[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43941-43954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17127]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 121
Revised Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products
AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Postal Service is adding one to two days to the service
standards for certain First-Class Mail and Periodicals.
DATES: Effective October 1, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Twana Barber, Strategic Communications
Business Partner, at 202-714-3417.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Comments
III. Response to Comments
A. Representative Concerns
B. Other Statutory Concerns
IV. Explanation of Final Rules
A. Service Standards Generally
B. First-Class Mail
C. Periodicals
I. Introduction
On April 23, 2021, the Postal Service published proposed revisions
to First-Class Mail and Periodicals service standards in the Federal
Register and sought public comment (the Proposed Rule). Service
Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products, 86 FR 21675 (Apr. 23,
2021). These proposed service standards constitute a central element of
the Postal Service's Delivering for America strategic plan to achieve
service excellence and financial sustainability, which was announced on
March 23, 2021. The comment period for the Proposed Rule closed on June
22, 2021. Current service standards require the Postal Service to rely
heavily on air transportation, using air cargo transportation carriers
and commercial passenger air carriers. Air transportation is subject to
a number of factors that make it less reliable than surface
transportation, such as weather delays, network congestion, and air
traffic control ground stops; air transportation also tends to cost
significantly more than surface transportation. The basic logic of the
changes is that the addition of one or two days to current service
standards for First-Class Mail and Periodicals would enable the Postal
Service to convey a greater volume of mail within the contiguous United
States by surface transportation, thereby achieving a better balance of
on-time reliability and cost-effectiveness. It would also enable the
Postal Service to
[[Page 43942]]
enhance the efficiency of its surface transportation network.
The scope of the changes is also limited. Most First-Class Mail (61
percent) would stay at its current standard, and overall 70 percent of
First-Class Mail would be subject to a standard of 3 days or less,
consistent with the current standards within the contiguous United
States. For the minority of volume that is subject to a shift in
service standard, the standard would only change by 1 or 2 days (with
most of such volume experiencing a 1-day change). At the same time, the
Postal Service would be positioned to provide service on a
significantly more predictable basis.
On April 21, 2021, the Postal Service submitted a request to the
Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for an advisory opinion on these
service standard changes proposed for First-Class Mail and Periodicals,
in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3661(b). The PRC initiated Docket No.
N2021-1, in which it conducted formal hearings with testimony on the
record in order to consider the Postal Service's request. A number of
interested persons and entities intervened and conducted discovery to
probe the Postal Service's request and evidence; the PRC's Presiding
Officer and its appointed Public Representative also actively examined
the evidence through the discovery and hearing process. Some
intervenors introduced their own rebuttal testimony and other evidence
into the record. Several intervenors submitted arguments to the PRC in
the form of post-hearing briefs, and many other interested persons did
the same through submission of statements of position. The supporting
evidence in that proceeding advanced by the Postal Service demonstrated
a number of significant benefits from implementing the service standard
changes consistent with the policies enumerated in Title 39 of the
United States Code: more reliable, predictable, and consistent service
for mailers; significant cost savings due to the creation of a more
efficient transportation network; longer-term financial sustainability;
and further operational benefits in the future.
The proceeding culminated in an advisory opinion issued by the PRC
on July 20, 2021, which concluded that the Postal Service's proposed
changes, in principle, are rational and not inconsistent with statutory
requirements. The PRC did make a number of recommendations for how the
Postal Service should implement its changes. The Postal Service does
not concur with many portions of the PRC's advisory opinion, including
how the PRC analyzed aspects of the evidence presented by the Postal
Service. That said, the Postal Service largely agrees with the PRC's
recommendations, and will be following most of them as these new
service standards are implemented.
Specifically, the Postal Service agrees with the principle of
setting realistic performance targets based on actual operating
conditions. The Postal Service has not claimed that it will achieve the
95 percent service performance target set forth in the Delivering for
America plan instantaneously with the service standard change; rather,
the implementation of this change is a necessary step towards
ultimately achieving that target, in conjunction with other elements in
the plan. Interim targets will be set as the plan is implemented. The
Postal Service also agrees with the principles of closely monitoring
the implementation process to ensure that the new transportation
network is achieving the Postal Service's goals, measuring customer
satisfaction with the changes, and working closely with customers.
Successful implementation not only of this service standard change, but
of the plan generally, requires careful and systematic operational
planning and execution, as well as customer engagement. On the other
hand, the Postal Service continues to believe that the econometric
analysis that it presented in Docket No. N2021-1--in response to a PRC
recommendation in an earlier advisory opinion--constitutes a robust and
objective approach to understanding how these service standard changes
may impact mail volumes, and therefore the Postal Service does not
agree with the PRC's new recommendation to disregard that analysis.
II. Comments
The Postal Service received about 136,317 comments in response to
the Proposed Rule. These responses came overwhelmingly from individuals
using very similar, if not verbatim, language, but also from a small
variety of other sources, including the Attorneys General of a group of
states together with cities, a union, and public advocacy groups. Some
of the comments submitted in the Proposed Rule, including those by the
Attorneys General and others, are simply copies of the same briefs or
statements of position that they had filed in the PRC proceeding, re-
submitted to the Postal Service as their comments for this rulemaking.
The Postal Service likewise incorporates by reference its Initial Brief
and Reply Brief as filed publicly in the PRC proceeding. Initial Brief
of the United States Postal Service, PRC Docket No. N2021-1 (June 21,
2021), https://go.usa.gov/xF5n4; Reply Brief of the United States
Postal Service, PRC Docket No. N2021-1 (June 25, 2021), https://go.usa.gov/xF5n2. While almost all commenters express some form of
opposition to the changes, they do not offer clear alternative
proposals or revisions.
Many comments raise issues that fall outside the scope of this
proceeding. For example, such non-germane issues included:
Pensions and retiree health benefits;
Postal banking;
Appropriations;
Service standards and/or service performance regarding
packages;
Removal of sorting machines and collection boxes;
Tenure of the current Postmaster General;
Potential changes to the retail network; and
``Privatization'' of aspects of (or indeed the entirety
of) the Postal Service.
None of these issues, irrespective of their importance, properly
fall within the scope of this rulemaking. Changes to the service
standards for First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals do fall
within the scope of this rulemaking, and comments that focused on such
changes were taken into closer account and are addressed below.
Many commenters predict that the changes to service standards for
First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals will degrade service,
disrupting the provision of goods and services while leaving vulnerable
customers and financially stressed business with no viable recourse. By
way of support, many of these commenters relate anecdotes of service
failures that have impacted them negatively. Other comments raise
various concerns that bear at least some relation to the service
standard changes at issue, such as the following:
Impacts of the proposed changes on rural customers;
The appropriateness of the proposed changes during the
pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic;
The impact of the proposed changes on election mail;
The purportedly illegitimate prioritizing of cost
reduction over delivery speed;
Loss of mail volume; and
An alleged strategy to deemphasize First-Class Mail in
favor of packages.
As noted, most of the comments are in the form of short letters,
using very similar or identical verbiage. Frequently, these form
letters stated that
[[Page 43943]]
they were opposed to the proposed service standard changes, which they
alleged would ``permanently'' slow down the delivery of much of the
mail; that the Postal Service's focus should be on improving the delays
that ``plagued'' service during the past year; that the Postal Service
is ``critical'' to keeping all citizens connected; and that the
commenters ``depend on reliable and affordable postal services.'' These
last views, expressed repeatedly in over 100,000 submissions, confirm
that the American public overwhelmingly depends upon reliable and
affordable postal services.
To be clear, this does not mean that many comments do not also
express an interest in more expeditious service. Yet the comments
undeniably recognize that reliability is significant. Further, what
they express clearly was the ``essential'' nature of postal services to
the public, and that they want to see these essential services both
maintained and improved for years to come. The comments highlight the
many aspects of what quality postal services include: reliability and
affordability, as well as fast delivery. These sometimes competing
qualities must be balanced when designing service standards. 39 U.S.C.
3691(b)(1)(C).
The Postal Service has taken the comments into account, and has
determined that they do not furnish a reasonable basis to deviate from
the initial set of proposed changes to the service standards in
question. In particular, the comments do not present any compelling
explanation for why adding a day or two to a minority of First-Class
Mail and end-to-end Periodicals volume would make postal services
insufficiently speedy, let alone negate the benefits of enhanced
reliability, cost effectiveness, and financial sustainability that will
inure to all. The Postal Service therefore considers that these new
standards properly balance the various statutory policies regarding the
design of service standards, and should be implemented.
