I. Overview

On April 18, 2024, the Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA) published a final rule titled Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages (referred to herein as the 2024 final rule). 1 The 2024 final rule contained incorrect table entries in Table 4 to 7 CFR 246.10(e)(12) and set the implementation date for a new provision specifying a minimum yogurt vitamin D fortification as April 19, 2027. This rule corrects the table entries and extends the yogurt vitamin D fortification implementation date by 36 months, to April 19, 2030. The following sections provide additional rationale for these changes.

This is a final rule, which will become effective upon publication. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act's exceptions on matters relating to public benefits, the minor updates in this rule are excepted from a notice and comment period and a 30-day deferred effective date. 2 In its entirety, this rule does not change any WIC policy or require advance notice for WIC State agencies to implement. The corrections to Table 4 to 7 CFR 246.10(e)(12) are not substantive, as explained in Section II. Extending the implementation date for the yogurt vitamin D provision does not require policy change and alleviates a restrictive deadline that many State agencies cannot realistically meet without limiting program benefits, as explained in Section III. Therefore, this rule is effective upon publication to avoid potential disruptions to WIC State agencies' ability to provide program benefits to participants.

The 2024 final rule inadvertently added the word “whole” in Table 4 to 7 CFR 246.10(e)(12) preceding the types of cow's milk and goat's milk that must contain a prescriptive amount of vitamin D and vitamin A. The published entries mistakenly read “Whole, reduced fat, low-fat and nonfat” cow's milk and goat's milk. With this correction in the cow's milk category, the correct table entry reads “All reduced-fat, low-fat, and nonfat cow's milk types and varieties must contain at least 400 IU of vitamin D per quart (100 IU per cup) and 2,000 IU of vitamin A per quart (500 IU per cup).” In the goat's milk category, the correct entry reads, “All reduced-fat, low-fat, and nonfat goat's milk must contain at least 400 IU of vitamin D per quart (100 IU per cup) and 2,000 IU of vitamin A per quart (500 IU per cup).” Removing the word “whole” from Table 4 does not impact the inclusion of whole milk in the WIC food packages. It only removes the requirement to fortify whole milk since this milk type naturally includes vitamin D and vitamin A.

This rule also corrects a few typographical errors found in Table 4 and deletes a redundant sentence in footnote 14.

State agencies have the option to provide yogurt as a milk substitute in the WIC food packages for child and woman participants. The 2024 final rule added a requirement that authorized yogurts (dairy- and plant-based) must contain a minimum of 106 IU (2.67 micrograms) of vitamin D per 8 ounces of yogurt. When FNA received public comments on this provision in the proposed rule, 3 industry commenters requested an extended implementation date to allow time for manufacturers to reformulate products. In response to this feedback, and to allow time for WIC State agencies to review products once available and update all necessary systems, FNA set the implementation deadline for this provision as April 19, 2027, 12 months later than the other provisions in the 2024 final rule.

This rulemaking further extends the compliance deadline for State agencies to ensure that the yogurt provided in the WIC food packages is fortified with vitamin D amounts found in Table 4 to 7 CFR 246.10(e)(12) by an additional 36 months, to April 19, 2030. This rulemaking does not change the underlying regulation or any related policy. Industry partners have indicated to FNA that reformulating yogurt products to meet the vitamin D specification is taking longer than anticipated. Given the limited marketplace availability of vitamin D-fortified yogurts, most State agencies would need to remove yogurts from their approved food list (AFL) to meet the 2027 implementation deadline, resulting in fewer supplemental food options for WIC participants and potential for inadequate consumption of the critical nutrients provided through a complete WIC food package. State agencies will also need to update their Management Information System (MIS) to adjust WIC food package issuance, communicate any updates to local agencies and vendors, and review any changes to benefits with participants. FNA expects that yogurt producers will be able to reformulate their products by 2030 to meet the federal minimum vitamin D requirement. If industry reformulates on a faster timeline and allowable products become available on the commercial marketplace, State agencies have the option to implement the vitamin D requirement at any time prior to the deadline. Therefore, extending the implementation deadline for this provision to 2030 avoids unnecessary administrative work for State agencies and potential disruptions to benefits. This extension also aligns with directives from the House of Representatives and Senate Appropriations Committees, as given in reports that accompanied the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-37). 4 5

Under Executive Order 12866, as amended, agencies must assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The correction and extended implementation timeline described in this rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined to be significant. As required, the Department developed an economic summary to describe the consideration of costs and benefits of these actions.

As required for all rules that have been designated as significant by OMB, the following economic summary was developed for this final rule.

Need for Action: Throughout the rulemaking process, manufacturers and industry groups expressed a willingness to meet the new vitamin D fortification requirement by the 36-month deadline of April 19, 2027, set in the 2024 final rule, but some entities have since stated a need for additional time to reformulate products. As such, this correction extends this deadline by another 36 months to April 19, 2030, which also responds to the direction given in the House of Representatives and Senate Appropriations Committee reports that accompanied the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-37). 6 7

The corrections to the text in Table 4 and footnote 14 described above are typographical in nature and do not impact the intent of those sections of the 2024 final rule and thus are not considered in the benefits and costs described below.

Benefits: Many commonly purchased WIC-approved yogurt products already meet the updated vitamin D requirement. However, some products, and particularly many popular Greek yogurts in the marketplace, do not meet the vitamin D requirement. Extending the implementation deadline for the vitamin D requirement for yogurt by another 36 months will allow manufacturers additional time to reformulate and relabel products that they wish to maintain as WIC-eligible foods. In the short term, this extension serves to mitigate potential disruptions for WIC participants and WIC State agencies by maintaining the wide variety of yogurt choices currently available until more products are reformulated to meet the requirement. In the long term, by being responsive to recent manufacturer concerns, the Department expects that this extension will improve marketplace availability of vitamin D-fortified yogurt across a wider range of products—which in turn promotes consumer choice and greater vitamin D intake for both WIC and non-WIC shoppers.

Costs: Because this regulatory action simply extends the implementation timeline and otherwise does not change the fortification requirement itself, the Department does not expect this extension will have a significant impact on costs to any affected parties including manufacturers, retailers, WIC State agencies, or participants.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule primarily affects WIC State agencies by removing a restrictive deadline that some State agencies cannot realistically meet without limiting program benefits. The Department does not expect this change to have a significant impact on small State agencies because it will not result in operational changes.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not found that this rule meets the criteria of a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.557 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (see 2 CFR chapter IV).

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.

The Department has considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary is not required.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted.

FNA has reviewed the final rule, in accordance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, “2018 Farm Bill,” Section 12403, Civil Rights Analyses, to identify and address any major civil rights impacts the final rule might have on participants of specific groups. The changes in the rule are intended to avoid any impact on State and local agencies, Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), and WIC participants that would be caused by an earlier implementation deadline for the yogurt vitamin D specification. This final rule will eliminate the need for State agencies to remove yogurts from their approved foods lists while industry partners continue to reformulate their products.

FNA will notify State agencies when this final rule is to be published and will provide technical assistance as needed to ensure that participants do not experience any disruption to their WIC benefits. State agencies will notify local agencies of the final rule publication. Participants should see no change in benefits. After reviewing the potential impacts, FNA does not anticipate that extending the yogurt vitamin D fortification implementation date would result in civil rights impacts on specific groups of WIC participants and applicants.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FNA is unaware of any current Tribal laws in conflict with this rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR 1320) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

This rule does not contain new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. All information collection requirements referenced in this rule are already approved under OMB Control Number 0584-0043, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program Regulations—Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden (expiration date: 8/31/2027).

The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Accordingly, the Food and Nutrition Administration amends 7 CFR chapter II by making the following technical corrections:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rancho Hielo Brazos Airport, Glen Rose, TX, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-4167 in the Federal Register (91 FR 21273; April 21, 2026) proposing to establish Class E airspace at Rancho Hielo Brazos Airport, Glen Rose, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One anonymous comment was received stating the word “no” using capital letters, numerous “o”s, and numerous exclamation points. It is unclear whether the commenter objects to the proposal and, if so, on what grounds. The FAA cannot determine, for example, if the comment was made in error or in jest. Without an explanation of the substantive reasons for the potential objection, the FAA is unable to respond in more detail. Pursuant to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Section 18-2-3, the airspace designation is necessary to contain instrument flight procedures (IFPs) that have been developed for the affected airport, which are not protected by other controlled airspace. Although the designation of Class E airspace could result in costs or burdens for regulated parties, these have been determined to be de minimis.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action modifies 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Rancho Hielo Brazos Airport, Glen Rose, TX. This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Cedar Creek Ranch Airport, Barksdale, TX, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-4171 in the Federal Register (91 FR 21394; April 22, 2026) proposing to establish Class E airspace at Cedar Creek Ranch Airport, Barksdale, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action modifies 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Cedar Creek Ranch Airport, Barksdale, TX. This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Ralph Wien Memorial Airport, Kotzebue, AK.

After publication of the NPRM and SNPRM, FAA discovered inconsistencies between geographic locations and airport data within the state of Alaska. As a result, in this final rule, Kotzebue's Class E2 and E5 airspace legal descriptions will be described in relation to a “Point of Origin” utilizing the same geographic coordinates as the SNPRM. Referencing a “Point of Origin” is consistent with FAA's processing of other airspace modifications currently proposed within the state and assists in preventing future errors in aeronautical charting. This change is administrative in nature and does not substantively alter the proposed airspace boundaries or operating requirements. Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause that recirculating the proposal for notice and comment is unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-2423 in the Federal Register (90 FR 52899; Nov. 24, 2025), proposing to modify Class E airspace at Ralph Wien Memorial Airport, Kotzebue, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA, but no comments were received. Following the above NPRM publication, four procedures were amended due to magnetic variation changes and/or procedure updates. As a result, FAA published an SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-2423 in the Federal Register (91 FR page 20944; April 20, 2026), which updated the proposal to modify Class E airspace area at Ralph Wien Memorial Airport, Kotzebue, AK. Again, interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received in support of the airspace action.

Class E2 and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspaces at Ralph Wien Memorial Airport, Kotzebue, AK.

First, the Class E2 airspace radius is increased from 4.3-miles to 4.4-miles to better accommodate circling maneuvers to Runways (RWY) 18 and 9. Furthermore, the 1.4-mile and 0.6-mile extensions to the southeast and west, respectively, were added to contain departing aircraft until reaching the base of the next adjacent airspace when executing the COGAS TWO Area Navigation (RNAV) (Required Navigation Performance [RNP]) DEPARTURE and BALIN TWO RNAV (RNP) DEPARTURE from RWYs 9 and 27.

Additionally, the Class E5 airspace is modified to remove unnecessary controlled airspace to the northeast, east, southwest, and west, and to expand the airspace in targeted areas southeast and northwest of the airport. The expansion to the southeast better contains aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface on the RNAV (Global Positioning System [GPS]) RWY 27 missed approach procedure and BALIN TWO RNAV (RNP) DEPARTURE RWY 9 procedure. The expansion to the northwest adds an additional one-by-five-mile airspace area to better contain arriving aircraft operating below 1,500 feet above the surface on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localizer (LOC) RWY 9 approach procedure. The eastern boundary is extended by approximately 1.6 miles and the western boundary extended to approximately 10.7 miles to more appropriately contain the Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) RWY 9 and the VOR RWY 27 instrument approach procedures when operating less than 1,500 feet above the surface, respectively.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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.

On July 30, 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14324 (Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment For All Countries). 1 Among other things, E.O. 14324 suspended the availability of the de minimis administrative exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) for most imports, to address the national emergencies declared in E.O. 14193 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border), E.O. 14194 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border), E.O. 14195 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China), and E.O. 14257 of April 2, 2025 (Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits). 2 E.O. 14324 generally calls for shipments that qualified for the de minimis exemption prior to the effective date of the order, other than shipments sent through the international postal network, to be entered using an appropriate entry type in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by a party qualified to make such entry.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

On July 30, 2025, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14324 (Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment For All Countries). 1 Among other things, E.O. 14324 suspended the availability of the de minimis administrative exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) for most imports, to address the national emergencies declared in E.O. 14193 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border), E.O. 14194 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border), E.O. 14195 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China), and E.O. 14257 of April 2, 2025 (Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits). 2 E.O. 14324 generally calls for shipments that qualified for the de minimis exemption prior to the effective date of the order, other than shipments sent through the international postal network, to be entered using an appropriate entry type in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by a party qualified to make such entry.

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), including for shipments sent through the international postal network, and stated that CBP should continue to inspect such goods and collect applicable duties, taxes, fees, exactions, and charges on such shipments.

Pursuant to section 2(b) of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, shipments sent through the international postal network that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) “shall pass free of any duties except those specified in section 3 of this order,” and without the preparation of an entry by CBP, “until the effective date for the new entry process for postal shipments established by CBP and published in the Federal Register .” Section 3 of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, established an interim process and new duty rates for covered products sent to the United States through the international postal network, discussed in more detail below, and directed that the duty rate “shall be assessed until the expiration date of the temporary import surcharge established by Proclamation 11012 of February 20, 2026 (Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payment Problems), or until the effective date of the new entry process for postal shipments established by CBP, whichever date occurs first.”  5 In turn, Proclamation 11012 invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and pursuant to Section 122, imposed, for a period of 150 days, a 10 percent ad valorem surcharge on certain imports.

