[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37789-37801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-12670]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Part 10
[USCBP-2026-0760; CBP Dec. 26-12]
RIN 1685-AA44
Indefinite Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption for Merchandise
Arriving Through All Modes Other Than the International Postal Network
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 via all modes other than through the international postal
network. This indefinite suspension means that all entries of
merchandise valued at $800 or less arriving through all modes other
than the international postal network must utilize formal or informal
entry procedures.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective on June 24, 2026. 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-2026-0760.
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
1. Suspension of the De Minimis Administrative Exemption for
Merchandise Arriving by All Modes Other Than Through the
International Postal Network
2. 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
[[Page 37790]]
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
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), 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the policy objectives encapsulated by these
Executive Orders, and independently pursuant to CBP's own statutory
authorities, 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 any mode other than 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). Although this rulemaking is implementing an indefinite
suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for merchandise
valued at $800 or less arriving by all modes other than through the
international postal network, CBP is also publishing a concurrent
rulemaking announcing, inter alia, an indefinite suspension of the de
minimis administrative exemption for merchandise valued at $800 or less
arriving through the international postal network.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 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).
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,\6\ ``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.'' \7\ Though Congress has several times amended
Section 321, including to adjust the statute's dollar amounts, the
purpose of Section 321 has remained the same.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
\7\ 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.
\8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37791]]
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.
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.\9\ 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.\10\ 19 U.S.C. 1498(b). Informal entry regulations are
generally found in 19 CFR part 143, subpart C. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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.
\10\ 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 imported shipments arriving
through the international postal network, including informal entries
valued at $2,500 or less, 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 through the international postal network and imposing new
requirements for filings in the mail environment.
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.'' \11\ 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.'' \12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Customs Administrative Act of 1938, Public Law 75-721, 52
Stat. 1077, 1081 (1938).
\12\ 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.
\13\ 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 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.\14\
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.\15\ 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.\16\ 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
[[Page 37792]]
exemption.\17\ Otherwise, CBP has not made any significant changes to
the regulatory requirements since 1995. In those intervening three
decades, however, there have been significant changes in the trade
environment relating to the de minimis exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ T.D. 94-71 (59 FR 43283 (Aug. 23, 1994))
\15\ T.D. 95-31 (60 FR 18983 (Apr. 14, 1995)).
\16\ 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.
\17\ 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). 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 the de minimis suspension for all
merchandise arriving via all modes other than through the international
postal network in its regulations pursuant to the authority provided
for in 19 U.S.C. 1321.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ As noted elsewhere, CBP is also publishing a concurrent
rulemaking regarding the suspension of the de minimis exemption for
merchandise arriving via the international postal network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these shipments of merchandise valued at $800 or less 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, these shipments will need
to use an appropriate entry type, such as the existing informal entry
procedures for merchandise valued at $2,500 or less.
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 the de minimis
suspension for merchandise arriving via all modes other than 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 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 \19\ 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. 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 processed by CBP in 2015.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 84 FR 40079 (Aug. 13, 2019), suspended by 90 FR 42418
(Sept. 2, 2025).
\20\ 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. With certain
exceptions, shipments claiming the de minimis exemption could
previously be entered by presenting a bill of lading or a manifest
listing each bill of lading.\21\ This entry process is termed the
``release from manifest'' process, and it generally permits shipments
to be released from CBP custody based on the information provided on
the manifest or bill of lading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 19 CFR 143.23(j)(3), (k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The release from manifest process is a slow and labor-intensive
process to administer, ill-suited to the increase in the volume of
merchandise claiming the exemption authorized by 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(C). A CBP officer must review each entry and make a
determination regarding release. While this process may have been
manageable historically, the sheer volume of increasing imports and the
breadth of the hazards and revenue risks posed in today's e-commerce
environment strain the resources available for enforcement at ports of
entry, making the continued use of this process untenable for the long-
term.