III. Response to Comments
A. Representative Concerns
To the extent that anecdotes of performance failures relate to
First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals, the Postal Service has
concluded that the changes will help to ameliorate, rather than worsen,
service performance and customer satisfaction. By enacting these
service standards, the Postal Service will be able to increase service
reliability and thus ensure that its service standards provide
customers with more meaningful service expectations compared to the
current standards.
As an initial matter, the Postal Service notes that over 60 percent
of First-Class Mail volume will remain unaffected by the changes, and
that 70 percent of First-Class Mail volume will continue to have a
service standard of 3 days or less. The Postal Service further notes
that it has been unable to achieve its service performance targets for
many years, and that these service failures illustrate the weakness of
the current transportation model. Indeed, the commenters who cite these
failures make a strong case for the changes. Bills do not, in general,
arrive late due to the insufficient speed of surface transportation,
but rather because a mailer relied on a service standard that failed to
materialize: had the mailer known that delivery would take longer, the
mailer could have mailed sooner. Many of the commenters' frustrations,
in other words, appear to have arisen from the lack of reliability
currently ingrained in the transportation network. Service standards
that are reliably achieved can be planned around; service failures of
fluctuating duration often cannot.
Numerous commenters related anecdotes of service performance
failures, complaining of slow delivery times and occasional lost items,
which resulted in missed payments on bills, delayed receipt of
prescription medications, and other inconveniences. These commenters
frequently misconstrue service changes as an attempt to enshrine and
regularize the service failures of the past year. As noted above, to
the extent that these anecdotes relate to First-Class Mail and end-to-
end Periodicals, the Postal Service submits that the changes will help
to ameliorate, rather than worsen, service performance and customer
satisfaction. Many of the items about which customers express concern,
such as bills, tend to ship from locations of relatively close
geographical proximity, and as such, they will figure among the group
of unaffected mailings. Further, the Postal Service aims, with the new
service standards, to deploy a transportation network capable of
delivering on time and with consistency, one on which customers can
count. Vulnerable customers who rely on the Postal Service for
predictable delivery would particularly stand to benefit from the
enhanced service reliability that will result from these changes.
Some comments express skepticism of surface transportation. For
example, one commenter asserts that ``[t]he justification/rationale . .
. that airplanes are less reliable than trucks driving across country
is beyond absurd,'' and speculated that ``[d]elivering [F]irst[-C]lass
[M]ail cross country by using only trucks realistically would need a
standard `maximum' of 12 days,'' and that ``[e]ven then the actual
could exceed 15 days.'' One individual commenter, who intervened in the
PRC docket and then re-submitted a copy of his brief from that case,
comments that air and surface transportation are comparably reliable,
and that, moreover, non-transportation root causes of delay make a 95
percent service performance target impossible. However, experience
indicates both that the air transportation network is less reliable
than surface transportation, and that by beneficially exploiting the
capabilities of the surface transportation network, the Postal Service
can achieve a greater degree of reliability. With regard to root causes
of delay, the changes afford additional time to rectify certain
handling errors and transit failures. Furthermore, these changes form
but one part of a broader strategy, set forth in the Postal Service's
comprehensive Delivering for America strategic plan, to achieve 95
percent success in the metric of service performance; the Postal
Service has not portrayed these changes as sufficient to achieve that
end, but rather as a necessary component, among others, to ultimately
achieving a 95 percent service level.
The same commenter references certain service standard changes
implemented in the years 2000 and 2001, pursuant to which ``the Postal
Service defined a service standard to match a range of truck driving
time.'' The commenter then asserts that these former changes did not
yield an increase in improved reliability, and suggests that the
current changes will likewise fail to realize their stated goal.
Nonetheless, the commenter offers little evidence to legitimize any
such comparison between two different service standard changes
occurring in two vastly different contexts. The current changes are
different from and more extensive than the changes implemented two
decades ago.
At least one commenter alleges that ``[i]f one can plan for 95
percent on-time delivery within a five-day timeframe, one can make a
plan for 95 percent on-time delivery within a three-day timeframe.''
Actual experience, though, overwhelmingly indicates that the Postal
Service cannot, in a cost-effective manner, achieve 95 percent on-time
delivery within a 3-day timeframe. The Postal Service has not met its
First-Class Mail service targets in years, and these service failures
have been particularly
[[Page 43944]]
pronounced for mail subject to a 3-day standard. This is because the
current First-Class Mail standards require delivery in 3 days or less
throughout the continental United States regardless of the distance
between origin and destination, a short timeframe that necessitates
excessive use of less reliable air transportation. The short timeframe
also results in tight timelines for processing and transporting mail,
further increasing the risk of service failures caused by contingencies
that arise in the normal course of business.
One commenter contends that, if service standards are lengthened,
some mail will be delivered early, thereby undercutting the Postal
Service's goal of consistency. This type of ``inconsistency,'' however,
is not a cause for criticism. The Postal Service seeks to deliver more
mail within its stated service performance targets, and thus to avoid
delays--especially of the sort of which so many commenters complain.
Some commenters suggest that the Postal Service has illegitimately
prioritized cost reduction over speed of delivery. In particular, joint
comments by advocacy groups state that ``[t]he Postal Service proposal
. . . puts costs above the `expeditious' delivery of mail'' in
violation of 39 U.S.C. 101(a) and 101(e). The Postal Service stresses
that projected cost savings, while important, do not constitute the
sole factor motivating the changes. The service standard changes will
both reduce cost and improve service reliability, with minimal impact
on delivery speed, particularly in light of recent actual performance.
Furthermore, the cost savings associated with this plan are not
envisioned as ends in themselves; rather, they are intended to ensure
that universal service, provided at least 6 days a week at affordable
rates, remains financially sustainable into the future. The Postal
Service has discretion to balance service reliability, speed, and
delivery frequency in light of reasonable rates and best business
practices and to account for costs, existing service levels, and
various factors that affect the financial viability of the universal
service network. The changes represent a considered and reasonable
effort to strike an appropriate balance among these considerations.
Numerous commenters question the projected financial benefit
associated with the new service standards. These comments frequently
predict that the changes will precipitate a ``downward spiral,''
whereby declining service leads to declining demand and thus to
declining revenue that outstrips the cost savings. In a similar vein,
joint comments by public advocacy groups conjecture that ``by
potentially decreasing mail volumes or harming the Postal Service
brand, the proposal may not result in cost savings for the Postal
Service.'' An industry mailer in financial services likewise speculates
that ``the Postal Service may experience significantly more volume loss
as a result of the proposed changes than it expects as companies shift
to faster, more reliable, and easier to manage electronic channels in
response'' to the changes. An individual commenter echoes this by
stating his belief that the Postal Service has underestimated the
volume loss associated with the changes.
No commenter offers evidence to corroborate these suppositions. On
the other hand, the Postal Service has, in its proceeding before the
PRC, developed record evidence about potential demand effects in the
form of an expert econometric analysis. While that analysis forecasts a
decline in volume, the forecasted decline is not anticipated to spark a
negative feedback loop or to swallow all concomitant benefits.
Bolstering this analysis is evidence, in the form of regular customer
survey data presented before the PRC, that customers generally place
higher value on service reliability than speed. To the extent that some
customers may prefer delivery speed faster than these standards, the
evidence does not support a conclusion that these customers will prompt
a cascade of demand decline, but rather that customer satisfaction will
remain stable, if not improve, with more reliable service. Rather than
harm the Postal Service's brand, then, the changes should help to
alleviate the reputational damage accruing to late and missed
deliveries.
Some commenters question the appropriateness of the changes during
the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic, observing the role played by the
Postal Service in delivering prescription medications, food and pantry
staples, stimulus checks, and coupons. First, package deliveries--
including those of prescription medications and food--are not affected
by the changes at issue in this rulemaking, which are limited to First-
Class Mail and Periodicals. Further, many of the service performance
failures raised by other commenters have been exacerbated by the
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on air transportation and by the
strain on the Postal Service's surface transportation networks in
attempting to shoulder the resulting burden of meeting current service
standards. See Postal Regulatory Comm'n, Annual Compliance
Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2020 (Mar. 29, 2021), at 109-16. The
evidence indicates that the new changes will help to ameliorate, rather
than worsen, these performance failures. The pendency of COVID-19, its
disruption of air transportation, and the resultant burden on surface
transportation to meet current service standards therefore makes these
corrective measures more, not less, urgent.
