl0sWyJTZXJpZXMiLCJBIl1dfQ==. Accessed June
17, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While CBP assumes for this analysis that these costs will fall
entirely on importers, the incidence of the fees is determined by the
relative price elasticities of supply and demand. The importers, the
final deliver-to parties, the exporters, and the brokers will share the
incidence of these costs to varying extents. How much of the incidence
each party bears will depend on the relevant price elasticities of
supply and demand, which CBP is unable to estimate for this analysis.
The costs will result to some extent in reduced quantity demanded and
ultimately deadweight loss, which we discuss in a later subsection.
Mail Hiatuses
As filers and FPOs transition to the new postal informal entry
process, under the rule there could be temporary hiatuses or reductions
of mail from certain countries. The different parties currently
importing through the interim postal process may need time to adapt
their processes to handle the new data requirements, and importers and
FPOs who currently use non-broker qualified parties will need to switch
to a licensed customs broker, as discussed above. If the filers or FPOs
are unable to adapt immediately, there may be a short period during
which postal shipping is not available in certain countries. In that
case, the importers and exporters affected by the hiatus would need to
ship the goods through a non-postal entry type or wait until the postal
mode becomes available again. Either of these options would cost more
or be an inconvenience to the importers and the other parties involved.
As CBP does not know the extent to which postal shipping might be
halted in the short-run, CBP is unable to estimate the costs of this
effect.
Deadweight Loss
Although this analysis assumes in the Transfers section below that
the quantity of imports will be unaffected by the rule (setting aside
any short-run hiatuses), it is likely that the duty increase for postal
shipments and other cost increases resulting from the rule will cause
importers to import less. This decrease in imports would correspond to
a cost to society in the form of deadweight loss. While some of these
goods will not be imported under the rule, the fact that they would be
imported in the baseline means that the benefit of those imports to the
importers exceeds the cost of producing those goods, shipping them, and
complying with the baseline entry process. Were importers to decide not
to import some shipments because of the rule, society would be missing
out on the net gains from trade that would have occurred with those
shipments. The deadweight loss from the rule is the total value of this
lost surplus. While CBP lacks the data to estimate deadweight loss in
this analysis, this could be an important cost of the rule. Also, to
the extent that there will be deadweight loss under the rule due to a
decrease in imports, there will be a smaller increase in government
revenue than CBP's estimate in the Transfers section below, as there
will be fewer shipments.
Total Costs
The rule would increase the annual time burden of submitting the
IMDW to CBP, and this cost is shown in Table 4. Due to data
limitations, CBP is unable to quantify the other costs that will result
from the rule. These unquantified costs include the cost of switching
some goods to a different entry type, the cost to some importers of
finding a licensed customs broker, the deadweight loss that will result
from reduced imports, and possibly a short-run hiatus of postal
shipments for some FPOs. While CBP is unable to estimate these costs,
it acknowledges that some of them could be significant.
Table 4--Total Quantified Costs Under the Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026................................................. $87,768
2027................................................. 175,536
2028................................................. 175,536
2029................................................. 175,536
2030................................................. 175,536
2031................................................. 175,536
2032................................................. 175,536
2033................................................. 175,536
2034................................................. 175,536
2035................................................. 175,536
2036................................................. 87,768
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
In the baseline, postal shipments pay a lower duty rate than non-
postal shipments because the former only have to pay Section 122
duties, while the latter pay both Section 122 duties and any other
applicable duties. This disparity between postal and non-postal modes
will disappear under the rule because postal shipments will be subject
to all applicable duties and will start providing to CBP the HTSUS
classification data needed to calculate those duties. The rule will
therefore lead to an increase in revenue collected by the government.
Because this benefit to the government will be balanced out by the loss
to the duty payers, we count this effect as a transfer instead of a
benefit to society and estimate it in the Transfers section.
While the increased tax revenue is not a benefit per se, the rule
does have the benefit of stricter enforcement of trade enforcement
actions. U.S. trade law explicitly permits the President to impose
tariffs under certain acts of Congress: the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
and the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of
1962
[[Page 37818]]
allows the President to adjust imports if there are threats that impair
U.S. national security. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the
President to impose temporary trade measures if there is ``substantial
cause or threat of serious injury'' to U.S. industries. Lastly, Section
301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. Trade Representative to
impose import restrictions if a trading partner is violating trade
agreements or engaging in practices that harm U.S. commerce. In this
analysis, CBP refers to duties imposed under the authority of Section
232, 201, or 301 as ``trade enforcement actions.'' In the baseline,
importers and exporters can avoid these trade-enforcement actions by
importing through the interim postal process, where these duties (and
all non-Section 122 duties) do not apply. As a result, CBP is unable to
strictly enforce measures and resultant duties that have been imposed
for purposes other than revenue collection. Because the rule will
require shipments subject to trade enforcement actions to use an entry
type other than the new postal informal entry process, CBP will be able
to pursue the goals of the trade enforcement actions more effectively.