With the release from manifest process, the burden on CBP to make
timely withhold or release decisions regarding the merchandise
increases when using the limited data from the manifest or bill of
lading. The data submitted as part of a standard manifest or bill of
lading, documents not specifically designed for entry purposes alone,
are generally insufficient or too vague for CBP to effectively target
merchandise, make admissibility decisions in a timely manner, and
ensure that the merchandise is not subject to any partner government
[[Page 37793]]
agency (PGA) requirements.\22\ For example, the data provided on a
manifest or bill of lading often does not adequately identify the
entity causing the shipment to cross the border, the final recipient,
or even the contents of the package. With the dramatic increase in
shipments that only provide minimal data, CBP has been left with fewer
data points about a greater number of shipments. Further, many of these
shipments using the release from manifest process were likely
undervalued or incorrectly presented for release from manifest and thus
should not have qualified for the de minimis exemption.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Shipments that have PGA data reporting requirements, or
require the payment of any duties, fees, or taxes [could] not
benefit from the use of . . . the `release from manifest' process,
and [were required to] be entered using [an] appropriate informal or
formal entry process.'' 89 FR 2632 (Jan. 16, 2024). The Entry Type
86 Test authorized shipments subject to PGA data requirements to
claim the de minimis exemption if entered through the test.
\23\ Source: CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO) subject matter
experts provided summary information from the FY24 E-Commerce
Compliance Measurement analysis which included violation statistics
from release from manifest and type 86 entries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, shipments released under a type 86 entry, i.e., the
voluntary electronic entry type CBP established in 2019 for qualifying
low-value shipments, still required labor-intensive processing of
additional data for purposes of validating entry information and
conducting targeting and seizures of illicit merchandise, such as
firearms, counterfeit merchandise, prohibited items, illicit fentanyl,
and other illicit drugs. Similarly, CBP has also determined that goods
entered through the Entry Type 86 Test were often undervalued,
misclassified, or failed to comply with applicable PGA
requirements.\24\ Despite the additional data provided to CBP and PGAs
as part of the Entry Type 86 process for qualifying shipments, the
unabated volume in shipments continued to pose significant challenges
in conducting effective targeting and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ OFO subject matter experts estimate that 34.8 million
violations occurred in type 86 entries in FY 2024. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an attempt to account for these issues, CBP modified the Entry
Type 86 Test in 2024 to require submission of entry data at any time
prior to, or upon, arrival of the cargo, to facilitate targeting and
enforcement efforts, instead of allowing it to be submitted up to 15
days after arrival, as the original 2019 test notice permitted.\25\
This modification was intended to provide CBP with sufficient data upon
importation to determine admissibility and compliance with applicable
legal requirements. Following the issuance of E.O. 14324, type 86
entries could no longer be used, and entry filers were required to use
an alternate entry type for shipments valued at $800 or less.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 89 FR 2630 (Jan. 16, 2024).
\26\ See 90 FR 42418, 42420 (Sept. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, there has been no reduction in the overwhelming volume
of low-value shipments entering the United States. As noted above,
CBP's regulations require limited data on de minimis shipments for CBP
to assess their admissibility and determine whether duties are owed,
which impedes CBP's ability to ensure compliance with applicable U.S.
laws and regulations, and to protect the revenue. Moreover, the rise of
novel and intricate e-commerce business models utilizing the de minimis
exemption have complicated and added to the traditional array of
parties involved in an import transaction. New or infrequent importers,
by definition, possess less familiarity with U.S. customs laws and
regulations, which can lead to the attempted importation of non-
compliant goods or misclassified or undervalued merchandise, requiring
additional effort on CBP's part to educate and ameliorate stakeholders
in addition to the costs to intercept, process and dispose of non-
compliant goods.
2. Attempted Unlawful Importations
There is an apparent perception amongst transnational criminal
organizations and other bad actors that low-value shipments 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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 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
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. Indeed, as
discussed above, CBP determined that many goods entered through the
Entry Type 86 Test were undervalued, misclassified, or failed to comply
with applicable PGA requirements. Despite the additional data provided
to CBP and PGAs as part of the Entry Type 86 process for qualifying
shipments, the unabated volume in shipments continued to pose
significant challenges in conducting effective targeting and
enforcement.