Many commenters express concern that the changes might negatively
impact the delivery of election mail. For example, joint comments by
public advocacy groups aver that ``[d]elaying mail delivery risks
significant numbers of completed ballots that might not be counted
because they are delivered after states' deadlines for receipt of mail-
in ballots.'' The Postal Service notes the limited scope of these
service standard changes, as well as the distinction between lengthened
service standards and delays. The changes will add one or two days to
the current service standards for certain mail volume, particularly
mail traveling long distances, but intrastate mail volume will be
largely unaffected: Local mail (i.e., First-Class Mail that is
traveling 3 hours or less between origin and destination) will remain
subject to a 2-day standard, and First-Class Mail traveling within a
State will, with the exception of certain mail in Alaska, still be
subject to a standard of 3 days or less. Indeed, as for election mail
specifically, based on November 2020 general election data and the use
of the ballot Service Type ID (STID) in the Intelligent Mail Barcode
(IMB), only approximately 3.84 percent of inbound First-Class Mail
ballot volume would experience a slight downward change in service
standards--to which affected mailers can respond by adjusting their
mailing times accordingly. Indeed, the enhanced reliability should
provide ballot mailers with more, not less, assurance that their
mailings will be delivered within the expected service standard.
In order to mitigate any impact on election mail, the Postal
Service has already held two briefings with election officials since
the release of its Delivering for America Plan. At both briefings, the
proposed service standards changes were discussed, and feedback was
received. The Postal Service will continue to work closely with
national election associations, federal organizations, state election
executives, and local election officials regarding these changes.
A public advocacy group on behalf of prison populations contends
that the changes ``vitiate the value and utility of First-Class Mail to
incarcerated
[[Page 43945]]
customers,'' a subset of customers who ``depend on First-Class Mail
perhaps more extensively than any other constituency in today's
world.'' The Postal Service acknowledges the unique challenges faced by
incarcerated mailers. Far from undermining the value and utility of
First-Class Mail for these mailers, however, the changes are highly
unlikely to affect them negatively and will counterbalance any marginal
inconveniences with a higher degree of reliability.
The advocacy group suggests that the changes ignore ``the needs of
Postal Service customers, including those with physical impairments.''
See 39 U.S.C. 3691(c)(3). To this end, it invokes the scenario of an
incarcerated person, subject to a civil action, who suffers prejudice
due to a 5-day service standard. The advocacy group also, and on
similar grounds, contends that the changes infringe 39 U.S.C.
3691(b)(1)(B), which mandates that service standards for market-
dominant products be designed to ``preserve regular and effective
access to postal services in all communities.''
The Postal Service acknowledges that, to the extent that
incarcerated customers generally lack access to electronic means of
communication, they may be more reliant on First-Class Mail for sending
and receiving tax documents, court filings, and other correspondence.
It does not follow, however, that the changes would impair those
activities. First, most Single-Piece First-Class Mail would retain its
current service standard, and the operational changes enabled by the
new service standards will significantly increase the probability that
that mail will be delivered on time. Second, most incarcerated persons
are in state or local facilities, many of these incarcerated persons
are presumably residents of the states where they are incarcerated, and
the courts with jurisdiction over their incarceration are presumably
located in the same state. None of this intrastate correspondence will
be subject to a 5-day service standard. With limited exception, all
intrastate Single-Piece First-Class Mail will continue to have a
service standard of 2 or 3 days. Only Alaska will have a 4-day service
standard for some intrastate Single-Piece First-Class Mail. Third, even
if some Single-Piece First-Class Mail to or from incarcerated persons
were subject to materially longer service standards or actual delivery
times, the prevalence of postmark rules minimizes the impact of longer
delivery times on incarcerated persons' business and legal matters.
See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. 7502; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C),
6(d); Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 45(c), 49(a)(4)(C);
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). Other common rules
withhold legal completion of service of a mailed summons until the
recipient has executed a written acknowledgment of receipt within some
period extending far beyond even a 5-day First-Class Mail service
standard--and not before. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure
section 415.30; North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 4(j)(1); South
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d)(8). Because the service of court
documents is not sensitive to the time between mailing and receipt, the
advocacy group's scenario, referenced above, is unlikely to
materialize.
The advocacy group also disputes that the Postal Service took
customer satisfaction into account, on the theory that the Postal
Service's customer satisfaction surveys do not include incarcerated
people among potential participants. However, the advocacy group offers
no contrary evidence of incarcerated people's preferences to support
its hypothesis of divergence from the preferences of the general
mailing populace. Absent such evidence, there is no basis on which to
conclude that incarcerated persons do not value reliability and
consistency over speed, as the Postal Service's customer survey data
indicate for postal customers generally. The advocacy group itself
appears to agree that reliability is of paramount importance to
incarcerated persons, given its fear that ``the proposed 1-5 day
delivery range leaves incarcerated mailers utterly unable to reliably
estimate the time in which it will take for First-Class Mail to be
delivered.'' In fact, the changes will demonstrably improve
incarcerated mailers' ability to rely on standard delivery times.
Finally, the advocacy group contends that the changes violate 39
U.S.C. 3691(c)(7), which requires that service standards take into
account ``the effect of changes in technology, demographics, and
population distribution on the efficient and reliable operation of the
postal delivery system.'' For this claim, the advocacy group adduces
two grounds: That with these changes, the Postal Service ``arbitrarily
ignores the nation's robust and extensive air network that has
routinely been used to transport First-Class Mail''; and that the ``1-5
day delivery range leaves incarcerated mailers utterly unable to
reliably estimate the time in which it will take for First-Class Mail
to be delivered.'' This characterization of the air network as
``robust'' is belied by evidence showing that, in terms of transporting
mail, it is actually less reliable and resilient than surface
transportation. As mentioned above, all intrastate mailings (with the
exception of some Alaska ZIP Code pairs) will fall within the 1-3 day
delivery range; and the changes, by enabling superior service
performance, will better allow incarcerated persons to estimate the
time it will take First-Class Mail to be delivered, since the delivery
standards will be more reliably achieved.
A financial services company expresses concern that the changes
will cause certain impacts on its mailing operations. The company
relates that it recently consolidated the facilities from which it
processes mailings and avers that the changes will reverse its cost
savings associated with that consolidation. The company further notes
that, currently, it can send mailings to its geographically diverse
accountholders on a single timeline, and that the changes will oblige
it to account for differing travel times. ``Mailpieces in the same
advertising campaign,'' it explains, ``will need to be entered at
different times to achieve similar in-home dates.'' Invoices on the
same billing cycles and with the same due dates may likewise need to be
staggered. While the Postal Service acknowledges that the new standards
may require adjustments on the part of business mailers, mailers will
also benefit from enhanced reliability. Such mailers may find that the
benefits of increased reliability, which will enable customers to have
more confidence in the specific date of delivery, offset any costs
associated with staggered mailing invoices and mailing campaigns.
Furthermore, such mailers have a vested interest in the Postal
Service's ability to achieve long-term financial sustainability while
maintaining affordable rates, and the changes will enable progress
toward that end.
A postal labor organization opposes the changes on several grounds.
First, it alleges that the changes will hinder the distribution of
local dues reimbursements, reduce the timeliness of its communications
regarding collective bargaining and union activities, and compromise
the value of its monthly periodical. Second, it observes that ``the
American public have expressed strong opposition to the changes
proposed as measured by the high number of public comments submitted.''
Finally, it opines that putative harm to the Postal Service's brand
will outweigh the projected cost savings, and suggests, in lieu of the
changes, and as a measure of brand protection, that the Postal Service
adopt ``more realistic performance targets (to
[[Page 43946]]
less than 95 percent) for cross-country mail.''