Transfers
Shipments entered through the new postal informal entry process may
be subject to higher duties under the rule than in the baseline,
resulting in a transfer from duty payers to the U.S. government. As
discussed earlier, the President suspended de minimis treatment for
most importations by executive order, which is already factored into
the baseline of this rule. Therefore, CBP does not include the effects
of suspending de minimis treatment in this rule. However, duty payments
on postal shipments could increase because in the baseline the only
duties applied to postal shipments are based on the Section 122 duties
established by Proclamation 11012. Under the new postal informal entry
process, HTSUS classifications will be required for postal shipments,
and CBP will use this information to assess all applicable duties, such
as those depending on the product classification and country of origin.
It is the filers who pay the duties in the postal informal entry
process, but these duties can be passed on to other parties to the
transaction such as the importer or the supplier.
Because CBP was not previously requiring the collection the HTSUS
classifications for postal shipments, it is unable to say what the
exact increase in duties on postal shipments would be under the rule.
Therefore, CBP estimates the increase by assuming that the same
effective average duty rate that is applied to ET11 entries will also
apply to postal entries. CBP took a sample of 392,312 ET11 entries from
September to November of 2025 and calculated the total duties, taxes,
and fees \68\ (referred to here collectively as duties), excluding the
IEEPA duties because the IEEPA duties applied to both postal and ET11
entries (and others).\69\ Dividing those non-IEEPA duties ($13,847,415)
by the total value of the goods in the sample ($160,675,653) yields
8.62%, the effective average rate of those non-IEEPA duties. From
September to November of 2025, $914,623,378 of postal shipments arrived
in the United States. At that rate, CBP calculates that $3,668,544,318
of postal shipments would arrive in the United States over one
year.\70\ Applying the non-IEEPA duties rate of 8.62% to this total,
CBP estimates that annual duties from postal shipments would increase
by $316,163,988 under the rule. CBP assumes that -11.63%, the CAGR of
postal entries over 2021-2024, is the rate at which annual postal
duties would change over the regulatory period. Applying -11.63% growth
to the annual duties of $316,163,988, CBP projects the additional
postal duties under the rule during the regulatory period, shown in
Table 5. CBP reduces the projected amount in the first and last year by
half because the rule takes effect midway through the year and the
period of analysis is 10 years, extending to mid-2036. To the extent
that postal shipment volumes will be affected by the higher duties or
that the composition of postal shipments differs from that of ET11
entries, the true increase in duties will differ from our estimate. CBP
also notes that in this analysis it did not quantify any additional
tariffs that might be imposed in the future, because CBP did not have
enough specific information about the rates and applicability of future
tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The ET 11 entry fees included merchandise processing fees.
However, postal entries are exempt from merchandise processing fees,
pursuant to 19 CFR 24.23(c)(1)(v).
\69\ Source: data obtained from CBP's ACE database on December
15, 2025. Similarly, under E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, the
applicable duty rate for goods shipped via the international postal
network is ``equal to the rate provided in Proclamation 11012 of
February 20, 2026,'' which imposed additional duties under Section
122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2132) (Section 122). Hence,
the Section 122 duties are applicable to postal and non-postal
shipments in the same manner as the formerly applicable IEEPA
duties.
\70\ $3,668,544,318 = $914,623,378 x (365/91 days).
Table 5--Projected Increase in Annual Duties From Postal Shipments Under
Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Revenue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026................................................. $139,692,528
2027................................................. 246,884,568
2028................................................. 218,164,818
2029................................................. 192,785,998
2030................................................. 170,359,462
2031................................................. 150,541,775
2032................................................. 133,029,453
2033................................................. 117,554,315
2034................................................. 103,879,380
2035................................................. 91,795,231
2036................................................. 40,558,408
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides the transfers to the U.S. government through increased
duties, taxes, and fees, the rule may also result in transfers to
brokers. The rule requires that parties submitting IMDWs to CBP be the
owner, purchaser, or duly appointed licensed customs brokers. As a
result, clients that have been using non-broker qualified parties to
submit IMDWs will switch to using brokers, except for clients whose
non-broker qualified party becomes a licensed customs broker so that it
can continue submitting the IMDW under the rule.