Consistent with the policy objectives encapsulated by these Executive Orders, and independently pursuant to CBP's own statutory authorities, as discussed in further detail below, and after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, this rulemaking implements in CBP regulations an indefinite suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) (hereinafter “the de minimis administrative exemption” or “the de minimis exemption”) for merchandise valued at $800 or less and imported by one person on one day arriving through the international postal network, consistent with 19 U.S.C. 1321(b), to protect revenue, prevent unlawful importations, and for further reasons discussed in more detail below. This rulemaking does not affect the availability of the exemptions for bona fide gifts under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A) or personal or household articles accompanying travelers under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B). Further, this rulemaking establishes a new process for merchandise valued at $2,500 or less entering the United States through the mail environment, including shipments that would previously have been eligible for the de minimis exemption. Although this rulemaking is implementing the indefinite suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for merchandise valued at $800 or less arriving through the international postal network (also referred to in this document as mail or postal environment), CBP is publishing a concurrent rulemaking announcing the indefinite suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for merchandise valued at $800 or less arriving via all modes other than through the international postal network. 6

Specifically, and as discussed in more detail below, this rulemaking addresses certain challenges CBP faces in the informal mail entry environment related to the de minimis exemption. These challenges concern efforts to protect the revenue and to identify violations of U.S. customs and trade laws, health and safety requirements, intellectual property rights, and consumer protection rules, as well as to detect and prevent the entry of illicit drugs such as fentanyl (including synthetic drug precursors and related chemicals and related manufacturing equipment). To address these challenges, in addition to announcing the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for merchandise in the postal environment, this rule also makes changes from what is currently required under the interim process announced in Executive Order 14324, as amended, for goods arriving through the international postal network and further specified in CBP's Notice of Implementation of the President's Executive Order 14324, Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries. 7

Section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1321), as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA), Section 901, Public Law 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, 8 “in order to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected,” to provide by regulation for administrative exemptions from duty and any tax imposed on or by reason of importation for three categories of articles. These categories include: bona-fide gifts valued at $100 or less ($200, if the gift is from certain island possessions) sent from persons in foreign countries to persons in the United States (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A)); certain personal or household articles valued at $200 or less accompanying persons arriving in the United States (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B)); and other articles when the value of the article is $800 or less, referred to here as the de minimis administrative exemption (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C)). The origin of the de minimis exemption was to codify the Government's existing discretionary “practice of waiving duties when, in the opinion of local customs officials, collecting the duty would be an inefficient use of government resources.”  9 Though Congress has several times amended Section 321, including to adjust the statute's dollar amounts, the purpose of Section 321 has remained the same. 10

In granting this discretion to admit articles free of duty and of any tax imposed by reason of importation, in order to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected, Section 321(a)(2)(C) sets a framework for any de minimis exemption that the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) (and now the Secretary of Homeland Security) chooses, in his or her discretion, to implement. In other words, the Secretary's authority to implement the administrative exemptions authorized under Section 321 is, and has always been, discretionary, not mandatory. Nothing in Section 321 requires the Secretary to create (or to maintain) a de minimis exemption. Instead, the creation (or the maintaining) of the de minimis exemption is in the Secretary's discretion.

Importantly, 19 U.S.C. 1321(b) also authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations that except certain merchandise from eligibility for the administrative exemptions in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) when the Secretary finds that such an exception is consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) or is necessary for any reason to protect the revenue or to prevent unlawful importations.

The de minimis exemption is implemented in part 10 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 10) at 19 CFR 10.151 and 10.153, and is also referenced in 19 CFR parts 128, 143, and 145 (Mail Importations), the general subject of this rulemaking.

All merchandise imported into the customs territory of the United States is subject to entry and clearance procedures, unless specifically excepted. These procedures ensure the proper appraisement, valuation, and tariff classification of the merchandise for the purpose of collecting the lawful amount of duties owed, as well as compliance with all other laws and regulations administered and enforced by CBP. Different types of entry procedures are used for the entry and clearance of merchandise depending upon its value and other relevant criteria.

Formal entry procedures, established by 19 U.S.C. 1484 and 1485, are generally applicable to shipments of merchandise valued in excess of $2,500. 11 Informal entry procedures are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1498(a)(1)(A) for shipments of merchandise valued at $2,500 or less, and may incorporate formal entry procedures appearing in 19 U.S.C. 1484 and 1485. 12 19 U.S.C. 1498(b). Informal entry regulations are generally found in 19 CFR part 143, subpart C. Specific procedures for shipments imported by mail, including informal mail entries, are found in part 145, Mail Importations (19 CFR part 145). Generally, informal entry procedures are less burdensome and complex than formal entry procedures. But CBP may require formal entry for any merchandise if deemed necessary for purposes of admissibility, revenue protection, or the efficient conduct of customs business. 19 CFR 143.22.

Additionally, specific procedures for shipments arriving through the international postal network, including merchandise that could have previously qualified for the de minimis exemption prior to its suspension, are found in part 145, Mail Importations (19 CFR part 145). CBP is publishing a separate rulemaking concurrently with this rulemaking announcing the indefinite suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for merchandise valued at $800 or less arriving via all modes other than through the international postal network.

The Customs Administrative Act of 1938 amended the Tariff Act of 1930 by adding Section 321, which authorized the original de minimis exemption for articles imported by one person on one day which are valued at $1 or less, in order to limit the “expense and inconvenience” of collecting duty when “disproportionate to the amount of such duty.”  13 At that time, the amount of duty to be collected for these low-value shipments was deemed to be so minimal (especially when compared to the costs associated with collecting the duties that would have been owed) that “the purpose of [Section 321 as added in 1938 was] to avoid waste of customs manpower in determining and collecting trivial amounts of money.”  14 Congress subsequently raised the value cap for articles eligible for the de minimis exemption authorized by Section 321(a)(2)(C), as amended, to $5 in 1978, $200 in 1993, and most recently, to $800 in 2016. 15

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. 16 The 1995 rule amended the customs regulations to implement the legislative increase of the value cap to $200, and to specify the special informal entry procedures applicable to qualifying low-value shipments. 17 In 2016, Section 901(d) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) amended 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) by increasing the value cap from $200 to $800. 18 CBP published an interim final rule amending the regulations to implement the new statutory value cap and to identify certain goods excluded from eligibility for the de minimis exemption. 19 Otherwise, CBP has not made any significant changes to the regulatory requirements since 1995. In those intervening three decades, however, as discussed in more detail below, there have been significant changes in the trade environment relating to the de minimis exemption.

As noted above, E.O. 14324 suspended duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) and established an interim process for mail shipments formerly eligible for de minimis. Given the risks of evasion of U.S. laws, fraud, and illicit-drug importations that create health and safety risks, as well as risks to the revenue described in the following sections, CBP is implementing a de minimis suspension for all merchandise arriving through the international postal network in its regulations pursuant to the authority provided for in 19 U.S.C. 1321.

Because these shipments are no longer eligible for the de minimis exemption, they are also unable to use the special informal entry procedures applicable to articles claiming the de minimis exemption. Therefore, as explained in more detail below, these shipments will need to use an appropriate method of entry, such as the new postal informal entry process announced in this rulemaking, which is limited to articles classifiable only in chapters 1-97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). For merchandise arriving through the international postal network that is subject to any additional duties imposed under chapter 99 of the HTSUS, quota, antidumping or countervailing duties (AD/CVD) orders, Partner Government Agency (PGA) data requirements, 20 or merchandise for which duty-free treatment is claimed under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement, formal entry is required, see 19 CFR 145.12(a).

Although this rule is consistent with and responsive to E.O. 14324 and related Presidential actions, CBP is herein independently exercising its statutory authorities to implement a de minimis suspension for merchandise arriving through the international postal network. After considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has determined that duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is no longer necessary for shipments through the international postal network to avoid expense and inconvenience to the Government disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected. See 19 U.S.C. 1321(a). Further, after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has determined that the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a). See 19 U.S.C. 1321(b). Moreover, after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has independently determined that the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is necessary to protect the revenue. See 19 U.S.C. 1321(b). In addition, after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has independently determined that the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is necessary to prevent unlawful importations, including unlawful importations of illicit or dangerous goods. See 19 U.S.C. 1321(b). Finally, after considering the relevant issues and factors and weighing the relevant considerations, CBP has determined that any of the above reasons—separately, cumulatively, or in any combination—justifies the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C).

In making these determinations, CBP considered the relevant issues and factors and weighed the relevant considerations. For example, CBP considered any potential reliance interests but determined that the reliance interests are either not actually present or are outweighed by the benefits of this rule. CBP also considered various alternatives but determined that this rule is more reasonable than and preferable to potential alternatives. In CBP's judgment, this rule is reasonable, consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a), necessary to protect the revenue, and necessary to prevent unlawful importations.

CBP is adopting these regulatory measures under its own statutory authority and would do so even in the absence of E.O. 14324 or any related Executive Orders. Moreover, this rulemaking aligns with U.S. Government positions in trade and security negotiations with countries regarding policy matters that are squarely within the foreign affairs domain. The timing of this rulemaking is linked intimately with the United States's overall foreign-affairs and national-security agenda and affects relations with foreign countries.

The continued rise of e-commerce, with the internet empowering individuals to easily make international purchases, the increase of the value cap for the de minimis exemption to $800 in 2016, and the establishment of the Entry Type 86 Test  21 in which CBP authorized a voluntary electronic entry process for qualifying low-value shipments in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), led to drastic increases in the volume of shipments using the $800 de minimis exemption, including through the international postal environment. The dramatic increase in the volume of de minimis shipments accelerated overwhelmingly during the COVID-19 pandemic and never returned to pre-pandemic levels. During Fiscal Year 2024, over 1.36 billion de minimis shipments were processed by CBP, an almost ten-fold increase over the 139 million de minimis shipments processed by CBP in 2015. 22 Today, the crushing volume of these de minimis shipments imposes a significant and costly burden on CBP related to identifying violative merchandise and processing the shipments.

Despite the staggering volume of trade involved, CBP's current regulations generally require minimal data for entry of shipments claiming the de minimis administrative exemption, and no entry is prepared for shipments claiming de minimis in the postal environment. The risks associated with merchandise that would have previously qualified for the de minimis exemption are even further exacerbated in the mail environment. Prior to its suspension, de minimis shipments sent via mail were processed initially at one of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) International Service Centers (ISCs) that sort international mail, before being transferred to a CBP facility for further examination. Under the current regulatory framework for informal entry of merchandise arriving by mail, there is a burdensome and manual process for CBP to verify the information necessary for the shipment to be deemed admissible and properly entered in accordance with all applicable requirements, such as verifying origin and value to ensure duties are accurately collected. Pursuant to 19 CFR 145.12(b)(1), subject to exceptions, a CBP officer must manually prepare a mail entry form for a shipment valued at $2,500 or less, and the recipient will pay the duties, taxes, and fees owed. Payment is generally tendered at the local post office prior to the recipient taking possession of the shipment.

In addition to the time-intensive and costly manual process of preparing an entry and collecting duties for informally entered mail articles, the high volume and the lack of advance entry information to aid in risk assessment and targeting creates substantial problems for CBP. CBP also lacks advance information regarding the volume of shipments arriving, preventing CBP from effectively allocating resources to aid in the processing of mail shipments.

As noted above, E.O. 14324 resulted in the implementation of an interim entry process for low-value mail shipments valued at $2,500 or less, including shipments formerly eligible for the de minimis exemption. This process did not require CBP to prepare a manual entry for those mail shipments, but did mandate duty collection that necessitates manual auditing by CBP to ensure proper duty remittance. Pursuant to section 2(b) of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, the interim process is applicable to mail shipments until such time as CBP establishes a new entry process and implementing regulations published in the Federal Register take effect.

Under the Executive Order's interim process as specified by the CBP notice, qualified third parties transmit entry data and duties owed to CBP. The foreign post office would receive the package from the shipper, collect the required information and duties, and transmit relevant information and duties owed to the qualified third party. The qualified third party would then transmit the following information to CBP via email in the form of an Excel spreadsheet:

The spreadsheet is required to be transmitted to CBP on the 7th day of the month following the arrival of the postal shipment. At the same time, the qualified third party would transmit payment for duties owed for all shipments arriving the prior month, via Pay.gov. For example, for a package that arrived on April 15th, the spreadsheet and payment would be due no later than May 7th. Qualified third parties transmitting data to CBP are required to have a basic importation and entry bond, consistent with 19 CFR 113.62.

Although this interim process was critical to address the urgent issues leading to the emergency declarations detailed in E.O. 14324, concerns regarding minimal shipment data and the need for manual verification by CBP remain. As explained in more detail in the economic analysis section below, the volume of merchandise imported by mail has decreased  23 since the Executive Order's effective date, but the overall burden on CBP to assess admissibility of the merchandise and collect the relevant duties continues to present challenges.

There is an apparent perception amongst transnational criminal organizations and other bad actors that low-value shipments, including those through the international postal environment, are less likely to be interdicted due to the sheer volume of entries and because these shipments are generally not subject to the more extensive formal entry procedures. This has resulted in attempts to enter illicit and dangerous goods, such as firearms, counterfeit merchandise, illicit fentanyl, and other illicit drugs, by claiming the de minimis exemption. 24

As noted above, the overwhelming volume of low-value shipments, including in the postal environment, makes it more challenging for CBP to conduct targeting for purposes of identifying violations of U.S. customs and trade laws, health and safety requirements, intellectual property rights, and consumer protection rules, as well as preventing illicit drugs, such as fentanyl (including synthetic drug precursors and related chemicals and related manufacturing equipment) from entering the country. Moreover, the fact that many consumers ordering goods online that were shipped through the international postal network are not familiar with the customs and trade laws increases the danger that an item they are purchasing may not comply with U.S. health and safety standards or pose other risks. Taken together, if not addressed, the enforcement challenges in the current environment have the capacity to put American consumers' well-being and lives at risk.

Because of the significant burdens that de minimis valued merchandise imposes on CBP relating to targeting and processing, allowing for the de minimis exemption to remain in place for merchandise arriving through the international postal network is no longer consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a), which is to avoid a cost and inconvenience to the government that is outweighed by the duties that would be collected. To put it plainly, despite collecting no revenue, the burden of work imposed on CBP related to the de minimis exemption was growing with each passing year until the exemption was suspended.

Moreover, advances in technology have facilitated the electronic filing of an entry along with the automation of data verification and duty collection. As a result, where an electronic entry is filed for dutiable merchandise, the cost to and burden on CBP from collecting duties is negligible, particularly when compared to the burden and amount of duties that would otherwise be owed but for the de minimis exemption. Additionally, there have been significant improvements in CBP's automation regarding the targeting, verification, and processing of entry or related data, which removed a significant time burden that was part of the original justification for establishing the de minimis exemption.

Today, the outdated and burdensome tasks, involving CBP employees having to manually review documents and process money or paper checks to collect duties, stand ready to be replaced by fully electronic processes. These newer processes minimize the cost to CBP to assess and collect duty payments, enforce compliance with applicable PGA requirements, and determine admissibility. Technological advances, including expanded use of Pay.gov , have significantly reduced the burden on CBP personnel pertaining to general duty collection and enforcement. 25

Moreover, the revenue forgone due to the de minimis exemption has steadily increased, as even low-value merchandise would otherwise be subject to additional duties pursuant to trade actions addressing discriminatory trade practices and threats to national security and domestic industries. 26 In addition, given CBP's challenges in the de minimis enforcement environment, the volume of shipments that claimed the de minimis exemption but did not actually qualify resulted in significant lost revenue. Therefore, the cost to and burden on CBP to collect the duties owed, given advances in technology, pale in comparison to the vast aggregate amount of duties uncollected due to the de minimis exemption, which endangers the revenue.

