Proposed Rule2026-17926
Heightened Import Disclosures for Supply Chain Visibility
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 2, 2026
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentU.S. Customs and Border Protection
Abstract
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is considering amending its regulations to give CBP greater visibility into the supply chains of goods imported into the United States. CBP is seeking comments on new requirements enhancing visibility into the parties involved in the importation of goods; integrating innovative technical solutions for the tracing of supply chains of those goods; and collecting foreign export documentation that foreign exporters are required to submit to the foreign customs authority prior to the exportation of those goods to the United States. With these proposals, CBP seeks to more effectively detect and interdict illicit importations, especially those that are illegally transshipped to evade compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 169 (Wednesday, September 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 2, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56408-56414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17926]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
19 CFR Parts 141, 142, 143 and 163
[Docket No. USCBP-2026-1058]
RIN 1685-AA47
Heightened Import Disclosures for Supply Chain Visibility
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is considering
amending its regulations to give CBP greater visibility into the supply
chains of goods imported into the United States. CBP is seeking
comments on new requirements enhancing visibility into the parties
involved in the importation of goods; integrating innovative technical
solutions for the tracing of supply chains of those goods; and
collecting foreign export documentation that foreign exporters are
required to submit to the foreign customs authority prior to the
exportation of those goods to the United States. With these proposals,
CBP seeks to more effectively detect and interdict illicit
importations, especially those that are illegally transshipped to evade
compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 1, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number,
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number
USCBP-2026-1058.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be
posted without change to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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.
[[Page 56409]]
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and
submitted comments, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding the
identification of parties involved with imported goods and the
collection of foreign export documentation, contact Brandon Lord,
Executive Director, Trade Programs, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and Salvatore Ingrassia, Acting Executive Director,
Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection at (202) 325-4369 or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5a6a0a5a5b9acb6bdb4bcbba3bca6bcb7bcb9bca1ac95b6b7a5fbb1bda6fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="70030500001c09131811191e0619031912191c190409301312005e1418035e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to participate in this potential
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all
aspects of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). See
ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments. The most
useful comments would be those that address the specific questions
outlined in sections III and IV below.
II. Background
On June 3, 2026, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14411
entitled ``Strengthening Customs Enforcement.'' \1\ Section 1 of the
E.O. emphasizes the importance of customs enforcement for purposes of
national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the United
States. The E.O. further underscores that effective customs enforcement
prevents the importation of unlawful and dangerous goods, ensures
importers of record (IORs) are correctly identified and accountable for
duties owed, and guarantees compliance by various parties involved in
the importation of goods with numerous Federal laws, including laws
governing forced labor, rules of origin, origin marking, intellectual
property, revenue collection, and product safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 91 FR 35125 (June 10, 2026). A Fact Sheet accompanying the
Executive Order, issued the same day, emphasizes the goal of
comprehensive customs reform through various actions to be taken by
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP to strengthen the
enforcement of U.S. customs laws and promote economic strength and
national security by combatting customs fraud. Seehttps://
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/06/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-strengthens-customs-enforcement/">www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/06/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-strengthens-customs-enforcement/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The E.O. calls for customs reform to remedy systemic
inefficiencies, loopholes, insufficient enforcement mechanisms, and
outdated processes that have created opportunities for malign actors to
evade Federal law. Section 3 of the E.O. directs the establishment of
heightened import disclosure requirements. In particular, Section 3(a)
of the E.O. instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to
take steps to require the disclosure of certain foreign tax and global
business identifiers, and detailed information about the supply chain
and production methods of goods imported into the United States.
Moreover, Section 3(b) of the E.O. directs the Secretary to take steps
to mandate the submission of ``any documentation or information that
the foreign exporter was required to submit to the foreign customs
administration prior to exporting to the United States.'' The E.O. also
directs CBP to leverage the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
(CTPAT) program in a variety of ways to strengthen customs enforcement.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) component responsible for enforcing compliance
with U.S. customs and trade laws. Customs enforcement is essential to
the national security of the United States. Ensuring compliance with
U.S. customs and trade laws protects Americans from dangerous products
and reinforces the strength of the American economy. In addition to
more specific statutory authority described below, related to, among
other things, entry, manifest, and recordkeeping, the Secretary,\2\
through the Commissioner of CBP has the broad authority under 19 U.S.C.