Net Impact
The rule updates the postal informal entry process so that postal
shipments are subject to all applicable duties. To make this change,
CBP will require filers to include the product classification and
relevant duty rate on the IMDW. Furthermore, goods subject to trade
enforcement and trade remedy actions or PGA data requirements will need
to make entry some other way than through the new postal informal entry
process. The rule will therefore strengthen CBP's trade enforcement
actions and generate revenue from increased duties on postal shipments.
The projected duty increase is shown in Table 6.
Table 6--Projected Increase in Annual Duties From Postal Shipments Under
Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Revenue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026................................................. $139,692,528
2027................................................. 246,884,568
2028................................................. 218,164,818
2029................................................. 192,785,998
2030................................................. 170,359,462
2031................................................. 150,541,775
2032................................................. 133,029,453
2033................................................. 117,554,315
2034................................................. 103,879,380
2035................................................. 91,795,231
2036................................................. 40,558,408
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37819]]
These changes to the entry process will also result in costs.
Filers will face a larger time burden when submitting the IMDW. Some
importers will have to switch to importing through an entry type other
than the new postal informal entry process, and some importers and FPOs
will need to find a broker if their previous qualified party was not a
licensed customs broker. Difficulties during the transition to the new
postal informal entry process may cause temporary hiatuses of postal
shipments. Finally, the higher duties on postal shipments, along with
the higher costs of complying with the entry process, will result in
deadweight loss as some importers decide to import less. Due to data
limitations, CBP was only able to quantify the cost of the increased
time burden of the IMDW. CBP does not anticipate any cost savings from
the rule and has analyzed but not quantified the benefits of stricter
enforcement of trade enforcement actions.
Table 7 shows the quantified estimates of the costs and net impact
under the rule. Table 8 shows the discounted net impact during the
regulatory period of mid-2026 to mid-2036. The increase in duties under
the rule is not included in these calculations because the revenue is a
transfer of value from one party (duty payers) to another (the U.S.
government) that will not have a direct net effect on society as a
whole. The annualized net impact of the rule is estimated to be a net
cost of $172,980 per year under a discount rate of 3% or $169,794 under
a discount rate of 7%. Other potential impacts discussed in this
analysis, including potential increases in broker fees, additional
importer compliance burdens for shipments that must use other entry
types, possible short-term postal shipment hiatuses, and deadweight
loss from reduced imports, are qualitatively described but not
quantified, and therefore are not reflected in the quantified net
impact estimates of the rule.
Table 7--Quantified Net Impact of Rule
[2025 USD]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Costs Net impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026.............................. $87,768 -$87,768
2027.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2028.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2029.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2030.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2031.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2032.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2033.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2034.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2035.............................. 175,536 -175,536
2036.............................. 87,768 -87,768
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Discounted Net Impact of Rule
[2025 USD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent discount rate 7 percent discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value....................................... -$1,475,552 -$1,192,563
Annualized Value.................................... -172,980 -169,794
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed
rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a
general notice of proposed rulemaking was not necessary for this rule,
CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this rule.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), CBP may not
conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless the collection of information displays a valid
control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The collection of information contained in this IFR was submitted to
OMB for emergency review and authorization under Section 3507(j) of the
PRA.
In accordance with Sec. 3507(j)(1)(A) and (B), CBP determined that
the collection of information described in this IFR is needed prior to
the expiration of the time periods established under the PRA and is
essential to the mission of CBP. Delaying the implementation of this
IFR for purposes of providing public notice and comment in accordance
with the PRA would be reasonably likely to cause public harm. As noted
above in section IV.A, CBP also determined that delaying the
publication of this IFR for the purposes of providing notice and
comment in general would be impracticable, and contrary to the public
interest. It would create a significant threat of serious damage to
important public interests. Additionally, in accordance with Sec.
3507(j)(1)(B), CBP determined that it cannot reasonably comply with the
provisions of the PRA because public harm is reasonably likely to
result if normal clearance procedures are followed.