Moreover, the fact that many consumers ordering goods online 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 volume of shipments, and the significant burdens
that de minimis merchandise imposes on CBP relating to targeting and
processing, allowing for the de minimis exemption to remain in place
for merchandise arriving via all methods other than through the
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 by E.O. 14324.
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
[[Page 37794]]
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 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 and
automated 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
have thereby significantly reduced the burden on CBP personnel
pertaining to general duty collection and enforcement.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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 that the government has 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.\29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the challenges addressed above, CBP is 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 via all modes other than through the international postal
network. By requiring the use of the existing formal and informal entry
processes, CBP will receive additional data on the merchandise entering
the United States and will be in a better position to enforce U.S.
customs and trade laws.
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 Section 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,\30\ and further experience
with the Entry Type 86 Test, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 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 shipments claiming the de minimis exemption, 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 issues CBP faces in the de minimis environment. Those
proposed approaches, separately or together, do not as effectively
remove the unlawful-importation concern for all low-value imports that
could qualify for the de minimis exemption, does not adequately address
administrative expense or revenue concerns, and raises significant
circumvention and evasion concerns. Indeed, 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, 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 by all modes other than 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 for merchandise arriving via all modes
other than 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 proposed rule discussed above.\31\ But unlawful
importation
[[Page 37795]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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. 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 as this rule
protect the revenue or prevent unlawful importations as this rule.
Moreover, additional entry requirements without the suspension of
the de minimis exemption do not as effectively prevent unlawful
importation. The additional expense from importation through the
collection of duties and fees otherwise not collected under the de
minimis exemption will disincentivize importation of unlawful goods
through ordinary international commerce as opposed to other avenues
where there are other effective safeguards to police unlawful
importation, allowing more effective combatting of unlawful
importations. In CBP's judgment, this rule is more reasonable than and
preferable to this alternative approach.
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 or
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 Exemption
1. Suspension of the De Minimis Administrative Exemption for
Merchandise Arriving by All Modes Other Than 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) for
merchandise arriving by all modes other than through the international
postal network.\32\ Accordingly, this rule amends 19 CFR 10.151 to
indefinitely suspend the de minimis exemption at 19 U.S.C.
1321(a)(2)(C) for merchandise arriving by all modes other than through
the international postal network. Any subsequent modification or
revocation of this suspension will be announced in the Federal
Register. Therefore, another appropriate entry type must be filed for
merchandise that would have previously qualified for the de minimis
exemption prior to its suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 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.
2. 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 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 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
[[Page 37796]]
eliminating the de minimis exemption. Indeed, CBP has determined at
this time that any of the above reasons--separately, cumulatively, or
in any combination--outweigh any reliance interests created by a prior
policy allowing the de minimis exemption for low-value imports and any
benefits from a prior policy allowing the de minimis exemption for low-
value imports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\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
CBP is amending 19 CFR 10.151, in accordance with the requirements
discussed above. Along with other conforming amendments in Sec.
10.151(a), CBP is adding a new paragraph (b), stating that the de
minimis exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is indefinitely
suspended for merchandise arriving via all modes other than through the
international postal network. CBP is also adding a cross-reference to
19 CFR 145.31, which addresses the availability of the exemption for
merchandise arriving through the international postal network.
CBP's determinations in this interim final rule are intended to
apply across all persons and circumstances covered by the rule, for the
reasons described in this preamble. CBP would have adopted this interim
final rule even if it applied only to a subset of those persons or
circumstances. Accordingly, if the application of this interim final
rule to any particular person, category of persons, or specific
circumstances is held unlawful or unenforceable, CBP intends that the
rule continue to apply to other persons and circumstances to the
maximum extent permitted by law. For example, if the rule were limited
or set aside as applied to a particular mode of transportation or
operational environment for whatever reason, CBP would intend that it
continue to apply to other modes and environments.