1624 to ``make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the provisions of [the Tariff Act of 1930].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe
rules and regulations for the filing or transmission of the entry
documentation. See 19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(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. L. 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 [Pub. L. 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 Treasury 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
<a href="https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-and-directives/treasury-order-100-20">https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/orders-and-directives/treasury-order-100-20</a>), delegating the authorities
contained in 6 U.S.C. 212 and 215 to the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Entry of Merchandise
All merchandise imported into the customs territory of the United
States is subject to entry and clearance procedures, unless excepted.
19 CFR 141.4. 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,
including health and safety requirements imposed by other government
agencies. Different types of entry procedures are used for the entry
and clearance of merchandise depending upon its value and other
relevant criteria.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1484 and 1485, CBP has broad authority to
require documentation and information necessary to determine whether
the merchandise can be released from CBP custody, assess duties,
collect accurate statistics, and determine whether any other applicable
requirement of law has been met. 19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(1). Further, under
19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(A), CBP has authority to prescribe by regulation
the time period and manner for filing such documentation and
information. 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. 19 U.S.C. 1498(b). Generally, informal entry procedures are
less burdensome and complex than formal entry procedures. CBP has
established entry procedures in 19 CFR parts 141, 142, and 143. In
particular, 19 CFR 141.5 requires that entry be filed within 15
calendar days after landing from a vessel, aircraft or vehicle, or
after arrival at the port of destination in the case of merchandise
transported in bond.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Participants in the Entry Type 86 test, previously available
for filers claiming the de minimis exemption, were required to file
prior to or upon arrival of the cargo into the United States. See 89
FR 2630 (Jan. 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Import Manifest Information
In addition to these entry requirements imposed on the importer of
merchandise, under 19 U.S.C. 1431, CBP has imposed requirements on
carriers of merchandise. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1431(b), carriers are
required to submit a manifest to CBP that contains information
concerning cargo they are transporting to the United States. Under 19
U.S.C. 1431(d), among other things,
[[Page 56410]]
CBP is authorized to specify by regulation the form for, and the
information and data required in, a manifest.
C. Recordkeeping and Audit Procedures
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1508, all parties who file an entry or
declaration, transport or store merchandise carried or held under bond,
file drawback claims, or knowingly cause an importation, or
transportation or storage of merchandise carried or held under bond are
subject to customs recordkeeping requirements.\4\ Pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1509, CBP is authorized to examine and summons records, including by
conducting an audit, for the following purposes: ascertaining the
correctness of any entry; determining the liability of any person for
duty, fees, or taxes due, or which may be due the United States;
determining liability for fines and penalties; or ensuring compliance
with the laws of the United States administered by CBP. Under section
1509(b), specific procedures are set forth for conducting a formal
audit authorized under the statute. The CBP regulations regarding
recordkeeping requirements and audits are found in 19 CFR part 163,
including the (a)(1)(A) list of records required to be maintained for
CBP inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Customs Modernization Act (``Mod Act''), Title VI of
Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170 (1993) enshrined the
concepts of informed compliance and shared responsibility into the
Tariff Act of 1930. The Mod Act amended various provisions of the
customs laws to grant to the then-Customs Service (CBP's
predecessor) the authority not to require the presentation of
certain documentation or information at time of entry; in exchange,
and in order to not jeopardize the ability of Customs to obtain
those records at a later date, the Mod Act amended 19 U.S.C. 1509 to
authorize Customs to examine, or to require the production of, among
other things, any records which are required by law for the entry of
merchandise, whether or not Customs required their presentation at
the time of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) Program
The Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006
(Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, 1909 (2006), 6 U.S.C. 961 et seq.)
authorizes the Secretary of DHS, acting through the Commissioner of
CBP, to establish a voluntary program, known as CTPAT, to build
cooperative relationships between the private sector and the government
that strengthen and improve overall security of the international
supply chain and the U.S. border, and to facilitate the movement of
secure cargo through the international supply chain by providing
benefits to participants meeting or exceeding the program requirements.
See 6 U.S.C. 962, 964 and 965. The CTPAT program plays a crucial role
in safeguarding the economic and national security of the United States
by acting as a vital component of CBP's multi-layered security
strategy. By securing international supply chains, the program
proactively identifies and prevents risks such as terrorism, smuggling,
and other illicit activities in supply chains, thereby mitigating
threats to national security. The CTPAT program contributes to the
nation's economic prosperity by strengthening the free and fair flow of
legitimate trade, preventing costly disruptions, and fostering a secure
trade environment. The program's commitment to customs and trade
enforcement provides an essential platform to combat trade fraud and
protect American consumers and industries.