With regard to the first point, the Postal Service notes that the
union itself, in its comments, affirms its commitment to and support of
improved reliability. The Postal Service further observes that the
enhanced reliability enabled by the changes can counterbalance any
marginal impact on the union's mailing activities that the standards
may cause. With regard to the second point, it bears mentioning that
approximately 98 percent of the comments received consisted of short
form letters that were prompted by critics of the proposed change; it
is not the case that such letters are indicative of opposition by ``the
American public'' generally of this proposal. Moreover, evidence
suggests that customers typically value reliability above speed, and
that--as the numerous anecdotes of service performance failures further
attest--delayed or missed deliveries inflict at least as much, and
likely more, damage to the Postal Service's brand than would a slightly
lengthened service standard affecting less than 40 percent of First-
Class Mail. The Postal Service therefore disagrees with the suggestion
that, by maintaining the current standards while setting forth lower
service targets, the Postal Service could more effectively protect its
current high approval rating among the American public.
At least one commenter claims that with the changes comes a higher
risk that time-sensitive Periodicals will arrive late at their
destination. The Postal Service observes that, when subject to delays,
time-sensitive Periodicals may lose value to customers. As such delays
cannot be planned around, customers who ship and receive Periodicals
will stand to benefit from the greater degree of reliability enabled by
the changes, which will also only extend the standard by one or two
days. In addition, this change affects only end-to-end Periodicals,
which represent a very small portion of overall Periodicals volume, and
are more likely to be quarterly or monthly publications that are less
time-sensitive than Periodicals generally.
Numerous comments were submitted by, or on behalf of, customers
domiciled in Alaska. First, a group of Alaskan state legislators allege
that the changes ``would grossly violate the Universal Service
Obligation.'' The Postal Service notes, in response, that the PRC's
Report on Universal Postal Service and Postal Monopoly, Dec. 19, 2008,
at 197-98, finds service quality to be an attribute of the universal
service obligation, and further finds the statutory requirement to seek
an advisory opinion before changing service quality nationwide to be a
necessary component of service quality. For the changes at issue in
this rulemaking, the Postal Service has already sought an advisory
opinion; the changes, moreover, aim to rebalance speed and reliability,
in order to address well-documented concerns about the latter and
thereby to maintain and indeed improve service quality.
Further, some business owners express concern that the changes will
affect their ability to ship products (such as smoked salmon) to
locations within the 48 contiguous states. Others worry that the
changes will compromise their ability to receive food and prescription
medications via the Postal Service. Several commenters note that the
Alaska Public Guardian manages the shelter, food, medical and financial
needs of approximately 1,700 incapacitated Alaskans, and that the
Postal Service is the only method available to the Public Guardian to
send checks and documents to these individuals, their landlords,
service providers, and families. These commenters note the time-
sensitive nature of many such mailings; observe that they ``are already
routinely late, many times already arriving on the date information is
due or after deadlines have passed''; and voice the concern that
``[c]hanging the delivery standards will . . . exacerbate these
issues.''
The Postal Service acknowledges the unique challenges faced by
incapacitated Alaskans, and further acknowledges that customers in
rural Alaska may rely on the Postal Service for prescription
medications and foodstuffs. However, it bears repeating that the
changes under review in this rulemaking will affect only First-Class
Mail and Periodicals--not the packages which bear items like food,
prescription medications, and other merchandise. With regard to the
Public Guardian and its clients, it also bears mentioning that mailings
can--and often do--arrive earlier than the deadlines indicated by
service standards. Furthermore, as discussed, the changes will help
ameliorate, rather than exacerbate, the service performance failures
which these commenters note. Thus, the increase in reliability enabled
by these changes should counterbalance inconveniences which result from
the addition of one day to the service standards for First Class Mail
originating in and destined for Alaska.
Two farmers' organizations draw attention to the special challenges
faced by their members. These commenters note that farmers rely on the
Postal Service to ship and receive seeds, fertilizer, pesticides,
tools, and other essential products, as well as to receive live animals
like chicks and bees. They also note that, as their members tend to
live in rural areas not covered by private carriers and frequently not
equipped with broadband internet, they rely on the Postal Service for
prescription medications and for purposes of general communication. In
opposing the changes, these commenters appear to operate under the
misimpression that the service standards for all First-Class Mail will
be lengthened from 1-3 days to 5 days.
The Postal Service reiterates that the changes at issue here
concern only First-Class Mail letters and flats and Periodicals, and
not the packages used for conveying the supplies, seeds, and animals
listed by these commenters as matters of special concern. Moreover,
with respect to the non-package mail at issue, the Postal Service
reiterates that over 60 percent of First-Class Mail will remain
unaffected by the changes, and that, of the affected mailings, only a
fraction (approximately 10 percent) will see service standards
lengthened to 5 days. Most First-Class Mail (70 percent) will remain
subject to a service standard of 3 days or less. The Postal Service
also notes that the increased reliability accruing to the changes
should counterbalance any inconveniences associated with longer
delivery times.
Numerous commenters cite or allude to Article I, Section 8, of the
U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to ``establish Post
Offices and post Roads.'' Many, though perhaps not all, of these
commenters either suggest or claim outright that the changes would
somehow violate this clause. This claim is premised on the view that
the changes amount to a wholesale ``destruction'' or ``sabotage'' of
the postal system.
The Postal Service disagrees. Far from acting contrary to
Congress's design, the service standard changes flow from Congressional
delegations of authority to establish and revise service standards and
to plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate and efficient postal
services. 39 U.S.C. 101(a), 403(a), (b)(1), 2010, 3691(a). Moreover,
these changes reasonably balance the various policies that those
statutory delegations require the Postal Service to achieve or take
into account when designing service standards. The changes will leave
unaffected approximately 60 percent of First-Class Mail mailings; will
enable higher levels of satisfactory service performance and
operational efficiency; and will help put the Postal Service on a
sounder financial footing, so that it may continue to serve its
customers
[[Page 43947]]
with universal postal services for many years to come. As such, the
changes are designed to preserve, and not to undermine, the Postal
Service.
Some commenters assert that the Postal Service did not, in
conceptualizing the new service standards, conduct ``impact studies.''
The Postal Service notes that it modelled the impacts of the new
service standards on customers across the country, as well as on the
Postal Service's transportation network. And it has employed various
methodologies to project the costs savings and volume declines that the
new service standards are anticipated to produce.
B. Other Statutory Concerns
Some of the comments--particularly those that merely incorporate by
reference the identical briefs or statements of position that had been
filed in the PRC proceeding--raise concerns that the proposed service
standard changes are inconsistent with relevant statutory criteria.
Upon considering these comments, the Postal Service remains convinced
that the service standard changes are consistent with all applicable
statutory provisions, especially when considering the provisions
together. The Postal Service has taken into account the factors of 39
U.S.C. 3691(c), and has concluded that the service standard changes
should serve and help it to achieve the objectives of 39 U.S.C.
3691(b). These provisions require that the Postal Service balance of
number of considerations. The Postal Service has evaluated these
factors and objectives holistically, and believes that these service
standard changes reflect a reasonable balance that, on the whole, will
benefit the American public in the near and long term. In addition, the
PRC extensively considered this issue and concluded that the proposed
service standard changes in principle are not inconsistent with any
statutory requirements.
In a statement of position filed with the PRC on June 21, 2021 (and
incorporated by reference in this proceeding), the Attorneys General
for 21 States, together with several cities (collectively, the
``States''), suggest that the Postal Service has short-circuited the
process of planning and seeking an advisory opinion by avoiding
``consultation'' with the PRC under 39 U.S.C. 3691(a) before submitting
its request or issuing its Proposed Rule. However, the Postal Service
has fully complied with the regulatory requirements applicable to this
process. The ``consultations'' envisaged in 39 U.S.C. 3691(a) concerned
the initial establishment of the service standards regulations in 2007,
rather than subsequent modifications of the service standards.
That subsection 3691(a) provides that ``the Postal Service shall,
in consultation with the Postal Regulatory Commission, by regulation
establish (and may from time to time thereafter by regulation revise) a
set of service standards for market-dominant products.'' Importantly,
the phrase about PRC consultation follows ``shall'': as such, it
applies only to that modal clause (``shall . . . establish''), and not
to the separate modal clause set forth in the parentheses (``may . . .
revise''). Had Congress intended otherwise, the framers would have
structured the sentence so that the consultation clause would modify
both ``shall . . . establish'' and ``may . . . revise,'' rather than
only the former. In any event, the Postal Service's formal request for
an advisory opinion under 39 U.S.C. 3661(b) would satisfy any arguably
applicable ``consultation'' obligation in this instance.