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. But there are
exceptions. As relevant here, the requirements of the APA, including
advance notice and comment, do not apply to the extent that a
rulemaking involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. 5
U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Further, the APA provides an exception to advance
notice and comment ``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).
In CBP's judgment, advance notice and comment is not required here
for two independent reasons. First, this rule involves a foreign
affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Second, CBP
finds that there is good cause to except this rule from advance notice
and comment because advance notice and public comment here is
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Foreign Affairs Function
This rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States,
so notice and comment is not required. Proceeding before notice and
comment will prevent definitely undesirable international
consequences.\36\ It will allow the 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.
In addition, proceeding before notice and comment may prevent the
flooding
[[Page 37797]]
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.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 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 the foreign
affairs function exception applies here.\41\ In E.O. 14324, 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.'' To
address these threats, E.O. 14324 suspended the de minimis exemption,
and, among other things, mandated certain filing requirements for
shipments that qualified for the de minimis exemption prior to the
effective date of the order (requiring entry using an appropriate
electronic entry type in ACE by a party qualified to make such entry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 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).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This interim final rule addresses those same foreign threats,
consistent with the President's direction and foreign-policy
priorities. Specifically, as discussed above, this interim final rule
implements a regulatory suspension of the de minimis exemption for
merchandise arriving via all modes other than through the international
postal network under CBP's own statutory authority to address those
foreign threats discussed in E.O. 14324 and related Executive Orders.
Therefore, this interim final rule involves foreign affairs functions
of the United States.
Good Cause
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.\42\ 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.\43\ In CBP's judgment
and based on CBP's experience, the urgency here is one that does not
always exist in the trade context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 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).
\43\ See, e.g., Tom C. Clark, Attorney General's Manual on the
Administrative Procedure Act, at 30-31 (1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Indeed, 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 in the
de minimis environment, this interim final rule suspends the
availability of the de minimis exemption for merchandise arriving via
all modes other than through the international postal network, thus
requiring the use of another method of entry that will provide CBP with
more accurate and relevant data and aid in targeting, processing,
protecting the revenue of the United States, and most importantly,
protecting the health and safety of the public.
Given the critical public health and safety implications of
continued shipments of illegal opioids into the United States, in
particular in the de minimis environment, to delay the implementation
of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this rulemaking, CBP is addressing various issues threatening
public safety and posing risks to revenue in the de minimis
environment, while directing lawful importers to other suitable
processes of entry. This in turn allows CBP to more effectively
interdict illicit drugs, goods that violate intellectual property
rights, contraband, and misclassified merchandise, and to protect the
revenue. 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.
As discussed above, the threat to the revenue posed by the sheer volume
of shipments utilizing 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 to process shipments on CBP
continued to grow. Moreover, by suspending the availability of the de
minimis exemption and requiring the use of another suitable method of
entry, CBP is better able to accurately collect all duties owed without
posing a significant burden on CBP personnel due to the technological
advances pertaining to duty collection and targeting, enforcement, and
processing. Accordingly, it would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest to further delay these requirements, which are meant to
protect the American public from dangerous and illegal goods entering
[[Page 37798]]
from abroad, and to protect the revenue of the United States.
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. CBP published
this rulemaking with a request for comments to allow the public to
weigh in on the regulatory changes. CBP will consider all timely
submitted comments in determining whether and, if so, how to revise the
rule in a subsequent final rulemaking. 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.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule
a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, although not economically significant under section
3(f)(1). 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 estimates that this rule would result in no new costs,
benefits, or transfers compared to the baseline where the de minimis
exemption has already been suspended by Executive Order 14324.
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.'' \45\ 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 cover the cost of collecting the duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 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.\46\ Such
shipments were not subject to the same formal customs entry procedures
and data requirements as higher-value shipments entering the United
States.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 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).