Accordingly, in addition to CBP implementing in the regulations the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption pursuant to its authority in 19 U.S.C. 1321 for merchandise arriving through the international postal network, as discussed in more detail below, CBP is implementing a new postal informal entry process to better address unlawful and potentially dangerous importations, and the risks to the revenue of the United States, arising from de minimis packages sent through the international postal network. 27

In January 2025, CBP published two notices of proposed rulemaking that proposed changes to the entry process for low-value shipments. The first of these, the “Entry of Low-Value Shipments” (ELVS) proposed rule, proposed new “enhanced” and “basic” entry processes and associated data requirements for shipments qualifying for and seeking the benefit of the de minimis duty exemption authorized under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) and 19 CFR 10.151 (90 FR 3048, Jan. 14, 2025). The second, the “Trade and National Security Actions and Low-Value Shipments” (TranSALS) proposed rule, proposed to make merchandise subject to specified Sections 232, 201, and 301 actions ineligible for the administrative exemption and to require 10-digit HTSUS classification for shipments entered under both the basic and enhanced processes (90 FR 6852, Jan. 21, 2025).

But CBP proposed these two rulemakings under very different circumstances. Since that time, additional legal and factual developments, including E.O. 14324, as revised, subsequent national emergency declarations, enactment of legislation terminating the de minimis exemption effective July 1, 2027, 28 and further experience with the interim mail process, have demonstrated that these proposed rulemakings are not the appropriate course of action at this time and do not adequately address revenue and public safety risks associated with low-value shipments to the United States.

As further discussed below, although this rulemaking represents a different approach from those proposed in ELVS and TranSALS, ELVS and TranSALS demonstrate the path CBP has taken in its attempts to get control of the overwhelming volume of low-value shipments, as well as the associated risks discussed throughout this document. While the ELVS proposed rule was intended to assist CBP in acquiring additional data regarding low-value shipments, the TranSALS proposed rule was designed to limit the availability of the de minimis exemption in certain scenarios. Neither of the rules went far enough to address the current issues CBP faces in the de minimis and low-value shipment environment, particularly with respect to the postal environment. Unlawful importation concerns exist for all imports that could qualify for the de minimis exemption. Further, limited exceptions to the de minimis exemption would raise circumvention or evasion concerns. Lastly, the sheer volume of shipments claiming the de minimis exemption, including shipments sent through the international postal network, combined with the technological advances CBP has implemented in recent years, means that allowing the exemption is no longer consistent with the purpose stated in Section 321(a); that is, the administrative burden of collecting the duties no longer outweighs the revenue to be collected for low-value shipments.

Accordingly, considering its past efforts and the changed landscape, CBP has determined that it is necessary to move forward with the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for merchandise arriving through the international postal network, under CBP's own authorities. As described throughout this preamble, the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for goods valued at $800 or less arriving through the international postal network will help CBP address the risks to the revenue and public safety consistent with long-standing and recent developments, including the policy objectives of this Administration.

CBP has considered other alternatives and determined that at this time, this rule is still more reasonable than and preferable to potential alternatives. For example, CBP has considered excepting from the de minimis exemption some low-value imports but not other low-value imports, as in the TranSALS proposed rule discussed above. 29 But unlawful importation concerns exist for all low-value imports that could qualify for the de minimis exemption. And in general, the expense and inconvenience of imports under the de minimis exemption exist for all such imports; a limited suspension of the de minimis exemption would not resolve the imbalance of the expense and inconvenience of administering the exemption vis-à-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.

CBP has considered the option of requiring additional information while not indefinitely suspending the de minimis exemption, as proposed in the ELVS proposed rule discussed above. 30

But merely requiring additional entry requirements without the suspension of de minimis does not adequately address the revenue and unlawful-importation concerns. Indeed, even if increased information could as effectively address unlawful importation, increased information does not protect the revenue and, in fact, exacerbates the expense and inconvenience to the Government, making such expenses and inconvenience even more disproportionate to the amount of revenue that would otherwise be collected. So this alternative is not as consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) as this rule and does not as effectively protect the revenue or prevent unlawful importations as this rule.

Finally, CBP has considered other alternatives, including a combination of the above alternatives, but CBP has determined that at this time, this rule's approach is more consistent with the applicable statutory provisions and more effectively protects the revenue and prevents unlawful importations than potential alternatives. In CBP's judgment and based on CBP's experience, this rule is better than alternative approaches and is the most reasonable approach for addressing the relevant issues.

As discussed above, the de minimis exemption is discretionary under Section 321. Moreover, 19 U.S.C. 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations that except merchandise from eligibility for the administrative exemptions otherwise authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1321(a) when such exceptions are consistent with the purpose of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a), or necessary to protect the revenue or to prevent unlawful importations. Pursuant to this statutory authority, and consistent with E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, CBP is implementing a regulatory suspension of the exemption authorized in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C). 31 Accordingly, this rule amends 19 CFR 145.31 to announce the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption at 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) for merchandise arriving through the international postal network. Any subsequent modification or revocation of this suspension will be announced in the Federal Register .

No other duty exemptions specified in 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2) are affected by this rulemaking. Specifically, the requirements for entering shipments exempt from duty under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A), bona-fide gifts valued at $100 or less ($200, if the gift is from certain island possessions) sent from persons in foreign countries to persons in the United States, and under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(B), certain personal or household articles valued at $200 or less accompanying persons arriving in the United States, remain unchanged. As noted elsewhere in this document, CBP is also publishing a concurrent rulemaking regarding the suspension of the de minimis exemption for merchandise arriving via all modes other than through the international postal network.

Considering the issues discussed above and the shifting of mail volumes formerly eligible for the de minimis exemption to other informal entry processes, CBP has determined it is necessary to amend the regulations to include a new informal entry process for mail shipments valued at $2,500 or less that will replace the interim process applied pursuant to Executive Order 14324, as amended. The modified entry process and requirements will allow CBP to collect all applicable duties, taxes, and other fees (rather than a subset); better ensure the accuracy of the collection of applicable duties, taxes, and other fees; better enable CBP to police undervaluation, evasion, and fraud; and better prevent unlawful importation through the international postal environment. Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.31(b), as well as making other conforming changes throughout part 145, to provide for this new postal informal entry process. Notably, the requirements for this new process are related to the entry and release of merchandise imported into the United States through the postal network and are distinct from, and in addition to, Universal Postal Union (UPU) requirements.

Except during the delayed compliance period described below, the new postal informal entry process provided for in this rulemaking is available only to shipments of merchandise valued at $2,500 or less, that are sent to the United States via mail, and are classifiable only in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) chapters 1-97. Merchandise subject to quota, antidumping or countervailing duties (AD/CVD) orders, any duties imposed under chapters 98 and 99 of the HTSUS, import and entry-related Partner Government Agency (PGA) requirements, or merchandise for which duty-free treatment is claimed under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement, is ineligible to use the new informal postal entry process. Such merchandise must instead use formal entry procedures (see 19 CFR 145.12(a)).

The process for filing under this new postal informal entry process is limited to parties with the right to make entry under 19 CFR 143.26(a), that is, an owner or purchaser of the merchandise being mailed to the United States, or a licensed customs broker appropriately designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee. See 19 CFR 143.26(a).

The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commissioner of CBP have broad legal authority to require bonds or other security “by regulation or specific instruction” when necessary to protect the revenue of the United States or to assure compliance with any law, regulation, or instruction that CBP is authorized to enforce. 19 U.S.C. 1623(a);  32 19 CFR 113.1. The Secretary and the Commissioner also have the authority to prescribe the conditions and form of the bond, the manner in which the bond may be filed, and the amount of the bond. 19 U.S.C. 1623(b); 19 CFR 113.2. In 19 CFR part 113, CBP has promulgated regulations exercising this authority, detailing requirements for the execution and filing of bonds required by Chapter I of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Subpart G of 19 CFR part 113 enumerates the terms and conditions for regulatory bonds required by CBP. The terms and conditions for the Basic Importation and Entry Bond are found in 19 CFR 113.62.

To protect the revenue, and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, CBP is requiring that the party filing a postal informal entry have a bond to secure the transaction. Accordingly, CBP is amending the regulations for informal mail entries by adding a new regulation at 19 CFR 145.15 to clarify that the party making entry must obtain a basic importation and entry bond (either a single transaction bond (STB) or a continuous bond), with the conditions found in 19 CFR 113.62, sufficient to secure the entries using the new mail process for informal entries provided for in this rulemaking.

This bonding requirement secures the revenue to be collected from such imported merchandise. A basic importation and entry bond also secures redelivery of merchandise, e.g., when additional information is necessary to determine admissibility, and obligates an importer of record to correct non-compliance with an applicable law or regulation pertaining to admissibility, thereby ensuring the safety and security of American consumers. Importantly, as noted above, qualified third parties participating in the current interim process for mail shipments are already required to have a bond.

CBP is establishing in the regulations a new process for informal mail shipments. This new regulatory process improves upon the interim process established pursuant to Executive Order 14324, as amended. Under the new regulatory process, the filer will be responsible for obtaining and transmitting the following required information to CBP via email in the form of an Excel spreadsheet:

The Excel spreadsheet must be transmitted to CBPDM@cbp.dhs.gov no later than the 7th day of the month following the package's arrival. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1315(a)(1), the duty rate for a mail article is based on the “rate or rates in effect when the preparation of the entry is completed[.]” Because CBP is no longer preparing the entry, the regulations are being amended to reflect that the preparation of the informal mail entry is completed upon the filing of the entry in proper form, meaning in accordance with 19 CFR 141.68(h) and all other applicable requirements, including the timely transmittal of the Excel spreadsheet. Payment must be transmitted via Pay.gov no later than the 7th day of the month following the arrival of the shipment. For example, for a package that arrived on April 15th, the spreadsheet and payment would be due no later than May 7th.

As part of the transition to this new postal informal entry process for mail shipments, CBP officers will no longer manually prepare entry forms for such shipments, and duties will not be collected upon delivery of such shipments to addressees. Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.12(b)(1) to remove the relevant language providing for manual preparation of the entry forms.

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.

Whatever reliance interest related to the de minimis exemption importers may have, the interest is not weighty. The existence of the de minimis administrative exemption has always been at the discretion of the Secretary under Section 321 and in any event, has always been subject to an express statutory authorization for reduction or modification through regulatory action. Plus, the de minimis exemption has been suspended since at least August 29, 2025. 34 Moreover, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was enacted on July 4, 2025, terminated the de minimis exemption effective July 1, 2027. 35 Thus, any reliance interests from prior regulatory policy are significantly minimized by the fact that the de minimis exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) was always subject to change under Section 321, is currently suspended, has been suspended for months, and will in 2027 be permanently terminated pursuant to a recent statute. Though CBP is cognizant that importers may have some minimal residual reliance interests in the de minimis exemption, CBP has determined that such reliance interests are outweighed by the benefits of eliminating the de minimis exemption. Indeed, CBP has determined at this time that any of the above reasons—separately, cumulatively, or in any combination—outweighs any reliance interests created by a prior policy allowing the de minimis exemption for low-value imports through the international postal environment and any benefits from a prior policy allowing the de minimis exemption for low-value imports through the international postal environment.

CBP is amending part 145, in accordance with the new requirements described above. Specifically, CBP is making the following changes:

CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.12 in multiple places. CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.12(a) by removing the requirement that formal entries be made at the customhouse, and further enumerating the circumstances where a formal mail entry is required. Additionally, as mentioned above, CBP is providing a narrow and short-term delayed compliance window regarding the enforcement of 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v)-(vi), during which CBP will permit merchandise subject to PGA requirements, merchandise subject to duties under Chapter 98 or Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), or for which duty-free treatment is claimed under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement to use the postal informal entry process established by this rule. Accordingly, until the date specified in the DATES section of this document for 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v)-(vi), mail shipments valued at $2,500 or less and subject to PGA data requirements, merchandise subject to duties under Chapter 98 or Chapter 99 of the HTSUS, or for which duty-free treatment is claimed under Chapter 98 of the HTSUS or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement, may use the new postal informal entry procedures provided for in this rulemaking. CBP is providing this flexible and narrow delayed compliance window in order to provide the trade with sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements and in consideration of the business process changes that may be necessary to achieve full compliance. Concurrently with this rulemaking, CBP is also announcing a test of a new voluntary electronic mail process for shipments valued at $2,500 or less, known as the Entry Type 13 test, which will provide an optional alternative to filing formal entry in those cases. The opening of the Entry Type 13 test will coincide with the end of the delayed compliance window. Accordingly, at the end of the delayed compliance window for those specified shipments, filers may choose to utilize formal entry procedures (in accordance with 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v)-(vi)) or participate in the Entry Type 13 test.

CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.12(b) in multiple places to provide for the new postal process for informal mail entries discussed throughout this rulemaking, as well as removing the requirement that a CBP Officer prepare manual entries.

CBP is adding a new Section 145.15 (19 CFR 145.15) to state that an informally entered mail shipment entered using the new postal informal entry process provided for in 19 CFR 145.12(b) will not be released from CBP custody, and the entry will not be accepted, unless a single transaction or continuous bond, containing the bond conditions set forth in § 113.62 of this chapter, executed by an approved corporate surety, or secured by cash deposits as provided for in § 113.40 of this chapter, has been transmitted to CBP pursuant to part 113.

CBP is amending 19 CFR 145.31 to provide for the indefinite suspension of the de minimis exemption for merchandise arriving through the international postal network. CBP's determinations and amendments in this interim final rule are intended to operate independently of one another. Each provision, including the suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for merchandise arriving through the international postal network, the new postal informal entry process and its associated data requirements, and the bonding requirements for informal mail entries, is supported by the record and authorities described in this preamble, and CBP would have adopted each provision even in the absence of any other provision in this interim final rule. Accordingly, if any provision, or the application of any provision to a particular person or circumstance, is held unlawful or unenforceable, CBP intends that the remaining provisions, and their application to other persons or circumstances, continue in effect to the maximum extent permitted by law. For example, if a particular data element or procedural requirement in the postal informal entry process were set aside by a court, CBP would continue to implement the suspension of the de minimis administrative exemption for postal shipments, as well as the remaining aspects of the postal informal entry process and the bonding requirements.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., generally requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide interested persons the opportunity to submit comments prior to issuing a final rule. Notice and comment, however, is not required here because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and because CBP finds good cause, as notice and public comment here is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), (b)(B).

First, the requirements of the APA do not apply to the extent that the rulemaking involves a foreign affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, notice and comment is not required.

Proceeding before notice and comment will prevent definitely undesirable international consequences. 36 It will allow the U.S. Government to more promptly address sensitive foreign-policy and national-security matters that affect relations with foreign governments. Proceeding before notice and comment will reduce the risk that a delay in acting would undermine the strength of U.S. Government positions in trade and security negotiations with foreign countries, which implicate this rulemaking. For example, the United States is currently in negotiations regarding imports of certain articles and derivative articles that the President has found under Section 232 are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States. 37 This rule directly implicates the collection of duties for such imports and how such imports enter the United States. In addition, the United States is negotiating trade and security agreements with foreign governments, as well as issuing joint statements on framework trade and security agreements. 38 Again, this rule could implicate the collection of duties and the terms of entry for imports that are at issue in these negotiations and framework trade and security agreements.