CBP encourages participation in this program by providing benefits
to participants meeting or exceeding the CTPAT program requirements. An
individual or company \5\ that wishes to participate in the CTPAT
program must demonstrate that it meets the applicable minimum security
criteria (MSC).\6\ Upon becoming a participant in the CTPAT program, an
individual or company receives a variety of benefits, which may be
found on CBP's website at <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/ctpat">https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/ctpat</a>.\7\ CTPAT participation provides a range of
advantages designed to streamline trade operations for a diverse array
of partners--including importers of record; licensed customs brokers;
air, land, sea, and rail carriers; consolidators; manufacturers; third-
party logistics providers; exporters; and marine port authority and
terminal operators--with small businesses comprising approximately 70%
of the membership, underscoring their significant role in securing
global supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 6 U.S.C. 962. Businesses eligible to apply for CTPAT
partnership include U.S. importers of record; non-resident Canadian
importers; U.S./Canada highway carriers; U.S./Mexico highway
carriers; air, rail and sea carriers; licensed U.S. customs brokers;
U.S. marine port authority/terminal operators; third-party logistics
providers; U.S. freight consolidators; ocean transportation
intermediaries and non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs);
Mexican and Canadian manufacturers; and Mexican long-haul highway
carriers.
\6\ See 6 U.S.C. 963. See also <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/ctpat">https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/ctpat</a>-customs-trade-partnership-
against-terrorism/apply/security-criteria.
\7\ This list may change as benefits are updated to improve the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposals for Bolstering Supply Chain Visibility
In the sections below, CBP has laid out proposals for implementing
Section 3 of the E.O. These proposals are followed by questions as to
which CBP is seeking more information. The comments received in
response to this ANPRM will be used, potentially, to draft a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would propose regulations to
implement these proposals, or other suggested proposals received in
response to this ANPRM. All comments are welcome, and the most useful
comments are those that answer not only the specific questions posed in
this notice, but also provide reasons and data in support of any views
provided by the commenter, describe current practices and technology in
use to address issues of supply chain visibility, and address how the
proposals outlined in this ANPRM would affect them, their company, and
their clientele. For each of these proposals, consider whether the new
requirements should be phased in by entry type, commodity (including
whether special consideration is warranted for critical medical
products and their key inputs), country, or mode of transportation;
whether different implementation timelines should apply to small
entities, foreign importers, CTPAT participants, or high-volume filers;
whether any of the proposals are suited to voluntary test programs; and
what implementation period would be necessary for affected parties to
comply with the proposal.
CBP is also interested in receiving comments that describe what
respondents believe the effect the proposals would have on compliance
with existing legal and regulatory requirements for importation. In
addition, CBP is interested in the potential costs and benefits related
to these proposals. For all numerical and quantitative responses,
please provide CBP with sufficient information to recreate those
calculations. Finally, in your comments, please refer to the specific
question number(s) that you are addressing within the various portions
of your submission.
A. Foreign Export Documentation for Imported Goods
As noted above, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1484, CBP is authorized to
require documentation necessary to determine admissibility, assess
duties, collect accurate statistics, and ``determine whether any other
applicable requirement of law (other than a requirement relating to
release from customs custody) is met.'' 19 U.S.C.
[[Page 56411]]
1484(a)(1). The E.O. directs CBP to establish requirements mandating
submission of foreign export documentation, and CBP is considering
whether foreign export documentation may be helpful to CBP in verifying
and reconciling entry and entry summary information, and in detecting
discrepancies that could indicate violations of U.S. customs and trade
laws, such as dual-invoicing. Such foreign export documentation may
include that submitted to a foreign customs authority by the entity
responsible for filing the export declaration (e.g., a trading company,
distributor, consolidator, or third-party logistics provider) for goods
destined to the United States. Foreign export documentation may
include:
<bullet> Export Declarations made by the foreign exporter to the
foreign customs authority. This may show declared value,
classification, and quantity.
<bullet> Commercial Invoices showing the transaction value declared
to the foreign customs authority.