\47\ See 60 FR 18983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, TFTEA increased the administrative exemption from $200 to
$800.\48\ 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.\49\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 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.
\49\ 81 FR 58831 (Aug. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 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 establishment of the Entry Type 86 \50\ Test in which CBP
authorized a voluntary 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. The dramatic increase in
the volume of de minimis shipments 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.\51\ Today,
the crushing volume of these shipments imposes a significant and costly
burden on CBP relating to targeting and processing the shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 84 FR 40079 (Aug. 13, 2019); suspended by 90 FR 42418
(Sept. 2, 2025).
\51\ Source: CBP's Automated Targeting System (ATS) Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To facilitate the flow of legitimate trade while also mitigating
risks associated with the substantial increase in the number of low-
value shipments, in September 2019, CBP launched a test program, called
the ``Entry Type 86 Test.'' \52\ The test program was voluntary and
open to all trade participants, and it modernized the submission of
entry data, including additional data required under the test, for
these de minimis shipments by providing for an electronic entry and
clearance process. This process resulted in faster clearance times for
these shipments and reduced the amount of manual time that must be
spent by CBP officers clearing goods that were considered low risk
based on the data CBP received, as compared to the ``release from
manifest'' process, discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 84 FR 40079 (Aug. 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, Section
70531(b), 139 Stat. 72, 283 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 30, 2025, the President signed Executive Order 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37799]]
On February 20, 2026, the President signed Executive Order 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), and
confirmed that CBP should continue to collect applicable duties, taxes,
fees, exactions, and charges on such shipments.
On February 20, 2026, the President signed Executive Order 14389
(Ending Certain Tariff Actions), which ended certain ad valorem duties
that were imposed under IEEPA and implemented under certain Executive
Orders (including the Executive Orders listed in previous paragraphs)
while leaving in place the underlying national emergency declarations
and other measures adopted under those orders.
Under current regulations, shipments claiming the de minimis
exemption generally require minimal data for entry purposes. With
certain exceptions, shipments claiming the de minimis exemption may be
entered by presenting a bill of lading, or a manifest listing each bill
of lading. This entry process is termed the ``release from manifest''
process, and it generally permits shipments to be released from CBP
custody based on the information provided on the manifest or bill of
lading.
The release from manifest process is a slow and labor-intensive
process, ill-suited to the recent increase in volume of merchandise
claiming the exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C). A CBP officer
must review each entry and provide a determination regarding release.
While this process may have been sustainable before 2016, the sheer
volume of imports and the breadth of security and revenue risks posed
in today's e-commerce environment strain the resources available for
enforcement at ports of entry, making the process untenable. Moreover,
the data currently provided on the standard manifest is insufficient
for CBP to effectively target and inspect merchandise and provide
admissibility decisions in a timely manner, and to identify whether the
merchandise is subject to any PGA requirements.\55\ The data often does
not adequately identify the entity causing the shipment to cross the
border, the final recipient, or the contents of the package. With the
dramatic increase in shipments that only provide minimal data, CBP is
left with little information with which to determine admissibility for
an increasing number of shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Shipments that are subject to PGA data requirements are not
eligible for the release from manifest process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some shipments that were ineligible for the release from manifest
process due to PGA requirements were instead eligible for the voluntary
Entry Type 86 Test. However, despite some benefits, goods entered
through the Entry Type 86 Test were often found to be undervalued or
misclassified and frequently failed to comply with applicable PGA
requirements. Despite the additional data provided to CBP and PGAs as
part of the electronic Entry Type 86 process for qualifying shipments,
the volume of shipments, coupled with the inaccuracy of data provided,
imposed significant challenges in conducting effective targeting and
enforcement. Shipments released under a type 86 entry still required
labor-intensive processing of data for purposes of validating entry
information and conducting seizures of illicit merchandise such as
firearms, prohibited items, illicit fentanyl, and other illicit drugs.