As discussed in Section IV.B of the preamble to this rule, in
recent years there has been a dangerous increase in the volume of low-
value packages. This has led to an unacceptable rate of attempted
unlawful importations using the de minimis processes and has resulted
in significant uncollected duties. As such, CBP is making numerous
changes to the requirements for informal entries, including changes to
a previously approved information collection. For the reasons stated
above,
[[Page 37820]]
CBP has determined that it is necessary to request, under Sec.
3507(j), an emergency authorization for the collection of information
discussed in this IFR.
CBP is simultaneously inviting the general public and other Federal
agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information
collections, pursuant to Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A). This process is conducted
in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from
the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the
following four points: (1) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted
will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All
comments will become a matter of public record. Such comments can be
submitted in the regulatory docket for this IFR or by email to
[email protected].
Among other things, this IFR will require new data elements on the
existing International Mail Duty Worksheet (OMB Control Number 1651-
0147).
International Mail Duty Worksheet (1651-0147)
Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 1,200.
Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,200.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531-38, UMRA) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written
statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed
rule or final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule,
which includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100 million or
more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector.
A written statement under UMRA is not required unless an agency has
published a notice of proposed rulemaking. See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). In
addition, an action is exempt from UMRA if it is necessary for national
security. See 2 U.S.C. 1503(5). As discussed elsewhere, this rule is
exempt from notice and comment rulemaking procedures and is necessary
for national security. Accordingly, CBP has not prepared a written
statement in connection with this rule.
F. Congressional Review Act
Before a rule can take effect, 5 U.S.C. 801, the Congressional
Review Act (CRA), requires agencies to submit the rule and a report
indicating whether it is a major rule, to Congress and the Comptroller
General. If a rule is deemed a ``major rule'' by OMB, the CRA generally
provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days
following its publication. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). However, the CRA
provides that if an agency finds good cause that notice and public
procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, the rule shall take effect at such time as the agency
determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB has determined that this IFR meets the criteria for a
``major rule'' in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, as discussed above, CBP
finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 808(2) to issue this rule
notwithstanding the timing requirements for major rules under 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(3). As explained above, delaying the effectiveness of the new
postal informal entry process provided for in this rule beyond 30 days
is impracticable. As explained above, due to the unusual and
extraordinary circumstances in the de minimis mail environment,
delaying the implementation of the regulatory suspension of the de
minimis administrative exception provided for in this rule beyond the
date of publication could result in a gap during the pendency of the
notice-and-comment proceedings, thereby allowing illicit drugs,
violative intellectual property, and other violative goods to enter the
United States. Requiring 60 days for the rule to take effect would pose
a threat to the revenue due to the sheer volume of de minimis mail
shipments that CBP processes on a daily basis without collecting
revenue. Thus, this rule has two effective dates: the regulatory
suspension of the de minimis administrative exception is effective on
the date of publication and all other changes, including the new postal
informal entry process requirements will take effect 30 days after
publication. Until the new postal informal entry process requirements
take effect, importers may use the interim process provided for in
Section 3 of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388.
V. Signing Authority
In accordance with Treasury Order 100-20, the Secretary of the
Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority
related to the customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of the
Treasury as set forth in 6 U.S.C. 212 and 215, subject to certain
exceptions. This regulation is being issued in accordance with DHS
Delegation 07010.3, Revision 03.2, which delegates to the Commissioner
of CBP the authority to prescribe and approve regulations related to
customs revenue functions.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 145
Exports, Lotteries, Postal Service, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons stated above in the preamble, CBP amends 19 CFR
part 145 as set forth below:
PART 145--MAIL IMPORTATIONS
0
1. Effective July 24, 2026, the authority citation for part 145 is
amended by adding a specific authority citation for Sec. 145.15 in
numerical order to read, in part, as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i)), Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States, 1624.
* * * * *
Section 145.15 is also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1623;
* * * * *
0
2. Effective July 24, 2026, amend Sec. 145.12 by revising paragraphs
(a) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 145.12 Entry of merchandise.
(a) Formal entries--(1) Discretionary. CBP may require formal entry
of any mail shipment regardless of value if it is necessary to protect
the revenue.
(2) Required. Formal entry will be required as follows:
(i) Formal entry is required for every mail importation which
exceeds $2,500 in value, except for special classes of merchandise
which can be released without entry (see subpart D of this
[[Page 37821]]
part), and except as provided in subparts B and C of part 143 and Sec.
10.1 of this chapter.