With respect to substance, one statute reflects the variety of
policies that the Postal Service must address, including providing
service that is ``prompt, reliable, and efficient'' with ``prompt and
economical delivery,'' while also ``emphasiz[ing]'' other priorities
including the ``control of costs.'' See 39 U.S.C. 101(a), (f), (g); see
also 39 U.S.C. 403(a), (b)(1), 2010, 3661(a), 3691(b)(1)(C). Many
commenters fixate narrowly on promptness and would relegate
reliability, efficiency, economy, and control of costs to second-tier
policy objectives. Yet the statute does not offer a basis for such a
ranking. The Postal Service must balance achievement of all policy
objectives in a manner that is operationally and financially
sustainable. That cannot be done under current service standards.
The States, without concrete suggestions, contend that the Postal
Service should consider ``chang[ing] its service standard to address
long-term trends'' only after it ``reliably meet[s] its [current]
performance targets[.]'' And the States suggest that the Postal Service
is intentionally sacrificing market-dominant volume to bolster package
capabilities. To the contrary, adopting the States' position would
straightjacket the Postal Service because meeting current service
standards in a reliable manner is not feasible, as evidenced by the
fact that the Postal Service has not met its service performance
targets for years. Waiting to achieve the infeasible would prevent the
Postal Service from ever implementing necessary reforms.
The States contend that the new service standards will increase the
delivery time for some mail from government entities, including
election mail, government payments, and applications for government
benefits programs. They recognize that the Postal Service has not met
existing service standards ``for some time'' but aver that, rather than
adjust them, the Postal Service should simply begin meeting them.
Similarly, the Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom) contends that,
even if the Postal Service must incur additional costs to meet service
standards, it should simply do so because it ``is not a profit-seeking
business.''
While such criticisms repeatedly argue that the Postal Service has
a responsibility under Title 39 to deliver First-Class Mail quickly,
they ignore the fact that the Postal Service must balance speed of
delivery with other statutory considerations. One such consideration is
the Postal Service's obligation to be self-sustaining. Given this self-
sufficiency mandate, the Postal Service must ensure that it provides
services in a cost-effective manner, particularly if it is to ensure
affordable rates. As the States note in passing, 39 U.S.C. 101(a)
states that the Postal Service will be ``supported by the people.''
But, beyond operational challenges unrelated to cost, they ignore that,
if the Postal Service is unable to recoup the costs of operations
through revenues, its essential services cannot be provided. 39 U.S.C.
101(d).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Postal Service's operations are generally funded by
revenues, not by taxpayer appropriations. See 39 U.S.C. 2401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very services that many critics of the service standards
emphasize are essential are at risk due to the Postal Service's present
unsustainable position. It is no solution to this problem to say that
the Postal Service should simply deliver mail more reliably within the
existing service standards: This not only ignores the infeasibility of
the task under the current standards, but also the Postal Service's
dire financial situation. Given the Postal Service's long-standing
service performance, operational, and financial problems and its
statutory obligations to provide adequate, efficient, and economical
services, it is certainly no solution to say that the Postal Service
should simply expend more resources on unreliable, inefficient
transportation providers in an attempt to meet the current standards.
It is also incorrect to claim that the Postal Service has not
considered the potential impact of the service standards on election
mail. As noted above, the
[[Page 43948]]
Postal Service has used Intelligent Mail[supreg] barcode tracking
specifically to evaluate the amount of inbound ballot volume that would
experience a downward change and concluded that it was only 3.84
percent of such volume. The Postal Service has already held briefings
to discuss the changes with election officials to enable them to align
their mailings with service standards and will continue to conduct
outreach during and after any implementation. Finally, none of the
changes is specific to election mail or implicates the kinds of
measures the Postal Service has taken during past elections to expedite
election mail.
Before the PRC, the Postal Service explained how it has reasonably
balanced the various 39 U.S.C. 3691 objectives and factors and the
statutory policies set forth in 39 U.S.C. 101, 403, 2010, and 3661(a),
and the PRC concluded that the proposed changes do not facially
conflict with any statutes. The service standards would enhance the
value of postal services by improving reliability and consistency,
while minimizing the tradeoffs in terms of lengthened service
standards. This balancing of reliability, speed, and frequency is also
consistent with reasonable rates and best business practices, both of
which require efficient cost management, and with various other
statutes that require a balance between efficiency and service.
Congress committed to the Postal Service the discretion to perform this
balancing of numerous and sometimes competing policies. Other parties
may favor one statutory policy or another in their own narrower
interests, or may wish for a different balance amongst the various
policies, but only the Postal Service bears the statutory
responsibility of accounting for all of the relevant policies in
weighing initiatives. In furtherance of this duty, the Postal Service
has set forth a reasonable balance regarding these new service
standards.
The States compare the operational changes at issue to other
changes challenged in certain federal lawsuits from 2020, but this
comparison is entirely misplaced. First, the substance of the alleged
operational changes in those cases had nothing to do with either these
service standard changes or their operational motivations (such as the
planned shift from air transportation to surface). Instead, those cases
concerned alleged operational changes from July 2020, including alleged
changes to policies regarding late and extra surface transportation
trips and overtime, among other claims, particularly in the unusual
context of the pandemic and the 2020 election. The courts therefore did
not review the Postal Service's balancing of the various statutory
policies in designing the then-existing service standards, let alone
those proposed well after the events at issue in the 2020 lawsuits.
Second, the statutory challenges in those cases arose largely from
procedural allegations that the Postal Service had not sought proper
regulatory review of the alleged operational changes prior to
implementation. Irrespective of whether such regulatory review was
required in connections with those matters, here it is beyond dispute
that the Postal Service formally sought precisely the ex ante
regulatory review that litigants in those cases had suggested was
lacking there. To the extent those federal lawsuits have any bearing on
this case, they merely support the process that the Postal Service has
employed here.
The States mischaracterize the Postal Service's motivation as
seeking to favor package performance at the expense of First-Class
Mail. That is not what the Delivering for America Plan says or implies;
to the contrary, the Plan explicitly and repeatedly emphasizes the
Postal Service's intent to improve reliability for both mail and
packages, not favoring the latter at the expense of the former. E.g.,
Plan at 6, 8, 24, 27, 30, 34, 40. Indeed, a fundamental goal of the
Plan is to ensure the reliable delivery of all mail 6 days a week, at
affordable rates, meaning the Plan fully recognizes the centrality of
mail to the Postal Service's statutory mission. (At the same time, the
States express concerns about the delivery of prescription medications;
as noted earlier, however, such packages are not at issue in this
rulemaking.)
The States' concerns about First-Class Mail used for their
governments' mailings to their own residents are unfounded. It is only
reasonable to infer that a substantial proportion of governmental-to-
individual mailings is mailed from somewhere in the same general
region; indeed, the States admit that ``much of [such mailings]
involves in-state mail.'' In other words, the likelihood that the
service standards would lengthen the delivery time of these mailings--
particularly that any would now be subject to 4- or 5-day service
standards--is low. Only between 1 and 27 percent (depending on the
state) of 2-day mail in only 28 contiguous states would move to a 3-day
standard; further, no First-Class Mail would actually shift to a 5-day
standard for pairs originating and destinating within the same state,
and Alaska is the only state in which some 3-day could shift to a 4-day
standard for pairs within the state.
The States criticize the proposal as if its motivation were to
degrade service. It is incorrect, however, to suggest that, because the
Postal Service has failed to meet service performance targets in the
past, the proposal amounts to nothing more than ``simply moving the
goalposts.'' It is not only rational, but critical, that the Postal
Service take steps to address its longstanding service performance,
operational efficiency, and financial problems, in order to provide the
American public with reliable service through a financially sustainable
postal system. This is the goal of the Delivering for America Plan, of
which this proposal is a (but far from the only) critical element. The
principal purposes of the changes are to enable operations to provide
more reliability for customers and a more cost-effective network to
help sustain the Postal Service's long-term financial stability by
shifting some volume from air to surface transportation. Similarly, for
offshore delivery, the changes would enable a shift from air cargo to
commercial air.
The new service standards balance promptness with reliability,
efficiency, and economy by preserving current service standards for the
majority of First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals, and by
tailoring the service standard changes to increase the use of more
reliably prompt and cost-effective surface transportation. The changes
will also enable other measures to improve the promptness and
efficiency of the surface transportation network. These measures
include modern methods of transporting mail by containerization, as the
changes would allow the Postal Service to directly containerize trays
where volume warrants. See 39 U.S.C. 101(f).