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

In short, advance public notice and comment here would hamper the President and his Administration's ability to conduct foreign policy regarding matters that are squarely within the foreign-affairs domain. The timing and substance of this rulemaking are linked intimately with the United States's overall foreign-affairs and national-security agenda and relations with foreign countries. 40

In addition, proceeding before notice and comment may prevent the flooding of low-value merchandise into the United States, including the illegal importation or smuggling of illicit drugs and other harmful unlawful imports in these low-value shipments. Before completion of advance notice and comment, manufacturers and importers may have a significant incentive to flood as much low-value merchandise as possible into the United States before this rule takes effect, thereby frustrating the purpose of the rule. 41 The flooding concern is particularly acute here, where current implementation of the suspension of the de minimis exemption under IEEPA does not practically enable full collection of applicable duties for shipments through the international postal environment, while this rule would enable full collection of applicable duties for shipments through the international postal environment.

The President's actions under IEEPA confirm that this interim final rule falls under the foreign affairs function exception. 42 In E.O. 14324, as modified by E.O. 14388, discussed in more detail above, the President took several actions “to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threats, which have their source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” As noted in E.O. 14324 and related Executive Orders, these threats include the public health crisis caused by fentanyl and other illicit drugs, and the activities of chemical precursor suppliers, money launderers, and other transnational criminal organizations. To address these threats, E.O. 14324 suspended the de minimis exemption, mandated certain filing requirements for shipments that qualified for the de minimis exemption prior to the effective date of the order, and established an interim process and new duty rate for covered products sent to the United States through the international postal network. The President also recognized that to more efficiently and effectively implement the suspension of the de minimis exemption under IEEPA, CBP would need to supplement the interim process that the Executive Order, as amended, established for international mail shipments with a new entry process that enables collection of all applicable duties for the postal environment. 43

Though this interim final rule is under CBP's independent statutory authority, it is grounded in, and addresses, the same foreign unusual and extraordinary threats on which the President's suspension of the de minimis exemption under IEEPA was based. Specifically, as discussed above, this interim final rule implements the regulatory suspension of the de minimis exemption for merchandise arriving through the international postal network under CBP's own statutory authority, and expands upon the very measures taken in E.O. 14324, as amended, to address those foreign threats ( e.g., establishing an additional postal process for informal entries for merchandise entering through the mail environment). Therefore, this interim final rule involves foreign affairs functions of the United States.

Second, the APA provides an exception to advance notice and comment requirements “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

CBP finds that good cause exists to issue this rule as an interim final rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments, under the APA's good cause exception. Delaying the publication of this interim final rule for purposes of providing public notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. CBP finds that due and timely execution of its functions would be significantly impeded by advance notice and comment. 44 CBP finds that immediate implementation of this rule directly affects public safety and addresses imminent hazards to persons or property within the United States. CBP finds that delay for advance notice and comment would create a significant threat of serious damage to important public interests, would harm the public welfare, and would tend to defeat the purpose of the action in this interim final rule. 45 In CBP's judgment and based on CBP's experience, the urgency here is one that does not always exist in the trade context.

As an initial matter, as explained above, further delaying the interim final rule's effectiveness for notice and comment will have significant foreign affairs implications and undesirable international consequences. Further, as explained above, it may also result in the flooding of low value shipments into the United States that undermines this rule and the foreign policy, national security, and economy of the United States. And as noted above, this interim final rule addresses the unusual and extraordinary foreign threats acknowledged in E.O. 14324 and other related Executive Orders, consistent with the Administration's direction and foreign policy priorities. As discussed above, and for the reasons cited above, as well as those cited in E.O. 14324 and E.O. 14388, to address the unusual and extraordinary threats to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, this rule establishes a new process for informal mail entries, to replace the temporary process set forth in E.O. 14324, as amended, including additional data elements to aid in targeting and processing, thereby protecting the revenue of the United States, and most importantly, protecting the health and safety of the public.

Moreover, given the critical public health and safety implications of continued shipments of illegal opioids into the United States in the de minimis mail environment, to delay the implementation of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. With this rulemaking, CBP is addressing various issues threatening public safety and posing risks to the revenue in the de minimis informal mail environment, while facilitating lawful importers in complying with their statutory and regulatory responsibilities. 46

In the mail environment, under current regulations at 19 CFR 145.31, de minimis shipments would (in the absence of the Executive Orders) pass free of duty and tax without preparing an entry, such that the processes applicable to mail shipments eligible for the de minimis exemption provide insufficient and untimely data for CBP to handle the extreme volume of low-value shipments while also addressing the influx of illicit shipments, including dangerous and harmful drugs, being shipped to the United States in the mail environment. Though the interim process for mail shipments implemented pursuant to Executive Order 14324, as amended, provides a pathway for the entry of low-value mail shipments, it was intended to be temporary until CBP establishes a new entry process, and did not fully address the information gaps in the mail environment required to fully collect duties on shipments formerly eligible for the de minimis exemption. 47 This interim final rule provides important additional entry processes to ensure the full collection of information and duties for postal shipments beyond those in E.O. 14324, as amended, which will reduce unlawful importation and protect the revenue. The new postal informal entry process provided for in this rulemaking is needed to ensure that CBP has more information about shipments arriving in the mail environment, to interdict dangerous and illegal shipments, including those with fentanyl and other illicit drugs, chemical precursors, and other dangerous goods. The new postal process will also allow lawful importers to enter merchandise in a safer and more secure mail environment. Moreover, this rule requires goods subject to the requirements of PGAs to be entered under formal entry procedures. This allows the Government to ensure compliance with the health and safety requirements of PGAs under the more robust formal entry process, to prevent dangerous and illegal merchandise from entering the country.

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 claiming the de minimis exemption has defeated the underlying purpose of the de minimis exemption. That is, there was no revenue being collected, yet the burden of processing the vast numbers of de minimis mail shipments continued to grow. The suspension of de minimis for mail, in conjunction with the establishment of a new postal process allowing for the full collection of duties, is essential to protect the revenue of the United States. Moreover, under this rule, goods subject to quota, AD/CVD, or additional duties imposed under Chapters 98 and 99 of the HTSUS, or for which a claim for duty-free treatment is made under Chapter 98 or pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement, are required to enter under formal entry procedures. This ensures that CBP has adequate data and processes to collect the revenue in these special circumstances. Accordingly, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to further delay implementation of these requirements, which will provide CBP with more data to help protect the American public from dangerous and illegal goods entering from abroad, and to protect the revenue of the United States.

CBP is publishing this rulemaking with a request for comments to allow the public to weigh in on the regulatory changes. Additionally, CBP is publishing this rulemaking with a delayed effective date for the requirements regarding the new postal informal entry process in order to give the lawful importing community time to modify the relevant processes. However, the substantial additional delays in implementation that would result from advance notice and comment or a more protracted delayed effective date would risk frustrating the Administration's chosen and appropriate means of addressing the very issues targeted by this rulemaking. Such delays would also create a degree of uncertainty that would undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the United States's emergency trade and counter-narcotics measures and could incentivize attempts to send more illicit shipments into the country before this rulemaking enters into effect. Nevertheless, CBP is voluntarily soliciting public comments on this interim final rule and will consider all timely submitted comments in determining whether and how to revise the rule in a subsequent final rulemaking.

In sum, for the reasons discussed, this rule is exempt from the prior public notice and comment requirements of the APA under both the foreign affairs exception and the good cause exception. For more information and statistics on the volume of attempted illicit shipments, including dangerous and harmful drugs, and informal entry shipments generally, please see the analysis below.

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”

This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant, under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Pursuant to section 5(a) of Executive Order 14192, the requirements of that Executive Order do not apply to regulations issued with respect to foreign affairs-related functions of the United States. As discussed above, this interim final rule is issued with respect to foreign affairs-related functions of the United States Government. Accordingly, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192. CBP discusses both quantified and qualitative effects of the rule in the analysis below. The estimated quantified net annualized costs of the rule equal $169,794 at a 7% discount rate or $172,980 at a 3% discount rate. The rule will also result in an increase in tariff revenue, discussed in the Transfers section. The estimated annualized tariff revenue that would result from the rule is $166,130,323 at a 7% discount rate or $163,007,696 at a 3% discount rate. Table 1 shows an accounting statement for the effects of the rule.

The Customs Administrative Act of 1938 amended the Tariff Act of 1930 by adding Section 321, which authorized a general de minimis exemption for imported merchandise valued at $1 or less in order to limit the “expense and inconvenience” of collecting duty when “disproportionate to the amount of such duty.”  48 The duties potentially owed for such shipments were considered de minimis because the revenue associated with collecting the duties that would have been owed would not have covered the cost of collecting the duties.

The current regulatory framework for the de minimis exemption was promulgated through a final rule in 1995, which, among other things, amended the customs regulations to implement the legislative increase of the exemption to $200 and specify the special informal entry procedures applicable to qualifying low-value shipments. 49 Such shipments were not subject to the same formal customs entry procedures and data requirements as higher-value shipments entering the United States. 50

In 2016, TFTEA increased the administrative exemption from $200 to $800. 51 CBP published an interim final rule amending the regulations to implement the new statutory amount and to specify certain goods excluded from the administrative exemption. 52 Otherwise, CBP has not made any significant changes to the regulatory requirements since 1995. In the intervening three decades, however, there have been significant changes in the trade environment relating to the de minimis exemption.

The continued rise of e-commerce, with the internet empowering individuals to easily make international purchases, the increase of the value cap for the de minimis exemption to $800 in 2016, and the trade's usage of the Entry Type 86 Test  53 in which CBP authorized a voluntary new electronic entry process for qualifying low-value shipments in ACE, have led to drastic increases in the volume of shipments using the $800 de minimis exemption (and low-value informal entries more generally, i.e., shipments valued at $2,500 or less). The dramatic increase in the volume of de minimis shipments (and low-value shipments generally) accelerated overwhelmingly during the COVID-19 pandemic and has shown no signs of returning to pre-pandemic levels. During Fiscal Year 2024, over 1.36 billion de minimis shipments were processed by CBP, an almost ten-fold increase over the 139 million de minimis shipments processed by CBP in 2015. 54 Today, the crushing volume of these shipments imposes a significant and costly burden on CBP relating to targeting and processing the shipments.

On July 4, 2025, the President signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, which, among other things, enacted the termination of the de minimis exemption effective July 1, 2027. 55 On July 30, 2025, the President signed E.O. 14324 (Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment For All Countries), which discussed multiple declared national emergencies and announced that the President determined that it was necessary and appropriate to suspend duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) for most imports, to deal with the continuing unusual and extraordinary threats, which have their source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. 56

Prior to E.O. 14324, mail shipments claiming the administrative exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) did not have an entry prepared and were not required to pay duties. E.O. 14324, which suspended de minimis treatment for most importations, established an interim mail duty process and mail shipments previously eligible for duty-free de minimis treatment were subject to duty payments for the first time. Unlike for other entry methods, the Executive Order permitted two duty calculation methodologies for shipments sent through the international postal network that were no longer eligible for de minimis treatment—an ad valorem duty methodology and a specific duty methodology assessed on each package. The duties were allowed to be paid by carriers or qualified parties. So far, only qualified parties have submitted the international mail duty worksheets needed to calculate duties, and all qualified parties have chosen to pay using the ad valorem method.

On February 20, 2026, the President signed E.O. 14388 (Continuing the Suspension of Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment For All Countries), which, among other things, continued the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C), including for shipments sent through the international postal network, and confirmed that CBP should continue to collect applicable duties, taxes, fees, exactions, and charges on such shipments. Section 3 of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, established an interim process and new duty rates for covered products sent to the United States through the international postal network and directed that the duty rate “shall be assessed until the expiration date of the temporary import surcharge established by Proclamation 11012 of February 20, 2026 (Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payment Problems), or until the effective date of the new entry process for postal shipments established by CBP, whichever date occurs first.”  57 In turn, Proclamation 11012 invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and pursuant to Section 122, imposed, for a period of up to 150 days, a 10 percent ad valorem surcharge on certain imports to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.

Although the de minimis exemption has been suspended for both postal and non-postal environments, there is a disparity between postal and non-postal modes in terms of the information submitted and duties applied. Low-value non-postal shipments that would have claimed the de minimis exemption are now generally entered through entry type 11 (ET11), and CBP applies all applicable duties, taxes, and fees to those shipments. Low-value postal shipments that would have claimed the de minimis exemption are now entered through the interim postal process, and, unlike ET11, the postal process only applies the simple 10% ad valorem duty mentioned above. To declare the value of the imports and the duties owed to CBP, qualified parties must submit a monthly International Mail Duty Worksheet (IMDW) that details the value of each shipment and the corresponding duty owed. 58 Furthermore, even if CBP wanted to apply other duties to postal entries, the interim postal process does not currently collect enough data on entries to be able to apply all the duties to which ET11 entries are subject. Namely, postal shipments are not required to provide HTSUS classifications, which determine the appropriate duty rate in many cases. Accordingly, with this rule, CBP is requiring the relevant information needed to properly collect duties owed.

CBP had been overwhelmed by the number of low-value shipments being brought into the country with little or no accurate and reliable data which CBP could use to properly assess admissibility, duty requirements, and PGA requirements. By 2025, the administrative exemption had become a substantial risk to the revenue and the health and welfare of U.S. residents, and, through E.O. 14324, the administrative exemption was suspended for most importations in 2025. This rule makes several changes to address various issues that remain unresolved by the current interim mail process.

Due to the high volume of de minimis shipments and the lack of reliable data for admissibility determinations, administering the de minimis exemption had become a significant time burden to CBP. CBP officers needed to manually review data submitted and, often, physically inspect the package to know what was in the shipment. At the same time, advances in technology that facilitate automation and electronic filing of entry and collection of duties reduced the burden of collecting duties on shipments. Combined, the increased burden of administering the de minimis exemption and the reduced burden of collecting duties made the current environment no longer consistent with the purposes of 19 U.S.C. 1321(a), which is to avoid a cost and inconvenience to the government that is outweighed by the possible duties that would be collected. E.O. 14324 suspended use of the administrative exemption for most importations in 2025, and E.O. 14388 continued the suspension of the administrative exemption. For the reasons described in this rule and to establish new procedures for informal mail entry made necessary by the suspension of the administrative exemption, CBP is also amending the regulations under its own authorities to suspend the use of the Section 321(a)(2)(C) administrative exemption. As a result, the administrative exemption will no longer be available for formerly de minimis postal shipments pursuant to Section 321(a)(2)(C). Shipments must instead go through the new postal informal entry process or through a different entry type, such as formal entry. With the suspension of de minimis, importers of postal shipments will need to provide additional data for these shipments compared to the old de minimis processes.