<bullet> Packing Lists to verify the contents, weight, and
packaging of the shipment.
<bullet> Certificates of Origin submitted to the foreign customs
authority substantiating the origin of the goods.
<bullet> Export Licenses or Permits required for the export of
controlled, restricted, or dual-use goods.
<bullet> Transport Documents (e.g., Bill of Lading, Air Waybill)
that were required as part of the export manifest filing with the
foreign customs authority.
CBP is seeking information on the full breadth of such
documentation as well as when and how it should be required for
submission.
1. Scope of Requirement for Foreign Export Documentation; Transmission
and Retention of Foreign Export Documentation
Q1. Should CBP require the importer of record to submit foreign
export documentation for all goods imported into the United States? If
so, what are the benefits for customs enforcement?
Q2. Under 19 U.S.C. 1508, importers are responsible for maintaining
records related to their activities involving importation of goods.
Should foreign export documentation be required to be transmitted to
CBP as part of an entry or entry summary filing, or should foreign
export documentation be a recordkeeping requirement?
Q3. Should CBP randomize requiring the submission of foreign export
documentation, both to ensure compliance with any general records
retention requirement and to assess the extent of non-compliance with
other U.S. law? If so, how should randomization work?
Q4. Should the importer of record be the entity that is responsible
for retaining and, when requested, furnishing these records to CBP? If
it is not the importer of record, then who should it be?
Q5. If the importer of record is required to submit the records to
CBP, is the duty of reasonable care an appropriate standard for the
importer to assess and ensure the accuracy of the documentation before
submitting it to CBP?
Q6. If there were a general requirement for importers of record to
retain any documentation submitted to foreign customs or export
authorities, are there certain exemptions that should be made to this
general rule and what factors might CBP assess in a benefit-cost
analysis?
Q7. What are the challenges for importers of record associated with
obtaining and retaining of any documentation submitted to foreign
customs or export authorities? Do importers already retain such
documentation, and if so, for what purpose?
Q8. To maximize revenue collection and protect U.S. national
security while minimizing compliance burdens (to the extent
practicable), for how long should the retention of all documentation
given to foreign customs or export authorities be required?
Q9. Do any foreign governments have agencies that perform export
functions that are not formal customs authorities? If so, should
information from those foreign government entities also be subject to a
requirement for foreign export documentation?
Q10. If there are any conceptual discrepancies between the nature
of the price reported to a foreign customs authority for a good upon
export and the nature of the price relevant to CBP's assessment of
duties on that good upon its importation into the United States, for
customs and trade enforcement purposes, how could or should CBP
interpret and potentially reconcile these differences?
Q11. What internal controls and reconciliation processes should
importers implement to identify discrepancies between the information
on foreign export documentation and the entry or entry summary filed
with CBP? If discrepancies are identified, what documentation or
evidence should the importer provide to justify the difference? For
example, if the foreign export declaration lists a different value,
quantity, or classification from that on the entry summary filed with
CBP, how could the importer reconcile these differences?
Q12. How can the importer ensure that the foreign export
documentation provided to CBP is the exact document submitted to the
foreign customs administration, and has not been modified?
Q13. Should CBP seek to verify the authenticity of the foreign
export data submitted to CBP with customs administrations in foreign
countries?
Q14. Should there be different documentation requirements for
importers who are CTPAT-validated?
Q15. What specific types of foreign export documentation (e.g.,
export declarations, export permits or licenses, export certifications,
commercial invoices, certificates of origin) are most readily available
and provide the most accurate data for verification purposes?
Q16. What is the current lead time required for importers to obtain
foreign export documentation from their foreign suppliers?
Q17. How should CBP address foreign export documentation that is
not in English? For example, should CBP also require data fields for
specific information to be submitted in English, in addition to
providing the accompanying underlying documentation in the foreign
language?
Q18. What costs would be incurred if foreign export documentation
had to be provided to CBP as part of entry or included as a
recordkeeping requirement?
2. National Security Considerations
Q19. What are the challenges for importers if the Secretary
(potentially in consultation with other U.S. government officials) is
granted the authority to designate certain categories of imports as
posing an unusually high or grave risk to the national security of the
United States and, in such cases, require the submission of such
foreign export documentation by the importer of record as a condition
of entry?
Q20. For categories of imports posing an unusually high or grave
risk to the national security of the United States, should CBP
randomize the submission requirement or require it across the board for
all imports designated as posing a grave risk to national security?