Furthermore, most First-Class Mail would continue to be delivered
within 3 days, and while certain long-distance customers would receive
a service standard that is 1 or 2 days longer, they would be assured of
consistent and predictable delivery within those service standards. For
those customers who need faster delivery than would be provided under
these service standards for their letters, Priority Mail Express and
Priority Mail would continue to be available. See id. at (e).
Similarly, Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail will continue to
rely on modern methods of containerization and systems designed to
achieve expeditious, overnight transportation and delivery of important
letter mail to all parts of the Nation where it is economical to do so.
Id. at (f).
[[Page 43949]]
The Postal Service has reasonably balanced the relevant statutory
objectives and factors. The revised service standards would enhance
value for customers, providing greater reliability and consistency. Id.
at 3691(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), (c)(2). Customers would have a better
ability to predict when to expect First-Class Mail delivery, based on
objective criteria. The Postal Service has reasonably determined that
the service standards would improve both delivery reliability and
efficiency, while minimizing the extent of impact on delivery speed.
Id. at 3691(b)(1)(C), (c)(1), (c)(6). But, contrary to the view
portrayed by the States, the Postal Service is not merely ``moving the
goal posts'' of the service standards. The service standards are
necessary to facilitate much more concrete operational initiatives to
improve delivery reliability and transportation efficiency.
Several commenters argue that the changes violate 39 U.S.C. 101,
but fail to recognize how the changes appropriately balance the various
policies set forth in that provision. The States, for example, quote 39
U.S.C. 101(e), but never mention subsection (f) of that section. An
individual commenter argues that the proposed service standards are
contrary to 39 U.S.C. 101(e) and (f) (``Congress generally considered
`faster' delivery to be `better' delivery''), without reconciling the
statutory mandate to balance both ``prompt'' and ``economical''
delivery in selecting modes of transportation. The Postal Service notes
that the ``economical'' prong cannot be relegated to some lesser
aspirational goal, given the longstanding expectation that the Postal
Service be financially self-sufficient. See generally 39 U.S.C. 101(a),
2401; H.R. Rep. 91-1104, at 17 (1970). The Postal Service cannot simply
incur huge costs to ensure a narrower conception of speed, particularly
one that experience shows is not consistently achievable in practice.
First, 39 U.S.C. 101(e) does not say that all letter mail must be
delivered in the fastest manner at all costs, nor does it define
``important.'' Similarly, the second sentence of subsection (f) does
not require overnight delivery of all mail, and instead recognizes that
only certain important letter mail may warrant overnight treatment. In
that regard, the Postal Service is not changing the current service
standard for First-Class Mail subject to an overnight standard. The
Postal Service also has other options for speedier delivery available
to customers who want their important letter mail to travel overnight,
even for long distances: Specifically, Priority Mail Express and
Priority Mail.
By contrast, the first sentence of subsection (f) does address
``all mail'' and thus is much more relevant to the present initiative,
which will affect First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals based on
distance of transportation. Subsection (f) also focuses specifically on
``modes of transportation''--the underlying issue with respect to the
changes here at issue. Prompt and economical, when considered together,
cannot mean speediest in all instances, but necessarily entails
reasonably fast speeds to the extent that they can be achieved at
reasonable costs. The Postal Service's current usage of air
transportation has proven inadequate to meet that test, and so the
Postal Service is taking measured steps to improve the selected modes
of transportation. To do so, however, the service standards need to be
adjusted.
Moreover, the proposed changes are limited in scope, and are
designed to address the consequences of the current standards that
result in an unreliable, inefficient service, while also mitigating the
impact on speed of delivery. In this regard, most mail volume will
remain at its current standard, and overall, most mail volume will
continue to be subject to a standard of 3 days or less. All mail will
also receive much more reliable service, meaning actual service
performance will be better aligned with the service standards, rather
than having consistent performance failures (a problem particularly
pronounced for mail currently subject to a 3-day standard). Hence, and
regardless of how one might choose to define the scope of ``important
letter mail,'' the Postal Service has given appropriate consideration
to the interest in ensuring expeditious delivery of First-Class Mail
letters generally, and has appropriately balanced that interest to the
extent possible with the other policies of the statute, including
reliability, efficiency, and affordability.
Some commenters suggest that the changes would be inconsistent with
39 U.S.C. 101(b), which requires the Postal Service to ``provide a
maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas,
communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-
sustaining.'' The Postal Service notes that, by distinguishing on the
basis of mailing distance and not on the nature of the origin or
destination, the service standards would affect urban and rural mailers
similarly. Moreover, the service standards are measured only after
acceptance at a postal facility, and would not alter that status quo.
Accordingly, whether post offices are present in a community--and hence
39 U.S.C. 101(b)--is irrelevant to the present changes.
Various commenters suggest that the changes may infringe 39 U.S.C.
403(c), which bars the Postal Service, in providing services, from
``mak[ing] any undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the
mails'' or ``grant[ing] any undue or unreasonable preferences to any
such user.'' Notably, upon consideration of detailed briefs on both
sides of this precise question, the PRC concluded that the service
standard changes are not unreasonable and do not facially violate 39
U.S.C. 403(c). The Postal Service certainly agrees with the PRC's
assessment in that important respect. Nevertheless, it is important to
examine carefully the nature of the comments alleging discriminatory
impact of the changes.
In accord with PRC precedent, three conditions must be met to
establish a claim of unreasonable discrimination: (1) One or more
mailers must be offered less favorable rates or terms and conditions
than those offered to other mailers; (2) the two sets of mailers must
be similarly situated; and (3) there must be no rational or legitimate
basis for differing treatment. Order No. 718, Order on Complaint, PRC
Docket No. C2009-1 (Apr. 20, 2011), at 28. Several commenters suggest
that the service standards would implicate these conditions, but the
Postal Service does not find this argument persuasive.
Most broadly, some commenters seem to suggest that any geographical
disparities resulting from the service standards will suffice to
satisfy the first two 39 U.S.C. 403 (c) criteria. However, the relevant
question is not where customers live, but how far their mailings
travel. The Postal Service is not degrading service standards in
selected states or for selected mailers, but rather is lengthening the
service standards for all mailings that traverse longer distances based
on objective distance criteria that will apply nationwide. Furthermore,
the Postal Service notes that when considering whether First-Class Mail
service, as a whole, would inappropriately discriminate among customers
following this service standard change, longer-distance mailers will
continue to benefit from the uniform First-Class Mail rate, whereby
they pay less per mile than shorter-distance mailers. Moreover, with
respect to expected delivery times, many longer-distance mailers
subject to lengthened service standards will continue to enjoy a
delivery speed (i.e., distance traveled
[[Page 43950]]
per day) that is significantly faster than that for shorter-distance
mail, even if longer-distance mail's speed advantage will now be
somewhat less. Initial Brief of the United States Postal Service, PRC
Docket No. N2021-1 (June 21, 2021), at 47-49.
As for the third prong in the 39 U.S.C. 403 (c) analysis, the
Postal Service notes that both courts and the PRC have granted it broad
latitude in distinguishing between different mailers, given the Postal
Service's statutory responsibility to provide universal service in an
economical and efficient manner. See, e.g., Egger v. USPS, 436 F. Supp.
138, 142 (W.D. Va. 1977) (declaring it ``obvious that the Postal
Service may provide different levels of delivery service to different
groups of mail users so long as the distinctions are reasonable''); UPS
Worldwide Forwarding, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 66 F.3d 621, 634-35
(3d Cir. 1995) (noting that Postal Service may treat mailers
differently so long as that different treatment is reasonable); Order
No. 4294, Order Granting the Postal Service's Motion to Dismiss, PRC
Docket No. C2019-1 (Dec. 12, 2018), at 10 (``the Postal Service may
differentiate among customers where the differences have a rational
basis''); Order No. 5491, Order Granting the Postal Service's Motion to
Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice, PRC Docket No. C2020-2 (Apr. 28,
2020), at 9.