(ii) Formal entry is required for any merchandise of a class or
kind provided for in any absolute or tariff-rate quota, whether the
quota is open or closed. In the case of merchandise of a class or kind
provided for in a tariff-rate quota, the merchandise is subject to the
rate of duty in effect on the date of entry.
(iii) Formal entry is required for merchandise subject to any
antidumping or countervailing duty determination, instruction, or order
issued by the Department of Commerce; or any other merchandise
otherwise precluded by law from eligibility for informal entry.
(iv) Formal entry is required for alcoholic beverages, cigars
(including cheroots and cigarillos) and cigarettes containing tobacco,
cigarette tubes, cigarette papers, smoking tobacco (including water
pipe tobacco, pipe tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco), snuff, or
chewing tobacco.
(v) Formal entry is required for any mail shipment subject to the
requirements of another government agency.
(vi) Formal entry is required for any merchandise subject to duties
under Chapter 98 or Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), or for which duty-free treatment is claimed
under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement.
(3) Separate shipments. Separate shipments not exceeding $2,500 in
value, if mailed abroad at different times (as shown by the declaration
or other mailing indicia), cannot be combined for the purpose of
requiring formal entry, even though they reach CBP at the same time and
are covered by a single order or contract in excess of $2,500, unless
there was a splitting of shipments in order to avoid the payment of
customs duty.
(4) Notice of formal entry requirement. When a formal entry is
required, the addressee will be notified of the arrival of the shipment
and of the method by which entry is to be made. If the shipment is
addressed to a point which is not a CBP port or customs station, the
port of entry specified in the notice will be the port nearest the
destination of the shipment. When a formal entry is filed, it must
contain all the statistical information as provided in Sec. 141.61(e)
of this chapter.
(b) Mail and informal entries--(1) Preparation of entry form.
Except as provided in paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e) of this
section, for each eligible shipment not exceeding $2,500 in value which
is to be delivered by the Postal Service, a party with the right to
make entry under Sec. 143.26(a) of this chapter must transmit the
informal mail entry, as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
and pay the applicable rate of duty as provided for in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(2) Rates of duty and payment. Merchandise released under a mail
informal entry will be dutiable at the rates of duty in effect when the
preparation of the entry is completed. Preparation of the entry is
completed when the entry is properly transmitted to CBP. Payment must
be transmitted via Pay.gov no later than the 7th day of the month
following the arrival of the shipment.
(3) Postal informal entry process. The following data elements are
required to be transmitted to CBP via email no later than the 7th day
of the month following the arrival of the shipment(s):
(i) Filer Code;
(ii) Bond Number;
(iii) Description of Merchandise;
(iv) Country of Origin of Merchandise;
(v) All Applicable 10-digit HTSUS Classification(s);
(vi) Quantity/Weight (conditional and required ONLY if using a
specific duty rate);
(vii) Duty Rate;
(viii) Value;
(ix) Total Duty Owed;
(x) Carrier;
(xi) Flight/Conveyance Number;
(xii) Tracking Number (generated by the foreign post operator);
(xiii) Arrival Port; and
(xiv) Arrival Date.
* * * * *
0
3. Effective July 24, 2026, add Sec. 145.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 145.15 Bonding requirements for informal mail entries.
Each shipment valued at $2,500 or less which is to be delivered by
the United States Postal Service, pursuant to Sec. 145.12(b), will not
be released from CBP custody unless a single transaction or continuous
bond containing or meeting the bond conditions set forth in Sec.
113.62 of this chapter has been transmitted to CBP pursuant to part 113
of this chapter, and has been secured by an approved corporate surety,
or cash deposits as provided for in Sec. 113.40 of this chapter.
0
4. Effective June 24, 2026, revise Sec. 145.31 to read as follows:
Sec. 145.31 Importations not over $800 in value.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the port
director will pass free of duty and tax, without preparing an entry as
provided for in Sec. 145.12, packages containing merchandise having an
aggregate fair retail value in the country of shipment of not over
$800, subject to the requirements set forth in Sec. Sec. 10.151 and
10.153 of this chapter.
(b) The exemption provided in paragraph (a) of this section is
suspended for merchandise arriving through the international postal
network until such time as CBP determines that the application of the
exemption is no longer inconsistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C.
1321(a), no longer jeopardizes the revenue, and no longer facilitates
unlawful importations. Notice of a modification or revocation of this
suspension will be announced by the Commissioner in the Federal
Register.
Rodney S. Scott,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2026-12669 Filed 6-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P