Q21. Are there certain categories of exports (at the product and/or
country level) that, if imported, pose an exceptionally high or grave
risk to the national security of the United States?
Q22. If the Secretary (or other relevant U.S. government officials)
designates a certain product or set of products as posing an unusually
high or grave risk to the national security of the United
[[Page 56412]]
States, aside from information given to foreign customs or export
authorities, what other information might help the Secretary identify
and address the national security risks posed by the importation of
these products?
Q23. Are there existing U.S. government lists or designations that
the Secretary (or other relevant U.S. government officials) should or
could cross-reference in identifying products that pose an unusually
high or grave risk to the national security of the United States?
B. Parties Involved in the Manufacture, Production, Movement, and/or
Exportation of Goods Imported Into the United States
1. Manufacturer Identification Code (MID)
Importers of record provide the data element known as the
manufacturer or shipper identification code (MID) at the time of filing
entry summary. See, generally, 19 CFR part 142; CBP Form 7501. The MID
is derived from the name and address of the manufacturer or shipper, as
specified on the commercial invoice, by applying a code constructed
pursuant to instructions specified by CBP. See Customs Directive No.
3550-055, dated November 24, 1986 (available online at <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Feb/3550-055_3_0.pdf">https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Feb/3550-055_3_0.pdf</a>). Although use of the MID is longstanding, it provides
limited identifying information and does not always identify the actual
party that may be of interest to CBP for enforcement purposes and is
not always available to CBP early enough in the entry process to be
useful. Moreover, the MID is not always a consistent or unique number.
For example, the MID is based upon the manufacturer or shipper name,
address, and country of origin, and this data can change over time and/
or result in the same MID for multiple entities. CBP is interested in
proposals to redefine or replace the MID.
Q24. Do importers or other parties use the MID for any business
purposes? If so, what are they and how could the MID be enhanced to
better serve those purposes?
Q25. Instead of a single MID, should CBP collect other information
to identify the manufacturer, shipper, and exporter for each shipment
of goods imported into the United States? If so, what alternate
information should CBP collect? How would this benefit CBP and what
benefits could also exist for importers as a result of providing this
information? Would the submission of alternate information result in
any costs for manufacturers, shippers, and exporters, and if so, what
are the costs?
Q26. If CBP collects information to identify the manufacturer,
shipper, and exporter, how should each of these parties be defined?
Q27. Should CBP collect information on the ``producer,'' rather
than the manufacturer, to align with the definitions of producer/
production found in 19 CFR part 102 and in trade agreements?
Q28. Should CBP continue to use the current formula for
identification of the MID, or should actual identifying data, such as
full company name and physical address or other business identifier, be
provided to CBP with each shipment of imported goods?
Q29. When should the MID or other identifier be provided to CBP?
Should CBP require that the MID be provided at both entry and entry
summary? Should CBP require the MID to be included on the manifest?
Q30. What should be the consequences for importers who do not
provide accurate MID data and/or data to identify the manufacturer,
shipper, and exporter for each shipment of imported goods?
Q31. What parties are best positioned to identify the manufacturer,
shipper, and exporter to CBP? Should other parties in the supply chain
be permitted to provide such data directly to CBP?
Q32. Are there concerns related to confidentiality for MID data as
it is collected today and/or if CBP were to collect data for the
manufacturer, shipper, and exporter for each shipment of imported goods
in the future? If so, what are those concerns and how should those
concerns be addressed?
Q33. In addition to the manufacturer, shipper, and exporter, are
there other parties or indicators that should be declared to CBP? For
example, if an online marketplace facilitated the sale of the imported
merchandise to a party in the United States, should that marketplace be
identified and why?
Q34. Should CBP require the identification of the party to which
the merchandise is ultimately intended to be delivered, who may not be
the initial recipient or the consignee taking custody of the goods upon
arrival in the United States?
Q35. Beyond identifying the parties in a transaction (manufacturer,
shipper, etc.), what specific software platforms or service providers
(e.g., vessel sharing agreements, LOGINK, or other booking platforms)
do you or your supply chain partners use to transmit shipping
instructions, book freight, or manage logistics data? Please specify at
what stage of the shipping process these platforms are used.