The Postal Service has adduced a rational, non-arbitrary basis for
the differences in standards: namely, to improve service performance by
enhancing reliability through greater use of surface transportation,
which in turn depends on designing standards that predicate days of
delivery on geographic distances. Moreover, courts have recognized that
objective geographic disparities can serve as a rational justification
for different levels of service in connection with 39 U.S.C. 403(c).
UPS Worldwide Forwarding, 66 F.3d at 634-35.
Some commenters suggest that 39 U.S.C. 101(a) and 404(c) constrain
the interpretation of the phrase ``undue or unreasonable
discrimination,'' in support of the broader view that any geographical
disparities in service standards would, by definition, trigger a 39
U.S.C. 403(c) violation. One commenter, for instance, discusses the
uniform-rate requirement under 39 U.S.C. 404(c) and then speculatively
asserts that the scope of ``discrimination'' under 39 U.S.C. 403(c)
should likewise bar geographically-based differentials in service
standards. This argument is inapposite: 39 U.S.C. 404(c) speaks to
rates, not to service standards, and nothing in the statutory text ties
the two provisions together in the manner suggested by the commenter.
Another commenter purports to read, in 39 U.S.C. 101(a)'s stated goal
of ``binding the nation together,'' an obligation to impose uniform
service standards across the United States. The Postal Service further
notes, though, that geographically-tiered service distinctions already
exist in the prior service standards upheld by this and other
commenters. If such distinctions do not give the commenters pause in
regard to the prior service standards, then it cannot be that the mere
occurrence of a geographical disparity constitutes undue discrimination
in connection with the new service standards, either.
Some commenters contend that the changes would result in
discrimination with respect to certain demographic groups. The States
thus express concern over the changes' impact on rural, low-income,
elderly, and disabled customers. The Postal Service notes, however,
that the States do not assert that the changes will fall unequally on
such customers; in other words, they neither claim nor purport to
demonstrate that these changes would target a disproportionately large
percentage of mailings conveyed by vulnerable populations. Furthermore,
even assuming for the sake of argument that rural, low-income,
disabled, and/or other vulnerable customers may be disproportionately
reliant on First-Class Mail, they likewise prove particularly
vulnerable to the unreliable air network and to the resulting service
failures that have persisted for years, both of which the changes aim
to relieve.
Certain commenters likewise express concerns about the possible
impact of the changes on their own interests as veterans, rural
customers, disabled customers, elderly customers, small businesses, and
other vulnerable customers. With regard to rural communities in
particular, joint comments by public advocacy groups suggest that the
changes violate 39 U.S.C. 101(b), which requires that the Postal
Service ``provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal
services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post
offices are not self sustaining'' and to ensure ``effective postal
services . . . to residents of both urban and rural communications.''
However palpable their policy interests as a general matter, none of
these commenters present evidence that they disproportionately align
with the minority of mail volume affected by the service standard
changes (for example, that a greater percentage of rural customers'
mail will have a changed service standard than for non-rural
customers). As noted earlier, the service standard changes are based on
distance traveled by a mailpiece, without further distinction as to the
location or nature of the mailer or recipient. Moreover, the Postal
Service notes that insofar as persons in vulnerable communities--
including rural communities--currently experience delivery delays and
other service failures, they stand to benefit from the changes, which
aim to provide more reliable deliveries and therefore consistent
customer expectations. Moreover, and as discussed above, the service
standards are limited in scope.
One commenter, a public advocacy group for prisoners, claims that
the current changes would violate 39 U.S.C. 404(c). First-Class Mail,
on its theory, fulfills the mandate that the ``Postal Service shall
maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters
sealed against inspection[, one of which] shall provide for the most
expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the
Postal Service.'' It asserts that, under the proposed service
standards, First-Class letters would ``categorically be excluded from
air transportation,'' even though other classes of mail would continue
to be transported by air; and that ``this discrepancy plainly violates
the requirement that First-Class letters be provided the most
expeditious handling and transportation.'' As an initial matter, it is
incorrect to state that First-Class Mail would be ``categorically''
excluded from air transportation under this proposal; much long-
distance First-Class Mail would continue to be transported by air. In
any event, the Postal Service notes that 39 U.S.C. 404(c) requires only
that one class of sealed letters receive ``most expeditious''
treatment, not that each class of sealed letters do so. Thus, the
``most expeditious'' type of sealed mail has long been understood to
mean what is now Priority Mail Express, which is handled and
transported more expeditiously than First-Class Mail.
In sum, the service standard changes do not conflict with any
statutory obligations; to the contrary, considering those obligations
as a whole, the changes properly balance the policies of the statute.
Consequently, modifications to the Proposed Rule in light of the
comments received are unwarranted.
IV. Explanation of Final Rules
The Postal Service's market-dominant service standards are
contained in 39 CFR part 121. The revised version of 39 CFR part 121
appears at the end of this
[[Page 43951]]
Notice. The following is a summary of the revisions. In addition to the
changes described below, minor edits are made to (i) conform to product
name changes for USPS Marketing Mail[supreg], (ii) correct a clerical
error in the subsection on Destination Entry Periodicals, (iii) delete
expired provisions, and (iv) refer to common or defined terms in a more
consistent manner throughout the rules. What was previously known as
``Standard Mail'' has been rebranded as ``USPS Marketing Mail,'' see
generally 81 FR 93,606 (2017), and therefore Part 121 (including
section 121.3 and Appendix A) has been updated to refer to the current
name of this product.
A. Service Standards Generally
Service standards contain two components: (1) A delivery day range
within which mail in a given product is expected to be delivered; and
(2) business rules that determine, within a product's applicable day
range, the specific number of delivery days after acceptance of a mail
piece by which a customer can expect that piece to be delivered, based
on the 3-Digit ZIP Code prefixes associated with the piece's point of
entry into the mail stream and its delivery address.
Business rules are based on critical entry times (CETs). The CET is
the latest time on a particular day that a mail piece can be entered
into the postal network and still have its service standard calculated
based on that day (this day is termed ``day-zero''). In other words, if
a piece is entered before the CET, its service standard is calculated
from the day of entry, whereas if it is entered after the CET, its
service standard is calculated from the following day. (If the
following day is a Sunday or holiday, then the service standard is
calculated from the next Postal Service delivery day.) For example, if
the applicable CET is 5:00 p.m., and a letter is entered at 4:00 p.m.
on a Tuesday, its service standard will be calculated from Tuesday,
whereas if the letter is entered at 6:00 p.m. on a Tuesday, its service
standard will be calculated from Wednesday. CETs are not contained in
39 CFR part 121, because they vary based on where mail is entered, the
mail's level of preparation, and other factors.
B. First-Class Mail
The Postal Service is changing some of the service standards
applicable to certain First-Class Mail with respect to both of the two
components of the standards. First, the Postal Service is promulgating
modifications to the delivery day ranges within which mail in a given
product is expected to be delivered. Second, the Postal Service is
promulgating modifications to the business rules, changing the maximum
number of hours of drive time that corresponds to the specific number
of delivery days after acceptance of a mail piece by which a customer
can expect that piece to be delivered (within a product's applicable
delivery day range).
In particular, the changes to service standards include the
delivery-day range for certain First-Class Mail. Currently, a one-day
(overnight) service standard is applied to intra-SCF Presort First-
Class Mail pieces properly accepted at the SCF before the day-zero CET.
A two-day service standard is applied to intra-SCF single-piece First-
Class Mail properly accepted before the day-zero CET, as well as to
inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the
day-zero CET if the drive time between the origin P&DC/F and
destination SCF is 6 hours or less. A three-day service standard is
applied to inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted
before the day-zero CET if the drive time between the origin P&DC/F and
destination SCF is more than 6 hours and the origin and the destination
are within the contiguous 48 states.
Under the new service standards, the delivery day range for First-
Class Mail within the contiguous United States will expand from the
current 1-3 days, to 1-5 days. The overnight service standard does not
change. Among the changes detailed below, a two-day service standard
will apply to intra-SCF First-Class Mail where the SCF is also the
origin P&DC/F, and to intra-SCF and inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail
where the combined drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination
ADC, and destination SCF is 3 hours or less; a three-day service
standard for inter-SCF First-Class Mail would apply where the combined
drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination
SCF is 20 hours or less (but over 3 hours) within the contiguous United
States, and the same three-day standard would also apply for intra-SCF
single-piece First-Class Mail if the combined drive time exceeds 3
hours and the SCF is not the origin P&DC/F; a four-day service standard
for inter-SCF First-Class Mail would apply where the combined drive
time between the origin P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination SCF is
41 hours or less (but over 20 hours) within the contiguous United
States; and combined drive times between the origin P&DC/F, destination
ADC, and destination SCF in excess of 41 hours would result in a
service standard of five days.