CBP modified the test in 2024 to require submission of entry data at
any time prior to or upon arrival of the cargo, to assist with
targeting and enforcement efforts. This modification enabled CBP to
better interdict shipments of illicit merchandise, but data sufficiency
challenges persisted.
Purpose of Rule
CBP had been overwhelmed by the number of de minimis 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 Executive Order 14324, the
administrative exemption was suspended for most importations in 2025.
This rule aims to align the regulations with current policy that
includes the suspension of the administrative exemption for non-postal
shipments. CBP is amending its regulations under its own authorities to
suspend the use of the Section 321(a)(2)(C) administrative exemption
for non-postal shipments and is promulgating a separate rule that
suspends the use of the administrative exemption for postal shipments.
As a result, the ``release from manifest'' process will no longer be
available for formerly de minimis shipments pursuant to Section
321(a)(2)(C).
Suspension of the De Minimis Exemption
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. Executive Order 14324 suspended use of
the administrative exemption for most importations in 2025, and
Executive Order 14388 continued the suspension of the administrative
exemption. To align the regulations with current policy that includes
the suspension of the administrative exemption for non-postal
shipments, CBP is amending its regulations under its own authorities to
suspend the use of the Section 321(a)(2)(C) administrative exemption
for non-postal shipments and is promulgating a separate rule that
suspends the use of the administrative exemption for postal shipments.
As a result, the ``release from manifest'' process will no longer be
available for formerly de minimis shipments pursuant to Section
321(a)(2)(C). CBP has also suspended the Entry Type 86 Test.\56\ This
leaves Entry Type 11 as the main appropriate informal entry method for
these shipments, although formal entry remains an option. With the
suspension of de minimis, importers will need to provide additional
data for these shipments compared to the old de minimis processes. The
data elements that are required for an Entry Type 11 provide much more
information to CBP than under the ``release from manifest''
[[Page 37800]]
process for de minimis and better aid CBP's efforts to protect the
revenue of the U.S. Government and ensure the safety of American
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 90 FR 42418 (Sept. 2, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While CBP is exercising its own authority to suspend de minimis,
Executive Order 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; 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 to
belong to the Executive Order (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 that would have otherwise belonged to the Executive Order
between the date of change in the Executive Order 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.
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 (Pub. L.
104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507), an agency 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
OMB. This rule does not create or change any collection of information.
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 in this
document, 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 does not meet the criteria
for a ``major rule'' in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) as this rule merely implements
the status quo in the regulations, without any associated costs.
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 10
Bonds, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Trade agreements.
For the reasons stated above in the preamble, CBP amends 19 CFR
part 10 as set forth below:
PART 10--ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY FREE, SUBJECT TO A REDUCED RATE,
ETC.
0
1. The general authority citation for part 10 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484,
1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 4513.
* * * * *
0
2. Revise Sec. 10.151 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.151 Importations not over $800.
(a) Subject to the conditions in Sec. 10.153, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the port director shall
pass free of duty and tax any shipment of merchandise, as defined in
Sec. 101.1 of this chapter, imported by one person on one day having a
fair retail value, as evidenced by an oral declaration or the bill of
lading (or other document filed as the entry) or manifest listing each
bill of lading, in the country of shipment not exceeding $800, unless
he has reason to believe that the shipment is one of several lots
covered by a single order or contract and that it was sent separately
for the express purpose of securing free entry therefor or of avoiding
compliance with any pertinent law or regulation. Merchandise subject to
this exemption shall be entered under the informal entry procedures
(see subpart C, part 143, and Sec. Sec. 128.24, 145.31, 148.12, and
148.62 of this chapter).
(b) The exemption provided in paragraph (a) of this section is
suspended for merchandise arriving via all modes other than 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. For provisions regarding the availability of the
exemption provided in paragraph (a) for merchandise arriving through
the
[[Page 37801]]
international postal network, see Sec. 145.31 of this chapter.
Rodney S. Scott,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2026-12670 Filed 6-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P