While CBP is exercising its own authority to suspend de minimis for postal shipments, E.O. 14324 has been in effect since August 29, 2025, and the statutory repeal of the basis for de minimis will take effect starting on July 1, 2027. This rule does not, in practice, change the existing suspension of de minimis for postal shipments; rather it matches the existing suspension to a regulatory suspension implemented in this rule, providing better clarity. CBP considers the effects of the suspension of de minimis for postal shipments to belong to the Executive Orders (from August 29, 2025 until July 1, 2027) and the statutory repeal of the basis for the de minimis exemption (from July 1, 2027 on).

Should the Executive Order be amended or removed prior to the statutory repeal of de minimis, CBP's regulatory suspension would remain in effect and take on the effects of the suspension of de minimis for postal shipments that would have otherwise belonged to the Executive Orders between the effective date of the change in the Executive Orders and the statutory change. Once the statutory repeal of de minimis is effective, the effects of the de minimis suspension belong to the statutory change and not this rule.

CBP has determined that it is necessary to update the temporary, interim postal process established by the Executive Order 14324, as amended by E.O. 14388 (with the new process to be called the new postal informal entry process) to reduce the disparity between postal and non-postal informal shipments. Filers will now need to submit on their international mail duty worksheets, the filer code, bond number, all applicable 10-digit HTSUS classifications for each shipment, 59 and a description of the merchandise. If the applicable duty is dependent on the quantity or weight of the merchandise, then that information must be submitted as well. These additional data elements will allow CBP to apply the duties to postal shipments that are already being collected from non-postal ET11 entries, improving parity between postal and non-postal shipments. Because the new postal informal entry process will require the filer to provide more detailed information, CBP is requiring that the filer be a party with the right to make entry, including a duly-authorized, licensed customs broker. The filer code is being added as a required data element so that CBP can validate that the broker is licensed. As with the baseline interim postal process, the filer will submit the information to CBP through a monthly IMDW, which will cover all the shipments handled by the filer that month. This method of data submission differs from the method of other entry types, for which a separate entry form is submitted for each shipment.

As discussed later in this analysis, CBP estimates that the new postal informal entry process will lead to an increase in duties of more than $100 million per year. Therefore, CBP is protecting the revenue of the U.S. Government by requiring proper classification of merchandise and subjecting all informal mail entries to the appropriate duties, unless excepted pursuant to another exception.

This regulatory impact analysis estimates the net effects of the rule by comparing the baseline scenario with the regulatory alternative scenario. In the baseline, the President already suspended the use of the de minimis administrative exemption for most imports, including postal shipments, and postal shipments continue to be entered through the interim mail process that was put in place in 2025, pursuant to E.O. 14324, as amended by E.O. 14388. Additionally, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, as enacted, eliminates the de minimis exemption effective July 1, 2027. This rule considers the effects of deviations from the baseline. In the regulatory alternative scenario, the interim postal process is updated to require additional data elements so that CBP may apply non-Section 122 duties to informal postal shipments. The benefits and costs of the rule are the benefits and costs of changing from the baseline to the regulatory alternative scenario. Because the rule takes effect midway through 2026, this analysis considers the effects of the rule over a 10-year regulatory period from mid-2026 to mid-2036. CBP deals with the shortened first and last year of the analysis by cutting the estimates of most costs and benefits in 2026 and 2036 by half.

In this section, CBP presents its projections for postal de minimis entry counts from 2026-2036, which CBP uses for its calculations in the Transfers section. Although the rule could affect import volumes, CBP assumes, for the purposes of calculating the effect of the rule on government revenue, that annual entry counts would be the same in the regulatory scenario as in the baseline scenario. 60 This simplifying assumption allows CBP to calculate total tax revenue and other costs using the same projected entry counts used in the baseline. However, the rule will result in certain higher duties and shipping costs for postal shipments, and these changes will likely cause total imports to fall by some amount. As a result of this decrease in imports, the total increase in government revenue will likely be lower than in the analysis, which assumes the rule will have no effect on the quantity of imports. The fall in imports will also lead to a deadweight loss, increasing the total cost of the rule to society beyond CBP's cost estimates in the analysis. CBP discusses these limitations of the analysis further below. Table 1 displays the annual entry counts for postal entries from FY 2021 to FY 2024. Over this time period, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for postal de minimis entries was −11.63%.

In 2025, the imposition of new duties, the suspension of the de minimis exemption for most imports, and the creation of an interim mail process led to a large decrease in import volume. The de minimis exemption was suspended for most imported products of all countries effective August 29, 2025. Therefore, CBP uses entry counts from the following three months, September through November of 2025, to estimate the inflow of entries under the current status quo. From September 1 to November 30, 7,254,980 postal entries arrived in the United States. At that rate, 29,099,645 postal shipments would arrive annually. These numbers are shown in Table 2.

Compared to the 2024 entry counts, the figures in Table 2 show that the suspension of de minimis led to a fall in postal shipments. As de minimis will remain suspended (in either scenario), CBP does not expect postal volumes to return to pre-2025 levels. Moreover, now that the interim mail process is being updated, postal shipments could face even higher duties and data requirements than they did under the baseline interim mail process, making it even less likely that postal entry counts will rebound. To project postal entry counts during the regulatory period, 2026-2036, CBP applies the CAGR from 2021-2024 to the projected annual count in Table 2. These projections are shown in Table 3.

The rule will result in costs due to increased information requirements, the exclusion of certain goods from the new postal informal entry process, deadweight loss from higher duties, and the possibility of temporary hiatuses of postal shipments.

Although more data will be submitted under the new postal informal entry process than under the interim process provided for in Section 3 of E.O. 14324, as revised by E.O. 14388, CBP does not expect that handling this extra data will be more work on CBP's part, other than requiring some modifications to the current database to accommodate additional data elements. 61 The cost to CBP of making those modifications is negligible. 62

The new postal informal entry process will require filers to submit additional data elements, namely the filer code, bond number, all applicable 10-digit HTSUS classifications, and a description of the merchandise. Moreover, if the duty depends on the quantity or weight of the merchandise, then that data will also be required. Filers will submit these additional data elements to CBP on the monthly IMDW. Brokers may file a monthly IMDW that covers all shipments for all of the broker's clients that month. CBP estimates that the updated IMDW will take 6 hours to complete each month, which is 4 hours more than the time burden in the baseline. 63 In both the baseline and in the regulatory scenario, CBP estimates that there will be 100 filers who submit the IMDW once a month. The total time burden of the IMDW will therefore increase by 400 hours per month, or 4,800 hours per year. CBP assumes that, under the rule, most if not all IMDWs will be submitted by brokers. Applying an average broker wage of $36.57, the added annual time burden equals $175,536 per year. 64 CBP estimates that the cost in 2026 and in 2036 will be $87,768 (=$175,536/2) because the period of analysis starts in the mid-2026 and ends in mid-2036. Although CBP is including this cost in the filer subsection, importers may bear some of the burden, as they may have to start giving brokers more information about the shipments so that the brokers can classify the goods. Moreover, brokers could shift some of the monetary burden onto importers by charging higher fees.

Because the new version of the IMDW will require product classifications, submission of the IMDW will now be considered customs business. Therefore, if not the owner or purchaser, only licensed customs brokers will be allowed to submit the IMDW. Currently, about half of qualified parties are brokers. Importers and foreign postal operators (FPOs) that are working with non-broker qualified parties will need to find a licensed customs broker. Based on conversations with non-broker qualified parties representing a majority of IMDW submissions to CBP, these parties typically have an existing relationship with a broker, sometimes where the broker is part of the company or a subsidiary, so many of the importers will not be affected by this provision. This change will be an inconvenience to the importers and FPOs who do not already have a relationship with a broker, as it will take time to find a broker and perhaps for the FPO to sign a contract with that new party. Of course, the exclusion of non-broker qualified parties from submitting IMDWs will also hurt said qualified parties, but we count this effect as a pure transfer from non-brokers to brokers and discuss it in the Transfers section below.

Under the rule, importers will not be allowed to import goods subject to Section 201, Section 232, or Section 301 duties, or goods subject to AD/CVD orders, or goods subject to PGA data requirements through the new postal informal entry process. Technically, goods subject to PGA data requirements were already excluded from the interim postal process in the baseline, but enforcement of this rule could improve as a result of the product classification data that CBP will be requiring. To continue importing these goods excluded from the new postal informal entry process, importers will need to switch to another entry type. These other entry types require the importer to submit more data, and they also require the broker to do more work, which could entail significant broker fees. Importers who are not using the new postal informal entry process will have to provide data for CBP Forms 3461 and 7501 for entry and entry summary, respectively. The time burden for CBP Form 3461 is 10 minutes, 65 and that of CBP Form 7501 is 5 minutes. 66 Our estimate for the average hourly wage of importers is $36.57. 67 The average costs of the time burdens for submitting CBP Forms 3461 and 7501 are therefore $6.10 and $3.05. Furthermore, these entry forms have to be submitted much sooner than the IMDW, which is not due until 7 days after the end of the current month. Due to the present lack of product classification data in the postal environment, CBP does not know what share of postal entries will no longer be eligible for the new postal informal entry process. Therefore, CBP cannot estimate the total cost resulting from some postal shipments having to use a different entry type as a result of the rule.

While CBP assumes for this analysis that these costs will fall entirely on importers, the incidence of the fees is determined by the relative price elasticities of supply and demand. The importers, the final deliver-to parties, the exporters, and the brokers will share the incidence of these costs to varying extents. How much of the incidence each party bears will depend on the relevant price elasticities of supply and demand, which CBP is unable to estimate for this analysis. The costs will result to some extent in reduced quantity demanded and ultimately deadweight loss, which we discuss in a later subsection.

As filers and FPOs transition to the new postal informal entry process, under the rule there could be temporary hiatuses or reductions of mail from certain countries. The different parties currently importing through the interim postal process may need time to adapt their processes to handle the new data requirements, and importers and FPOs who currently use non-broker qualified parties will need to switch to a licensed customs broker, as discussed above. If the filers or FPOs are unable to adapt immediately, there may be a short period during which postal shipping is not available in certain countries. In that case, the importers and exporters affected by the hiatus would need to ship the goods through a non-postal entry type or wait until the postal mode becomes available again. Either of these options would cost more or be an inconvenience to the importers and the other parties involved. As CBP does not know the extent to which postal shipping might be halted in the short-run, CBP is unable to estimate the costs of this effect.

Although this analysis assumes in the Transfers section below that the quantity of imports will be unaffected by the rule (setting aside any short-run hiatuses), it is likely that the duty increase for postal shipments and other cost increases resulting from the rule will cause importers to import less. This decrease in imports would correspond to a cost to society in the form of deadweight loss. While some of these goods will not be imported under the rule, the fact that they would be imported in the baseline means that the benefit of those imports to the importers exceeds the cost of producing those goods, shipping them, and complying with the baseline entry process. Were importers to decide not to import some shipments because of the rule, society would be missing out on the net gains from trade that would have occurred with those shipments. The deadweight loss from the rule is the total value of this lost surplus. While CBP lacks the data to estimate deadweight loss in this analysis, this could be an important cost of the rule. Also, to the extent that there will be deadweight loss under the rule due to a decrease in imports, there will be a smaller increase in government revenue than CBP's estimate in the Transfers section below, as there will be fewer shipments.

The rule would increase the annual time burden of submitting the IMDW to CBP, and this cost is shown in Table 4. Due to data limitations, CBP is unable to quantify the other costs that will result from the rule. These unquantified costs include the cost of switching some goods to a different entry type, the cost to some importers of finding a licensed customs broker, the deadweight loss that will result from reduced imports, and possibly a short-run hiatus of postal shipments for some FPOs. While CBP is unable to estimate these costs, it acknowledges that some of them could be significant.

In the baseline, postal shipments pay a lower duty rate than non-postal shipments because the former only have to pay Section 122 duties, while the latter pay both Section 122 duties and any other applicable duties. This disparity between postal and non-postal modes will disappear under the rule because postal shipments will be subject to all applicable duties and will start providing to CBP the HTSUS classification data needed to calculate those duties. The rule will therefore lead to an increase in revenue collected by the government. Because this benefit to the government will be balanced out by the loss to the duty payers, we count this effect as a transfer instead of a benefit to society and estimate it in the Transfers section.

While the increased tax revenue is not a benefit per se, the rule does have the benefit of stricter enforcement of trade enforcement actions. U.S. trade law explicitly permits the President to impose tariffs under certain acts of Congress: the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the President to adjust imports if there are threats that impair U.S. national security. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the President to impose temporary trade measures if there is “substantial cause or threat of serious injury” to U.S. industries. Lastly, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. Trade Representative to impose import restrictions if a trading partner is violating trade agreements or engaging in practices that harm U.S. commerce. In this analysis, CBP refers to duties imposed under the authority of Section 232, 201, or 301 as “trade enforcement actions.” In the baseline, importers and exporters can avoid these trade-enforcement actions by importing through the interim postal process, where these duties (and all non-Section 122 duties) do not apply. As a result, CBP is unable to strictly enforce measures and resultant duties that have been imposed for purposes other than revenue collection. Because the rule will require shipments subject to trade enforcement actions to use an entry type other than the new postal informal entry process, CBP will be able to pursue the goals of the trade enforcement actions more effectively.

Shipments entered through the new postal informal entry process may be subject to higher duties under the rule than in the baseline, resulting in a transfer from duty payers to the U.S. government. As discussed earlier, the President suspended de minimis treatment for most importations by executive order, which is already factored into the baseline of this rule. Therefore, CBP does not include the effects of suspending de minimis treatment in this rule. However, duty payments on postal shipments could increase because in the baseline the only duties applied to postal shipments are based on the Section 122 duties established by Proclamation 11012. Under the new postal informal entry process, HTSUS classifications will be required for postal shipments, and CBP will use this information to assess all applicable duties, such as those depending on the product classification and country of origin. It is the filers who pay the duties in the postal informal entry process, but these duties can be passed on to other parties to the transaction such as the importer or the supplier.