Q36. For any logistics platforms used, particularly those required
by an overseas supplier, carrier, or freight forwarder, what visibility
do you have into the platform's data privacy and security practices?
Are you able to verify that your data is not being altered, shared
with, or stored by unauthorized entities?
2. Global Business Identifiers
In recognition of the challenges associated with the MID, as
discussed above, in 2022, CBP established a voluntary National Customs
Automation Program Test \8\ of Global Business Identifiers (GBIs), to
evaluate the potential for a GBI to supplement or replace the MID. (87
FR 74157, December 2, 2022.) A GBI is a unique identifier issued by the
private sector to help companies map and trace their supply chains. As
initially conceptualized, the GBI test allowed importers of record and
licensed customs brokers to transmit GBIs identifying the manufacturer,
shipper, or seller with their entry. For purposes of the test, CBP
defined these parties as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was
established by the Mod Act, Subtitle B of Title VI (Pub. L. 103-182,
107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993) (19 U.S.C. 1411).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Manufacturer (or supplier)--The party that last
manufactures, assembles, produces, or grows the goods or the party
supplying the finished goods in the country from which the goods are
leaving for the United States.
<bullet> Shipper--The party that enters into a contract for
carriage with, and arranges for delivery of the goods to, a carrier or
transport intermediary for transportation to the United States.
<bullet> Seller--The last known party by whom the goods are sold or
agreed to be sold. If the goods are to be imported otherwise than in
pursuance of a purchase, the owner of the goods must be provided.
Test participants could also elect to transmit GBIs identifying the
exporter, distributor, or packager.
The ongoing GBI test is intended to determine whether GBIs offer
more pertinent information regarding the entities with which they are
associated and their supply chains (e.g., legal ownership of
businesses, specific business and global locations, and supply chain
roles and functions. (See 90 FR 38479, August 8, 2025.) CBP is seeking
input on the GBI test in its current form and whether it should be
modified.
[[Page 56413]]
Q37. The GBI test currently permits the transmission of four entity
identifiers--the Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S[supreg]),
Global Location Number (GLN), Legal Entity Identifier (LEI), and Altana
ID--with the entry data found on the electronic entry. Should GBIs be
collected at entry or entry summary, or both?
Q38. How do businesses use GBIs in their operations? Which GBIs are
best suited to supply chain visibility? Are there other entity
identifiers that should be included in the GBI test?
Q39. How challenging is it for businesses to obtain and maintain a
GBI? Which parties in the supply chain are likely to have a GBI, and
which are unlikely to have a GBI?
Q40. Is it feasible for CBP to require the provision of a GBI to
identify the manufacturer, shipper, and/or seller at entry? Why or why
not?
Q41. Is it feasible for importers and/or their customs brokers to
obtain and disclose to CBP entity-level foreign tax and global business
identifiers for the manufacturer, shipper, and/or seller? If feasible,
should these be disclosed to CBP prior to arrival, at entry, or both?
Q42. Rather than an entity-level identifier, is it more or less
feasible for importers to obtain and disclose to CBP a single product-
level identifier for each shipment that provides detailed information
about the imported good's supply chain and production methods, such as
the manufacturer's product identifier (e.g., model or style number) or
key specifications (e.g., composition, grade, or size)?
Q43. Would requiring entry to be filed sooner benefit CBP in
reviewing supply chain documentation, and determining the admissibility
of merchandise sooner? How would an earlier filing deadline affect data
availability or data accuracy? How would an earlier filing deadline
affect broker and carrier operations? What costs would result from an
earlier filing deadline for affected parties?
Q44. Should CBP verify the accuracy of the GBI data submitted by an
importer against other data submitted to CBP by other parties (if
applicable)? What measures could or should CBP take in the event that
GBI data submitted by an importer does not comport with data submitted
to CBP by other parties?
Q45. Would the identification of parties using GBI data enhance the
integration of technical solutions for supply chain traceability, as
discussed further below?
C. Innovative Technical Approaches for Supply Chain Tracing
Illegal transshipment, the practice of routing goods through a
third country to obscure or misrepresent their true country of origin,
deprives the U.S. government of lawful revenue and threatens U.S.
economic security. To combat such evasion, CBP has intensified its
enforcement efforts, including evaluating artificial intelligence (AI)-
driven solutions for pinpointing illegal transshipment risk. CBP seeks
to leverage supply chain traceability solutions (which are widely
employed by the private sector today) to make rapid and resource-
efficient decisions about illegal transshipment before goods arrive at,
or are released from, the U.S. border. It is also essential for CBP to
encourage the private sector to incorporate awareness of national
security issues and geopolitical risk into their supply chain decision-
making.
1. Novel Supply Chain Tracing Solutions
Q46. What technologies does the private sector use to obtain
visibility into supply chains and the production methods of goods
imported into the United States? How does the private sector verify the
accuracy of the supply chain data generated by these tools? How do
these technologies protect proprietary business information?
Q47. To what extent should importers be responsible for using
technological tools to provide CBP with visibility into supply chains
and the production methods of goods imported into the United States?
What are the costs associated with using technological tools for large
and small businesses?
Q48. What is the role of AI in driving these technologies?
Q49. How can these technologies be integrated with existing trade
data systems, including the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and
relevant Partner Government Agency data exchanges?
Q50. What technology is available to verify the origin of raw
materials, and bridge the ``visibility gap'' between suppliers and raw
material sources?
Q51. Are the available technologies scalable to suit both small
businesses and large multinational corporations?
Q52. What kind of operational efficiencies would importers and
other actors who provide supply chain data to CBP hope to achieve, and
how?
Q53. What technologies currently exist to assign unique entity
identifiers and tamper-proof credentials documenting the movement of
goods? Are these technologies currently used by the private sector? How
common is it for larger companies to use these technologies? How common
is it for smaller companies to use these technologies?
Q54. Could technology be used to properly certify required entry
data elements, such as the country of origin of imported goods?
Q55. What are the vulnerabilities associated with the use of data
provided based on protocols pursuant to global interoperability
standards? How can the vulnerabilities be detected and managed?
2. Expanding CTPAT Program Requirements and Benefits
As noted above, CTPAT is a voluntary program designed to build
cooperative relationships between government and business to strengthen
and improve the security of the international supply chain. CBP is
interested in innovative supply chain tracing technologies that CTPAT
partners can use to demonstrate the integrity of their supply chains,
and their continuous execution of the MSC.
Q56. What supply chain traceability solutions do CTPAT trade
partners use today to manage their supply chains?
Q57. Should all CTPAT partners be required to use enhanced supply
chain tracing technologies? If this requirement should only apply to
certain CTPAT Tiers, what criteria should be used to determine which
ones?
Q58. Should CTPAT partners be required to make their supply chain
tracing technology visible to CBP?
Q59. What benefits could be afforded to CTPAT partners who use
supply chain tracing technology? What benefits could be afforded to
CTPAT partners who share their supply chain visibility with CBP?
Q60. Should the CTPAT minimum security criteria be expanded to
include requirements for cybersecurity and data integrity, including a
prohibition on the use of covered logistics platforms identified as a
security risk? What benefits could be afforded to CTPAT partners who
demonstrate they exclusively use trusted data chain partners for their
logistics operations?
Q61. If the CTPAT minimum security criteria were updated to
restrict or prohibit the use of `covered logistics platforms' (e.g.,
LOGINK or other foreign-controlled systems identified as national
security risks) by the CTPAT applicant or supply chain partners, what
specific administrative, operational, or software-transition costs
would your organization incur to achieve compliance? Please provide
detailed estimates regarding capital expenditures, training, system
[[Page 56414]]
integration, and any potential supply chain delays associated with
migrating to certified secure alternatives.
IV. Economic Impacts of Enhanced Supply Chain Visibility for Imported
Goods
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. This ANPRM is a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and
has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the specific requirements of that order.
Q62. To better evaluate the proposals in this ANPRM, CBP invites
comments specific to the costs and benefits of the proposals. In
particular, CBP invites comments on the costs and benefits for small
businesses, potential effects on the availability and continuity of
critical goods (including medical products), and proposals for ways to
mitigate such costs and supply disruptions.
Q63. Are there any additional qualitative costs, monetary costs, or
time expenditures related to the proposals in this ANPRM that you would
like to provide?
Q64. Are there any additional qualitative benefits, monetary cost
savings, or time savings related to the proposals in this ANPRM that
you would like to provide?
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 ANPRM 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.
Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this
document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this
document to Susan S. Thomas, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office
of Trade, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register.
Susan S. Thomas,
Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2026-17926 Filed 9-1-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 2, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.