Because CBP was not previously requiring the collection the HTSUS classifications for postal shipments, it is unable to say what the exact increase in duties on postal shipments would be under the rule. Therefore, CBP estimates the increase by assuming that the same effective average duty rate that is applied to ET11 entries will also apply to postal entries. CBP took a sample of 392,312 ET11 entries from September to November of 2025 and calculated the total duties, taxes, and fees  68 (referred to here collectively as duties), excluding the IEEPA duties because the IEEPA duties applied to both postal and ET11 entries (and others). 69 Dividing those non-IEEPA duties ($13,847,415) by the total value of the goods in the sample ($160,675,653) yields 8.62%, the effective average rate of those non-IEEPA duties. From September to November of 2025, $914,623,378 of postal shipments arrived in the United States. At that rate, CBP calculates that $3,668,544,318 of postal shipments would arrive in the United States over one year. 70 Applying the non-IEEPA duties rate of 8.62% to this total, CBP estimates that annual duties from postal shipments would increase by $316,163,988 under the rule. CBP assumes that −11.63%, the CAGR of postal entries over 2021-2024, is the rate at which annual postal duties would change over the regulatory period. Applying −11.63% growth to the annual duties of $316,163,988, CBP projects the additional postal duties under the rule during the regulatory period, shown in Table 5. CBP reduces the projected amount in the first and last year by half because the rule takes effect midway through the year and the period of analysis is 10 years, extending to mid-2036. To the extent that postal shipment volumes will be affected by the higher duties or that the composition of postal shipments differs from that of ET11 entries, the true increase in duties will differ from our estimate. CBP also notes that in this analysis it did not quantify any additional tariffs that might be imposed in the future, because CBP did not have enough specific information about the rates and applicability of future tariffs.

Besides the transfers to the U.S. government through increased duties, taxes, and fees, the rule may also result in transfers to brokers. The rule requires that parties submitting IMDWs to CBP be the owner, purchaser, or duly appointed licensed customs brokers. As a result, clients that have been using non-broker qualified parties to submit IMDWs will switch to using brokers, except for clients whose non-broker qualified party becomes a licensed customs broker so that it can continue submitting the IMDW under the rule.

The rule updates the postal informal entry process so that postal shipments are subject to all applicable duties. To make this change, CBP will require filers to include the product classification and relevant duty rate on the IMDW. Furthermore, goods subject to trade enforcement and trade remedy actions or PGA data requirements will need to make entry some other way than through the new postal informal entry process. The rule will therefore strengthen CBP's trade enforcement actions and generate revenue from increased duties on postal shipments. The projected duty increase is shown in Table 6.

The notice of intent contained in this document is issued pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intends to issue a temporary scheduling order  1 (in the form of a temporary amendment) to add O -desmethyltramadol (other names: O -DSMT; desmetramadol), its isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, to schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The temporary scheduling order will be published in the Federal Register on or after July 24, 2026.

The CSA provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b), if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 2 In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) while the substance is temporarily controlled under section 811(h), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 3

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 355. 4 The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator). 5

The CSA requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) of an intent to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA ( i.e., to issue a temporary scheduling order). 6 By letter dated May 27, 2025, the previous Acting Administrator transmitted the required notice to place O -DSMT in schedule I on a temporary basis to the then-Acting Assistant Secretary for HHS (Assistant Secretary). 7 On June 11, 2025, the previous Acting Assistant Secretary responded to this notice and advised DEA that, based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there were currently no investigational new drug applications (INDs) or approved new drug applications (NDAs) for O -DSMT. The previous Assistant Secretary also stated that HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of O -DSMT in schedule I of the CSA. O -DSMT is not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA.

To find that temporarily placing a substance in schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator must consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): the substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 8 This consideration includes any information indicating actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution of O -DSMT. 9

Substances meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 10 Substances in schedule I have high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. 11

O -DSMT is a mu-opioid agonist that is being abused for its psychoactive effects. O -DSMT is one of two metabolites produced by liver enzymes following the ingestion of the parent compound tramadol. Tramadol, in and of itself, prior to being metabolized, is active as a norepinephrine and serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, in addition to being a weak mu-opioid receptor agonist. While the second metabolite, N -DSMT, is inactive, O -DSMT is an active metabolite of tramadol with a strong affinity for the mu-opioid receptor. O -DSMT is responsible for the majority of the opioidergic effects following the ingestion of the parent compound tramadol.

In the United States, since tramadol is only approved as a pill formulation, a user must ingest tramadol orally, thus allowing the drug to be metabolized via the liver, to experience the analgesic effects. In the absence of any approved medical product or identified lawful commercial source of O -DSMT in the United States due to its lack of accepted medical use, understanding of the metabolism of tramadol and its opioidergic metabolite has resulted in the clandestine production of O -DSMT. Data has demonstrated that O -DSMT has a significantly higher affinity for opioid receptors (K i -3.4 nM) than the parent drug tramadol (K i -2400 nM) and is more potent in producing analgesia. In addition, overdoses and deaths, both internationally and within the United States, have been documented involving O -DSMT. With no approved medical use and limited safety or toxicological information, O -DSMT has emerged in the designer drug market, and the abuse of this substance is a significant public health concern in the United States.

Available data and information for O -DSMT, summarized below, indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical uses in treatment in the United States, 12 and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. DEA's Three-Factor analysis is available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-1641.

As described previously, O -DSMT is a major metabolite of tramadol. O -Demethylation of the parent drug tramadol results in the formation of O -DSMT, which is primarily catalyzed by the liver enzyme CYP2D6. Individuals of various backgrounds have been identified as either ultrarapid metabolizers, normal metabolizers, intermediate metabolizers, or poor metabolizers of tramadol based upon genotyping of the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP2D6. The current Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines recommend avoiding tramadol in CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolizers (due to possible toxicity from increased formation of O -DSMT) and CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (due to possible lack of efficacy from decreased formation of O -DSMT). Ultrarapid metabolizers have approximately 40 percent greater serum concentration of O -DSMT and subsequently experience a stronger opioid response compared with poor metabolizers.

O -DSMT has been encountered in various forms, including as a solid powder, pressed into pills or tablets, in a capsule, as a semi-solid paste/slurry, and in liquid formulations. Direct ingestion of O -DSMT avoids the need for metabolic activation via liver enzymes, resulting in a compound that is pharmacologically active at the mu-opioid receptor. Injection or insufflation by drug abusers of tramadol would be devoid of most immediate opioid activity due to the parent compound having little affinity for the opioid receptors. As further described in Factor 5, drug seizures have demonstrated O -DSMT both alone and in combination with multiple other drugs. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo and active comparator-controlled trial, the pharmacokinetics and analgesic properties of O -DSMT, as compared to tramadol, in 103 healthy participants were investigated. The study also investigated CYP2D6 inhibition on the ability of both tramadol and O -DSMT to influence analgesia. The results showed that 20 mg of O -DSMT was equivalent in its analgesic potency as compared to 50 mg of tramadol following chronic dosing at steady state, whereby both were significantly greater than placebo ( see Three-Factor analysis).

With the first encounters appearing in 2011, law enforcement continues to report seizures of O -DSMT. The threat of serious injury to the individual and the imminent threat to public safety following the ingestion of O -DSMT persists. DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS)  13 has reported 148 encounters of O -DSMT across 30 states to date. 14 Because not every forensic laboratory has the capacity to test for O -DSMT, it is likely that encounters of O -DSMT are underreported.

Among these various reports, O -DSMT has been found as the only drug in a majority of these encounters (n=118 of 148, 79.7 percent), or co-reported with various other substances to include mitragynine (kratom alkaloid), heroin, isopropyl-U-47700 (synthetic opioid), methamphetamine, fentanyl, acetyl fentanyl, 5F-AEB (synthetic cannabinoid), methoxyacetyl fentanyl, N -benzylfuranylfentanyl, 3-OH-PCE (synthetic hallucinogen), tramadol, bromazolam, para -fluorofentanyl, dipentylone (synthetic cathinone), and/or cocaine, among others. O -DSMT has also been identified in conjunction with other substances, as evidenced by toxicology reports ( see Factor 6). O -DSMT was found to be mixed with the kratom plant as determined by packaging material and the confirmation of both O -DSMT and mitragynine in toxicology results of individuals.

Public health risks associated with O -DSMT abuse relates to its pharmacological similarities with known opioids such as morphine, oxycodone, and fentanyl. The ingestion of O -DSMT has resulted in serious adverse effects including lung congestion, brain edema, and death. The following four examples discussed briefly below can be found in their entirety in DEA's Three-Factor analysis at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-1641.

In 2009, reports in Sweden described nine deaths due to intoxication with O -DSMT combined with mitragynine and confirmed via forensic autopsies. Occurring between October 2009 and October 2010, ten forensic medical investigations found concomitant use of O -DSMT and mitragynine in the blood of these deceased individuals. It was noted that in nine of these cases, the death was explained by intoxication with O -DSMT. Other substances were identified, but it was stated that these substances were not at toxic levels. Ages of the individuals ranged between 22-35 years old, concentrations of O -DSMT ranged between 0.4 and 4.3 µg/g in blood, and all the individuals died before arriving at a hospital. Deaths for all individuals were noted to be accidental. Additional information in the reports detailed significant lung congestion and edema following use of “Krypton” (a mix of kratom and O -DSMT).

Around the same time as the deaths were reported in Sweden, a group in Germany were asked to analyze urine samples for “Krypton” in a former opiate-addicted woman. The woman's clinical picture included miosis, itchiness, agitation, and moderate euphoria following three months of use. Both immunoassays and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) were conducted on the samples. Results were negative for tramadol or its metabolites using the immunoassays. LC-MS/MS detected the kratom alkaloids mitragynine, speciociliatine, speciogynine, mitraciliatine, and paynantheine and approximately 9 mg/L O -DSMT, but no tramadol nor N -desmethyltramadol. Once confronted with these results, the woman admitted to having drunk “3-4 infusions of Krypton” during the past week. The researchers ruled out the use of tramadol because both tramadol and N -desmethyltramadol were not detectable. It was concluded that the most likely source of the O -DSMT was the “Krypton” product, containing both kratom alkaloids and O -DSMT.

In 2021 in Portugal, a 25-year-old male was found dead in his room at a boarding house where he lived. He was a chemistry student who, according to relatives, was “trying to find a cure to his illness using chemical products bought by himself.” Drug paraphernalia found at the scene included a spoon, a syringe, and six different plastic bags found with powders inside. It was noted that all six bags were labeled with the supposed name of the compounds. Further testing confirmed that the labels were accurate for each substance, including O -DSMT. His past medical history included schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In addition, needle puncture marks in the victim's arms, indicative of drug abuse, were noted during autopsy.

In 2021 in Kansas City, Kansas, a 19-year-old male with a history of anxiety and depression was last observed by a roommate lying on his bed and reported to be “snoring and sweaty.” The autopsy did not reveal any significant anatomical abnormalities. Drug evidence at the scene was noted to be labeled as clonazolam, flubromazolam, O -desmethyltramadol ( O -DSMT), and 2-methyl-AP-237. Toxicological analysis of whole blood from autopsy identified the following: 2-methyl AP-237 (379 ng/mL), delta-9 THC (56.8 ng/mL), 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC (141 ng/mL), 8-aminoclonazolam (4.6 ng/mL), O -DSMT (10.9 ng/mL), and mitragynine (2.7 ng/mL). 7-Amino clonazepam, diphenhydramine, fluoxetine, norfluoxetine, trazodone, and propranolol were also identified but not quantified.

As noted in Factor 5, counterfeit pills pressed to resemble tramadol may contain O -DSMT either alone or in combination with other substances. Clandestine manufacturers will commonly use legitimate markings when producing counterfeit pills. Should a user ingest a pill marked as tramadol that was surreptitiously produced with O -DSMT, the individual might experience serious adverse effects due to the stronger analgesic potential of O -DSMT as compared to tramadol.

As users obtain these drugs through unknown sources, the identity and purity of these substances is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to users. O -DSMT is being encountered on the illicit drug market in the United States, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and continues to be available and abused for its psychoactive properties. In summary, O -DSMT has been reported to cause serious adverse effects, including death, following its use.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of O -DSMT poses an imminent hazard to public safety. O -DSMT has not been approved by the FDA and has not been marketed in the United States, and DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for O -DSMT in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, found in 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I must have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for O -DSMT indicate that this substance meets the three statutory criteria.

As required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), in a letter dated May 27, 2025, the previous Acting Administrator notified the previous Acting Assistant Secretary of DEA's intention to temporarily place O -DSMT in schedule I. In a letter dated June 11, 2025, the previous Acting Assistant Secretary did not object to the temporary placement of O -DSMT in schedule I.

This notice of intent provides the 30-day notice pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) of DEA's intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (3), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein sets forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule O -DSMT in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this substance in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

The temporary placement of O -DSMT in schedule I of the CSA will take effect upon publication of a temporary scheduling order in the Federal Register , which will not be issued before July 24, 2026. Because the Administrator hereby finds this temporary scheduling order necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, it will take effect on the date the order is published in the Federal Register and it will remain in effect for two years, with a possible extension of an additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 15 The Administrator intends to issue a temporary scheduling order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this document. Upon the temporary order's publication, O -DSMT will then be subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and to administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis, and possession.

The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling drugs or other substances. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 16 The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties appropriate process and the government any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 17 Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 18

The CSA provides for expedited temporary scheduling actions where necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), the Administrator (as delegated by the Attorney General) may, by order, temporarily schedule substances in schedule I. Such orders may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from: (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intent to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary, as delegated by the Secretary of HHS. 19

Inasmuch as section 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, including the requirement to publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent, the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. The APA expressly differentiates between an order and a rule, as it defines an “order” to mean a “final disposition, whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form, of an agency in a matter other than rule making .”  20 This contrasts with permanent scheduling actions, which are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” and final decisions that conclude the scheduling process and are subject to judicial review. 21 The specific language chosen by Congress indicates its intent that DEA issue orders instead of proceeding by rulemaking when temporarily scheduling substances. Given that Congress specifically requires the Administrator (as delegated by the Attorney General) to follow rulemaking procedures for other kinds of scheduling actions, 22 it is noteworthy that, in section 811(h)(1), Congress authorized the issuance of temporary scheduling actions by order rather than by rule.

Even assuming that this notice of intent is subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice-and-comment requirements pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as any further delays in the process for issuing temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest given the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety.

Although DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator took into consideration comments submitted by the previous Acting Assistant Secretary in response to the notice that DEA transmitted to the previous Acting Assistant Secretary pursuant to such subsection.

Further, DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. As discussed above, DEA is issuing this notice of intent pursuant to DEA's authority to issue a temporary scheduling order. 23 Therefore, in this instance, since DEA believes this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule,” it is not subject to the requirements of the RFA when issuing this temporary action.

In accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, this action is not a significant regulatory action. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. Because this is not a rulemaking action, this is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. In addition, DEA scheduling actions are not subject to either E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, or E.O. 14294, Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.

This action will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons set out above, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on June 16, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The USPTO is revising the rules in part 1 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations to increase certainty and predictability concerning patent rights and to improve efficiency of patent operations.

The Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) amended the provisions of title 35, United States Code (U.S.C.) to implement the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) and the Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague Agreement). See Public Law 112-211, 126 Stat. 1527, (2012). Section 101 of the PLTIA added a new chapter under title 35, including a new section, 35 U.S.C. 387, which provides that an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application may be excused as to the United States upon a showing of unintentional delay and under such conditions, including a requirement for payment of a fee, as may be prescribed by the Director. See Public Law 112-211, sec. 101, 126 Stat. at 1527. Furthermore, Section 201(b) of the PLTIA added 35 U.S.C. 27, which expressly provides that the Director of the USPTO may establish procedures to revive an unintentionally abandoned application for patent or accept an unintentionally delayed issue fee payment, upon petition by the applicant for patent. See Public Law 112-211, sec. 201(b)(1)(B), 126 Stat. at 1534. Section 202(b)(1)(B) of the PLTIA amended 35 U.S.C. 41(c)(1) to provide that the Director may accept the payment of any maintenance fee required by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) after the six-month grace period if the delay is shown to the satisfaction of the Director to have been unintentional. See Public Law 112-211, sec. 202(b)(1)(B), 126 Stat. at 1535-36. The 18-month publication provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) amended 35 U.S.C. 119 and 120 to provide that a priority claim to a foreign or international application, a benefit claim of an earlier domestic provisional or nonprovisional application, and a benefit claim of an international application designating the United States must be filed within the period required by the USPTO, but that the USPTO may establish procedures to accept an unintentionally delayed priority or benefit claim. See Public Law 106-113, sec. 4503, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-563 through 1501A-564 (1999).

The USPTO revised the rules of practice to implement the 18-month publication provisions of section 4503 of the AIPA in September 2000. This included revising the rules of practice pertaining to foreign priority and domestic benefit claims at 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 to set a time period within which such priority and benefit claims must be submitted and provide for the acceptance of unintentionally delayed priority or benefit claims. See Changes to Implement Eighteen-Month Publication of Patent Applications, 65 FR 57023, 57024-25, 57030-31, 57053-55 (September 20, 2000). The USPTO revised the rules of practice for consistency with the PLT and Title II of the PLTIA in October 2013. This included revising the rules of practice pertaining to the revival of abandoned applications at 37 CFR 1.137 and acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments 37 CFR 1.378 to provide for the revival of abandoned applications and acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments solely on the basis of unintentional delay, as well as revisions to the rules of practice pertaining to foreign priority and domestic benefit claims at 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78. See Changes to Implement the Patent Law Treaty, 78 FR 62368, 62377-78, 62380-83, 62399-400, 62402-07 (October 21, 2013).

The provisions for the revival of an abandoned application in 37 CFR 1.137 require a petition including, inter alia, a statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date of the reply until the filing of a grantable petition was unintentional, but also provide that “[t]he Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.” 37 CFR 1.137(b)(4)). The provisions for the acceptance of a delayed maintenance fee payment at 37 CFR 1.378 similarly require a petition including, inter alia, a statement that the delay in payment of the maintenance fee was unintentional, but also provide that “[t]he Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.” 37 CFR 1.378(b)(3). The provisions for the acceptance of a delayed priority or benefit claim at 37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78 likewise require a statement that the delay between the date the claim was due and the date the claim was filed was unintentional, but also provide that “[t]he Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.” 37 CFR 1.55(e)(4), 1.78(c)(3) and (e)(3). Furthermore, the provisions for excusing the failure to act within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application (37 CFR 1.1051) require a statement that the entire delay in filing the “required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to this paragraph was unintentional” and that the “Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.” (37 CFR 1.1051(a)(5)).

On March 2, 2020, the USPTO clarified its practice as to situations that require additional information about whether a delay in seeking the revival of an abandoned application, acceptance of a delayed maintenance fee payment, or acceptance of a delayed priority or benefit claim was unintentional. See Clarification of the Practice for Requiring Additional Information in Petitions Filed in Patent Applications and Patents Based on Unintentional Delay, 85 FR 12222 (March 2, 2020). Specifically, the USPTO clarified that it required additional information in the following three cases. First, when a petition to revive an abandoned application was filed more than two years after the date the application became abandoned. Second, when a petition to accept a delayed maintenance fee payment was filed more than two years after the date the patent expired for nonpayment. Third, when a petition to accept a delayed priority or benefit claim was filed more than two years after the date the priority or benefit claim was due. See also Changes to Patent Practice and Procedure, 62 FR 53131, 53158-59, 53161 (October 10, 1997) (the length of the delay in filing a petition to revive may itself raise a question as to whether the delay was unintentional, and thus the USPTO may require additional information as to the cause of the delay when a petition to revive is not filed promptly). The reason for requiring additional information in cases where there had been an extended delay—a delay of more than two years from the date the application became abandoned, the patent expired, or a priority or benefit claim was due—until the filing of a petition, was to ensure that, in situations where there had been such an extended delay in filing the petition, the USPTO is provided with sufficient information of the facts and circumstances surrounding the entire delay to support a conclusion that the entire delay was “unintentional.” In addition, the USPTO emphasized that it may require additional information whenever there is a question as to whether the delay was unintentional, and that it may revisit the two-year period established in the notice and evaluate whether the two-year period is an appropriate threshold.

The USPTO has decided to shorten the two-year period for requiring additional information to one year. The USPTO will now require additional information when the petition is filed more than one year after the date the application became abandoned, the patent expired, a priority or benefit claim was due, or the applicable prescribed time limit under the Hague Agreement expired. If the period of delay is more than one year, there is a sufficient concern that the entire delay may not be unintentional and thus warrant a requirement for an additional explanation of the circumstances surrounding the delay. The benefits of requiring such a showing or explanation for petitions filed more than one year after the date of abandonment, the date of patent expiration, the date a priority or benefit claim is due, or the date of expiration of the applicable time limit under the Hague Agreement outweigh the additional burden to patent applicants and patentees of providing this information. As noted in the Clarification of the Practice for Requiring Additional Information in Petitions Filed in Patent Applications and Patents Based on Unintentional Delay, 85 FR at 12223, the purpose of the original two-year practice was to reduce uncertainty and unpredictability relating to patent rights. The longer the delay in filing a petition to revive an application, accept a delayed maintenance fee, accept a delayed priority or benefit claim, or excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in international design applications, the greater the likelihood that the entire delay may not be unintentional.

Accordingly, this change from a two-year period to a one-year period will further increase certainty and predictability concerning patent rights, by requiring that applicants and patentees provide, on the record, an adequate explanation that the entire delay is unintentional. Such an explanation or showing both safeguards a patentee's rights by establishing on the record that the delay was unintentional, and protects the public by prohibiting revival, reinstatement, entry of a benefit or priority claim, or excuse of delay, when unintentional delay cannot be established. Further, this change from a two-year period to a one-year period aligns with USPTO efforts to reduce application pendency and promote efficient patent operations by encouraging applicants to regularly monitor patent files and promptly take corrective actions when needed, such as the timely filing of grantable petitions to revive applications, accept delayed maintenance fee payments, accept delayed priority or benefit claims, or to excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits in international design applications. Prompt, corrective actions are more likely to be associated with unintentional delay and assist in streamlining examination.

Section 711.03(c) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) (9th Edition, Rev. 01.2024, November 2024) discusses the unintentional delay standard with respect to petitions to revive an abandoned application, but its discussion of the unintentional delay is generally applicable to any petition under the unintentional delay standard. The USPTO usually relies upon the applicant's duty of candor and good faith and accepts the statement that the entire delay was unintentional without requiring further information because the applicant or patentee is obligated under 37 CFR 11.18 to inquire into the underlying facts and circumstances when providing this statement to the USPTO. See MPEP section 711.03(c), subsection II.C. An extended period of delay in filing a petition to revive an application, accept a delayed maintenance fee payment, accept a delayed priority or benefit claim, or excuse a failure to act within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement, however, raises a question as to whether the entire delay was unintentional. This may create uncertainty and unpredictability relating to patent rights in that there is a greater likelihood that the entire delay may not be unintentional within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.55, 1.78, 1.137, 1.378, and 1.1051, as compared to a petition that was filed within a shorter time period after the abandonment of the application, expiration of the patent, due date for a priority or benefit claim, or expiration of an applicable time limit under the Hague Agreement. An applicant or patentee cannot meet the “unintentional delay” standard in 37 CFR 1.55(e), 1.78(c) and (e), 1.137(a), 1.378(b), or 1.1051 if the entire delay is not unintentional. See MPEP section 711.03(c), subsections II.C. through F.

Providing an inaccurate statement that the entire delay was unintentional may have an adverse effect when attempting to enforce the patent. See In re Rembrandt Technologies LP Patent Litigation, 899 F.3d 1254, 1272-73, 127 USPQ2d 1826, 1837-38 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patents held unenforceable due to a finding of inequitable conduct in submitting an inappropriate statement that the delay was unintentional).

Revival of an application, reinstatement of a patent, acceptance of a priority or benefit claim, or excusal of a failure to act within prescribed time limits after an extended delay can also create uncertainty and unpredictability relating to patent rights because the abandoned status of an application, or the expired status of a patent, or an absence of the priority or benefit claim, or the consequences of failing to act within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement, may be relied upon by other parties. Requiring additional information when the delay is more than one year since the date of abandonment, expiration of the patent, the due date of the priority or benefit claim, or the expiration of an applicable prescribed time limit will improve the reliability and predictability of patent rights by ensuring that only applications and patents in which the entire delay was unintentional are revived or reinstated, and only priority or benefit claims for which the entire delay was unintentional are accepted.

Any applicant filing a petition to revive an abandoned application under 37 CFR 1.137 more than one year after the date of abandonment, any patentee filing a petition to accept a delayed maintenance fee under 37 CFR 1.378 more than one year after the date of expiration for nonpayment of a maintenance fee, any applicant or patent owner filing a petition to accept a delayed priority or benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or 1.78(c) and (e), and any applicant filing a petition to excuse an applicant's failure to act within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement in connection with requirements pertaining to an international design application under 37 CFR 1.1051 more than one year after the date the action was required must provide an additional explanation of the circumstances surrounding the delay that establishes that the entire delay was unintentional. This requirement is in addition to the requirement to provide a statement that the entire delay was unintentional in 37 CFR 1.137(b)(4), or 1.378(b)(3), or 1.55(e)(4), 1.78(c)(3) and (e)(3), or 1.1051(a)(5). The MPEP will be updated in due course to incorporate these requirements.

Nothing in this notice should be construed as an indication that the USPTO will only require additional information in consideration of a petition to revive an abandoned application under 37 CFR 1.137 filed more than one year after the date the application became abandoned, a petition to accept a delayed maintenance fee payment in an expired patent under 37 CFR 1.378 filed more than one year after the date the patent expired, a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or 1.78(c) or (e) to accept a delayed priority or benefit claim filed more than one year after the due date of the priority or benefit claim, or a petition under 37 CFR 1.1051 to excuse the failure to act as to the United States within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement in connection with the requirements pertaining to an international design application under 37 CFR 1.1051 filed more than one year after the expiration of the time limit. Separate and apart from the one-year period in this notice, the USPTO may require additional information whenever there is a question as to whether the delay was unintentional.

Because the USPTO is revising the requirement for additional information in petitions filed in patent applications and patents based on unintentional delay where the petition is filed more than one year after the date when the required action was due, the evidentiary requirements in such petitions will increase, as well as the cost to review and treat these petitions. Therefore, the USPTO is changing the threshold for imposing the higher petition fee to recover the additional costs associated with the change in practice set forth in this notice. Additionally, changing the threshold for imposing the higher fee will further encourage applicants to file their petitions in a timely manner. Timely filing of petitions based on unintentional delay benefits applicants because it avoids delays in the examination process, and it also benefits the patent system as a whole by reducing uncertainty and unpredictability relating to patent rights, inasmuch as the abandoned status of an application, the expired status of a patent, or an absence of the priority or benefit claim could be relied upon by other parties.

Therefore, to reflect the changes in practice with respect to petitions to revive an abandoned application under 37 CFR 1.137, to accept a delayed maintenance fee payment in an expired patent under 37 CFR 1.378, to accept a delayed priority or benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.55(e) or 1.78(c) or (e), or a petition to excuse the failure to act as to the United States within prescribed time limits under the Hague Agreement in connection with the requirements pertaining to an international design application under 37 CFR 1.1051, the rules are revised to clarify that the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) will apply when the petition is filed more than one year after the date when the required action was due. The fee rates in 37 CFR 1.17(m) will remain the same.

Section 1.17(m): Section 1.17(m)(1) is amended to state that the fee under (m)(1) for filing a petition under a section that refers to paragraph (m) will apply when the petition is filed more than one year after the date when the required action was due. Previously, the rule stated that the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) was due when the petition was filed more than two years after the date when the required action was due. However, additional information is now required in petitions filed in patent applications and patents based on unintentional delay whenever the delay in taking certain actions in patent applications and patents is more than one year. Therefore, to align with the changes to practice and encourage the timely filing of petitions based on unintentional delay, 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) is amended accordingly. Section 1.17(m)(1) now applies when the petition is filed more than one year after the date when the required action was due.

A. Administrative Procedure Act: This final rule amends the fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) such that it will apply when a relevant petition is filed more than one year after the date when the required action was due. The change in this final rule does not change the substantive criteria of patentability. Therefore, the change in this rulemaking involves a rule of agency practice and procedure and/or an interpretive rule and does not require notice-and-comment rulemaking, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97, 101 (2015) (explaining that interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers” and do not require notice-and-comment when issued or amended); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice-and-comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice”); In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105, 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (noting that rule changes that “do[ ] not alter the substantive standards by which the USPTO evaluates trademark applications” are procedural in nature and thus “exempted from notice-and-comment rulemaking.”); and JEM Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he `critical feature' of the procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] `is that it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.'” (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993).

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (January 18, 2011). Specifically, and as discussed above, the USPTO has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) reasonably determined that the benefits of the rule justify its costs; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the agency's regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole, and provided online access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens while maintaining flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.

E. Executive Order 14192 (Deregulation): This regulation is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking pertains strictly to federal agency procedures and does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).

G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking will not: (1) have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000).

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).

I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996).

J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (April 21, 1997).

K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1988).

L. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this rulemaking are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

N. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995: The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of technical standards.

P. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) requires that the USPTO consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The collections of information involved in this final rule have been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0651-0016, 0651-0021, 0651-0031, 0651-0032, and 0651-0075. In view of this final rule, the USPTO will submit updates to the 0651-0016, 0651-0021, 0651-0031, 0651-0032, and 0651-0075 information collections in the form of nonsubstantive change requests.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Q. E-Government Act Compliance: The USPTO is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the USPTO amends 37 CFR part 1 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth Report and Order ( Order ), in WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10; GN Docket No. 25-133, FCC 26-33, adopted on May 20, 2026, and released on May 21, 2026. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and can be downloaded at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-33A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0503.

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The rulemaking required under the Broadband DATA Act is exempt from review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. As a result, the Report and Order will not be submitted to OMB for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Aligning Reporting Requirements for Broadband Availability and Subscription Data. We adopt the Commission's proposal from the Fourth FNPRM to modify our rules so that Form 477 uses the same definition of “broadband” as the BDC. We believe that this change clarifies reporting requirements and reduces confusion among providers without materially affecting the Form 477 data collection or the BDC. Our adoption of this proposal is also consistent with Congress' mandate from the Broadband DATA Act to “harmonize reporting requirements and procedures regarding the deployment of broadband internet access service.” Specifically, we update the definition of “broadband connection” in 47 CFR 1.7001(a)(1) so that it refers to connections of a “broadband internet access service” as defined in 47 CFR 8.1(b).

Facilities-based providers of broadband services—both fixed and mobile—are required to report in their Form 477 filings the number of broadband connections in service ( i.e., subscriptions) on the “as of” date of the filing. For Form 477 purposes, a broadband connection is currently defined as “[a] wired line, wireless channel, or satellite service that terminates at an end user location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction.” Meanwhile, the BDC collects information on the availability of broadband internet access service, which is defined in the Broadband DATA Act as “a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.”

As discussed in the Fourth FNPRM, we believe the definition in the Broadband DATA Act is, on net, narrower than that used in the collection of connections in service through Form 477. Form 477 currently collects information on both mass-market retail connections and those sold on a customized basis, the latter of which are outside the scope of the BDC. At the same time, the BDC currently collects information on the availability of very low bandwidth, mass-market broadband services that are outside the scope of Form 477. Imposing a common definition of broadband on both data collections thus simultaneously narrows the scope of Form 477 by removing customized broadband services and expands the scope of Form 477 by including very low bandwidth, mass-market broadband. Specifically, Form 477 will now collect data on connections that do not exceed the “200 kbps in at least one direction” floor established in the prior definition. We believe, however, that there are very few connections that deliver a broadband internet access service at speeds that do not exceed 200 kbps in at least one direction that are also not delivered via a dial-up service. When taken together, we do not believe this change will have a material effect on the Form 477 data collection.

Several commenters supported our adoption of this proposal. We agree with NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) that better alignment of the collections will improve our data validation processes and allow better comparisons of BDC and FCC Form 477 data. We decline, however, to adopt NTCA and Vantage Point Solutions' proposals to require providers of facilities-based fixed voice service to report locations where their services are available. Neither the Commission's existing rules nor the Broadband DATA Act require providers to report the availability of fixed voice services. Adopting such a requirement would impose new burdens on certain fixed voice service providers, and we find that the record does not offer sufficient justification for this additional reporting that falls beyond both the scope and the purpose of the BDC and the NBM.

No Additional Certifications and Supporting Data from Satellite Providers. We expressly decline to require the additional certifications and supporting data from satellite providers on which the Commission sought comment in the Fourth FNPRM. Next-generation satellite services continue to deploy and evolve at a rapid pace, resulting in reported service available to over 99.7% of all locations included on the NBM. A variety of circumstances, often unique to the individual location in question, may affect the availability of an otherwise broadly available satellite service offering at a specific location. For example, natural terrain such as mountains or trees could impact service availability if such terrain obstructs the view of the relevant satellite or satellite system in orbit.

In the Third Report and Order, the Commission determined that it would rely upon verification measures to help ensure the accuracy of satellite broadband availability data. The Commission reminded satellite providers that “the standards for availability reporting that apply to all fixed services require that satellite providers include only locations that they are currently serving or meet the broadband installation standard.” The Commission also reminded satellite providers that they can only report an ability to serve an area upon a reasonable basis, “taking into account current and expected locations of spot beams, capacity constraints, and other relevant factors.” Updated verification specifications were issued in 2024 to better assist staff in verifying availability data. Staff notified all providers, including satellite providers, that they must maintain supporting data for each reporting period and that the Commission may collect such data in the context of the Commission's statutory obligations to verify broadband service availability data.

The Fourth FNPRM sought comment on whether to require satellite providers to include in their biannual submissions the infrastructure data set forth in Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.4 of the BDC Provider Infrastructure Data Specifications issued in 2024 and whether, in the event that such infrastructure data are required, the Commission should make the data available to the public. The information included in the satellite provider infrastructure portion of the data specifications is largely based upon categories of data that each provider is already required to submit as part of its FCC Form 312 (Application for Satellite Space and Earth Station Authorizations) and accompanying Schedule S (Technical and Operational Appendix). The Fourth FNPRM also sought comment on the burden that requiring such increased data reporting on a biannual basis would place upon satellite providers. In addition, the Commission sought comment on any other data from satellite providers that could be collected that would provide better insights into their broadband availability data.

The record developed in response is mixed, with some commenters opposing the proposal to require filing additional infrastructure data and supporting capacity information as part of providers' biannual submissions and some commenters supporting the proposal and arguing the collection would benefit the public. On balance, we find that any potential benefit in routinely collecting such information in satellite providers' biannual submissions is outweighed by the burden created in requiring a duplicative submission of the data in FCC Form 312 and Schedule S. We therefore decline to adopt the Commission's proposals from the Fourth FNPRM.

Eliminating Requirement that Fabric Challenges be Shared with Service Providers. We adopt the proposals set forth in the Fourth FNPRM to eliminate the requirement to notify service providers of Fabric challenges and the requirement that service providers be afforded an opportunity to respond to such challenges during the Fabric development cycle. Further, we clarify the Commission's interpretation that the language from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) permitting provider responses and setting a deadline for the Commission to resolve challenges only applies to availability challenges and not to Fabric challenges. Service providers will continue to be notified of accepted Fabric challenges before the next version of the map is published and will then have an opportunity to challenge any results with which they disagree.

As currently implemented, the BDC system publishes information about in-progress and resolved Fabric challenges on a monthly basis as publicly available data downloads on the NBM. The BDC system does not separately alert providers of accepted Fabric challenges. The Commission has deemed the existence of the monthly data downloads that include information on Fabric challenges to be sufficient to meet the existing notice requirement and determined that any subsequent challenges submitted by a provider to these locations would constitute an opportunity to respond. This approach allows providers to identify which Fabric challenges are relevant to their current or future BDC filings, including areas where they plan to expand their networks. To date, exceedingly few locations that were previously the subject of a Fabric challenge have been subsequently challenged by another entity after resolution of the former challenge.

The Fourth FNPRM proposed to eliminate the requirement that the BDC system alert providers of accepted Fabric challenges, along with the related requirement that providers be afforded an opportunity to respond to Fabric challenges before the challenges are included for processing of the next version of the Fabric. WISPA—The Association for Broadband Without Boundaries (WISPA) states that it “does not oppose the Commission's proposal to eliminate the requirement that the BDC system alert a provider of accepted Fabric challenges and that service providers be afforded an opportunity to directly respond to Fabric challenges in-cycle.” USTelecom—The Broadband Association (USTelecom) supports both the proposal to eliminate the requirement of notifying a provider of Fabric challenges and the Commission continuing to notify the provider when changes are made to each version of the Fabric. Pew Charitable Trusts encourages “the Commission to create a tailored notification system to inform state broadband offices and local jurisdictions of relevant changes within their jurisdiction.” Other commenters oppose eliminating the requirements that providers be notified of and allowed to respond to challenges before the challenges are included for processing of the next version of the Fabric. These commenters argue notice is necessary to provide clarity about the challenges and an opportunity to learn the outcomes of their Fabric challenges.

We conclude that the adoption of these proposals to eliminate notice requirements and responses to challenges will clarify any ambiguity in the Commission's rules and streamline the process for resolving Fabric challenges and incorporating challenge results into the next version of the Fabric. Conversely, implementing a more robust notification system and permitting additional time for service providers to respond to in-progress Fabric challenges would inherently add more complexity to the existing process by which the Commission updates the Fabric on a biannual basis and would substantially increase the amount of time it takes to resolve Fabric challenges and may impact Fabric data generation timelines. The Commission will continue to make data on Fabric challenges available in the data downloads published on the NBM, including the ability to download state-specific files. The Commission will also continue to provide challengers with responses to their Fabric challenges in advance of incorporation of these challenge data into the Fabric.

In the Fourth FNPRM, the Commission also proposed to interpret language in the IIJA requiring it to resolve challenges within 90 days of a final response by the provider to be inapplicable as to Fabric challenges. In today's Order, we clarify that the Commission's interpretation that the IIJA language permitting provider responses and setting a deadline for the Commission to resolve challenges is only applicable to availability challenges and not to Fabric challenges.

Adopting New Rule Subsection for Fabric Challenge Process. The Fourth FNPRM proposed to modify the Commission's rules to better distinguish between fixed availability and Fabric challenges by moving the rules pertinent to Fabric challenges into their own subsection. One commenter opined on this proposal and supported the change; none opposed the proposal. It is our view that the current language of § 1.7006 conflates availability and Fabric challenges and can be confusing to interpret given the differences between the two processes—for example, the functional difference between challenging availability data ( i.e., claims of service by providers) and Fabric challenges (challenging the dataset of all BSLs across the country), different reasons for filing a challenge (availability of broadband versus the existence of a BSL on the map), etc.—and that having separate sections explaining the distinct challenge processes would improve and clarify the Commission's rules. Thus, we adopt the Fourth FNPRM' s proposal to adopt a new rule subsection for the Fabric challenge process.

Next, we adopt changes to § 1.7009(d) to remove the obligation of providers to update their BDC data based on adverse verification results and add § 1.7009(e) to require Commission staff to modify or remove the provider's BDC data from the NBM after the provider is notified of an adverse audit or verification finding. We adopt these changes in order to streamline the closeout process for a failed verification or audit, ensuring the NBM reflects corrected data in a timely fashion. This update to the rules will also clarify for providers the potential ramifications stemming specifically from an adverse finding in a verification or audit.

In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission delegated authority to OEA, in coordination with WTB, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), and the Space Bureau (SB), to continue to perform verifications and audits of the biannual data filed by providers in the BDC using the tools currently available, including the authority to establish methodologies and procedures for selecting providers and locations or areas subject to verification or audit. Pursuant to § 1.7009(d) of the Commission's rules, “[p]roviders must file corrected data when they discover inaccuracy, omission, or significant reporting error in the original data that they submitted, whether through self-discovery, the crowdsource process, the challenge process, the Commission verification process, or otherwise.” Section 1.7009(d)(1) then states that “[p]roviders must file corrections within 30 days of their discovery of incorrect or incomplete data.” As the Commission noted in the Fourth FNPRM, “[i]n the case of mobile wireless coverage subject to a verification inquiry, we have also made clear that `we may treat any targeted [mobile wireless coverage] areas that . . . fail verification as a failure to file required data in a timely manner and that the Commission may make modifications to the data presented on the broadband map ( i.e., by removing some or all of the targeted area from the provider's coverage maps).'” The Commission added that it had “not been as explicit in announcing that similar procedures and remedies would apply in response to determinations made as a result of verification of fixed availability data or in the case of audits (of both fixed and mobile data).”

To create clarity for providers, in the Fourth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on its tentative conclusion “that it would be beneficial to clarify in our rule that, in the event a provider's response to a verification inquiry or an audit does not support its availability filing—whether due to an incomplete response or where the response demonstrates that service is not available” then the data must be updated accordingly after the provider is notified of the Commission's finding. In response, commenters cited the need for staff to ensure the accuracy of the NBM and supported “the Commission's proposed clarification of authority on the removal of locations from filings that are found to be inaccurate.” USTelecom stated “there is a need to remove locations without availability from the map” and that “it seems unnecessary for providers to be required to regenerate a new filing within 30 days of an audit if the [BDC] system has an automated way to perform the same function.” We agree with commenters and add § 1.7009(e) specifically to clarify that the Commission will update the NBM, which may include amending or removing some or all of a provider's BDC data after an adverse verification or audit inquiry. We find that this clarification will streamline the outcome of verifications and audits, improve the accuracy for the NBM, align with how the BDC system is designed to process the amendment or removal of locations or areas after adverse verification or audit findings, and eliminate the burden on providers to meet a 30-day correction window, particularly small business providers who may have limited staffing and monetary resources. Adoption of this rule change does not foreclose other Commission remedies for misreporting data, including enforcement action and/or other penalties as set forth in the Communications Act and other applicable laws.

We amend §§ 1.7001(d)(4), 1.7003, and 1.7010 to modernize the BDC rules to reflect organizational changes to the Commission since 2023. In 2023, the Commission created two separate entities from the former International Bureau (IB)—the Space Bureau (SB) and the Office of International Affairs (OIA). Because satellite broadband providers are required to file in the BDC, the Space Bureau remains actively involved in BDC matters since the Space Bureau has regulatory responsibilities relating to satellite technology and space-based services. Sections 1.7001(d)(4), 1.7003, and 1.7010 were amended to replace the references to IB with references to OIA and SB for authority to disclose provider-specific data contained in FCC Form 477, update FCC Form 477, and update the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.

SB has explicit delegated authority, along with WTB and WCB, to coordinate with OEA on BDC matters. OIA is not named as an Office with delegated authority to update rules for the BDC. Therefore, the references in §§ 1.7001(d)(4), 1.7003, and 1.7010 to “Office of International Affairs” are removed.

We also amend § 1.7005(e) to clarify the rule's purpose as requiring public release of all provider-specific broadband availability data without delineating the specific subcomponents of these data. This ministerial change increases clarity for providers by simplifying the rule language without substantively changing the scope of the current rule.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, et al., Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Fourth FNPRM ), released in July 2024. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Fourth FNPRM, including comment on the IFRA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.

In the Sixth Report and Order ( Order ), the Commission takes steps to improve the accuracy of its Broadband Data Collection (BDC) by streamlining processes while alleviating regulatory burdens on service providers and challenge process participants. The Order also includes edits to restructure or update references in the BDC rules. These revisions will reduce burdens on providers by harmonizing key definitions across filings, removing unnecessary notification processes, and streamlining responses to audits, which should result in cost savings for service providers, including small entities.

No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, [1] the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. [2] The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the adopted rules. [3] The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  [4] In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. [5] A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. [6] The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.

Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. [8] In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. [9] These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. [10] Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. [11] While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99% of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. [12] Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. [13] Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000. [14]

The rules adopted in the Order will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)  [15] codes and corresponding SBA size standard. [16] Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the industries identified below.