Furthermore, the Postal Service's regulations pertaining to the
current service standards for First-Class Mail do not expressly account
for the combined drive time between origin P&DC/Fs, ADCs, and SCFs,
though often distribution routes encompass several such facilities. In
order to clarify these service standards, the final rule specifies, in
the new service standards for First-Class Mail, that the combined drive
time encompasses all such P&DC/Fs, ADCs, and SCFs.
In addition, among the changes detailed below, the Postal Service
is promulgating certain changes to the service standards for mail
originating from or destined to areas outside of the contiguous United
States. The Postal Service will apply a 4-day standard for First-Class
Mail originating in the contiguous 48 states destined to the city of
Anchorage, Alaska, the 968 3-digit ZIP Code area in Hawaii, or the 006,
007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto Rico; for First-Class Mail
originating in the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto
Rico and destined to the contiguous 48 states; for First-Class Mail
originating in Hawaii and destined to Guam, or vice versa; for First-
Class Mail originating in Hawaii and destined to American Samoa, or
vice versa; and for other First-Class Mail that has both its origin and
its destination within Alaska. The Postal Service will apply a 5-day
standard for other First-Class Mail originating from and/or destined to
the non-contiguous states and territories.
C. Periodicals
Certain Periodicals are merged with First-Class Mail, and their
service standards are consequently tied to the respective First-Class
Mail service standards. In other words, the changes to First-Class Mail
service standards will result in similar changes to the corresponding
service standards of the merged Periodicals.
The Postal Service is therefore promulgating a related change
concerning certain Periodicals. Under current service standards, for
end-to-end Periodicals, a three-to-four-day service standard is applied
to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET and
merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface transportation, with
the service standard specifically equaling the sum of one day plus the
applicable First-Class Mail service standard (i.e., either two or three
days, depending on whether the drive time is more than 6 hours). Under
the new service standard, a three-to-six-day service standard will be
applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted
[[Page 43952]]
before the day-zero CET and merged with First-Class Mail pieces for
surface transportation, with the service standard specifically equaling
the sum of 1 day plus the applicable First-Class Mail service standard.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 121
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service adopts the
following revisions to 39 CFR part 121:
PART 121--SERVICE STANDARDS FOR MARKET-DOMINANT MAIL PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 121 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 1001, 3691.
0
2. Section 121.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.1 First-Class Mail.
(a) A 1-day (overnight) service standard is applied to intra-
Sectional Center Facility (SCF) domestic Presort First-Class Mail
pieces properly accepted at the SCF before the day-zero Critical Entry
Time (CET), except for mail between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and mail destined to American Samoa and the following 3-digit
ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit
ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
(b) A 2-day service standard is applied to:
(1) Intra-SCF single-piece domestic First-Class Mail properly
accepted before the day-zero CET if:
(i) The SCF is also the origin Processing & Distribution Center or
Facility (P&DC/F), or
(ii) the combined drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination
Area Distribution Center (ADC), and destination SCF is 3 hours or less;
(2) inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted
before the day-zero CET if the combined drive time between the origin
P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination SCF is 3 hours or less;
(3) Presort First-Class Mail properly accepted before the day-zero
CET with an origin and destination that are separately in Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and
(4) intra-SCF Presort First-Class Mail properly accepted before the
day-zero CET with an origin or destination that is in American Samoa or
one of the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated
portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996,
997, 998, and 999.
(c) A 3-day service standard is applied to domestic First-Class
Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET, if the 1-day and
2-day service standards do not apply, the combined drive time between
the origin P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination SCF is 20 hours or
less, and both the origin and the destination are within the contiguous
48 states.
(d) A 4-day service standard is applied to domestic First-Class
Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET, if the 1-day, 2-
day, and 3-day service standards do not apply, and:
(1) The combined drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination
ADC, and destination SCF is 41 hours or less, and both the origin and
the destination are within the contiguous 48 states;
(2) The origin is in the contiguous 48 states, and the destination
is in any of the following: The city of Anchorage, Alaska (5-digit ZIP
Codes 99501 through 99539); the 968 3-digit ZIP Code area in Hawaii; or
the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto Rico;
(3) The origin is in the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in
Puerto Rico, and the destination is in the contiguous 48 states;
(4) The origin is in Hawaii, and the destination is in Guam, or
vice versa;
(5) The origin is in Hawaii, and the destination is in American
Samoa, or vice versa; or
(6) Both the origin and destination are within Alaska.
(e) A 5-day service standard is applied to all remaining domestic
First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET.
(f) The service standard for Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail
International\TM\; pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET is
equivalent to the service standard for domestic First-Class Mail pieces
originating from the same 3-digit ZIP Code area and destined to the 3-
digit ZIP Code area in which the designated International Service
Center is located.
(g) The service standard for Inbound Letter Post pieces properly
accepted before the day-zero CET is equivalent to the service standard
for domestic First-Class Mail pieces destined to the same 3-digit ZIP
Code area and originating from the 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the
designated International Service Center is located.
0
3. Section 121.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and
(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.2 Periodicals.
(a) End-to-End. (1) A 3- to 6-day service standard is applied to
Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry
Time (CET) and merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface
transportation (as per the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)), with the
standard specifically equaling the sum of 1 day plus the applicable
First-Class Mail service standard.
(2) A 3-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces
properly accepted before the day-zero CET if: The origin and
destination are separately in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands;
or if the origin is in Alaska, the service standard set forth in
paragraph (a)(1) does not apply, and the destination is in the
following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions
thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998,
and 999.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A 3-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that
qualify for a DSCF rate and are properly accepted before the day-zero
CET at the designated DSCF, if they are entered at the DSCF in Puerto
Rico and destined to the U.S. Virgin Islands, entered at the DSCF in
Hawaii and destined to American Samoa, or destined to the following 3-
digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995
(5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 121.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.3 USPS Marketing Mail.
(a) End-to-End. (1) The service standard for Sectional Center
Facility (SCF) turnaround USPS Marketing Mail[supreg] pieces accepted
at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is 3 days when the
origin Processing & Distribution Center/Facility (origin P&DC/F) and
the SCF are the same building, except for mail between the territories
of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(2) The service standard for Area Distribution Center (ADC)
turnaround USPS Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin before the
day-zero Critical Entry Time is 4 days when the origin P&DC/F and the
ADC are the same building, unless the ADC is in the contiguous 48
states and the delivery address is not, or the mail is between Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the mail is between Hawaii and
American Samoa.
(3) The service standard for intra-Network Distribution Center
(NDC)
[[Page 43953]]
USPS Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero
Critical Entry Time is 5 days for each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code
origin-destination pair within the same Network Distribution Center
service area if the origin and destination are within the contiguous 48
states; the same standard applies to mail that is intra-Alaska or
between the state of Hawaii and the territory of Guam or American
Samoa.
(4) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair
within the contiguous 48 states, the service standard for USPS
Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical
Entry Time is the sum of 5 or 6 days plus the number of additional days
(from 1 to 4) required for surface transportation between each 3-digit
ZIP Code origin-destination pair.
(5) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair,
the service standard for USPS Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin
before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is the sum of 5 or 6 days plus
the number of additional days (from 7 to 21) required for intermodal
(highway, boat, air-taxi) transportation outside the contiguous 48
states for each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair.
(b) Destination entry. (1) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify
for a Destination Delivery Unit (DDU) rate and that are accepted before
the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DDU have a 2-day service
standard.
(2) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination
Sectional Center Facility (DSCF) rate and that are accepted before the
day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DSCF have a 3-day service
standard when accepted on Sunday through Thursday and a 4-day service
standard when accepted on Friday or Saturday, except for mail dropped
at the SCF in the territory of Puerto Rico and destined to the
territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands, or mail destined to American
Samoa.
(3) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a DSCF rate and
that are accepted before the day zero Critical Entry Time at the SCF in
the territory of Puerto Rico and destined to the territory of the U.S.
Virgin Islands, or are destined to American Samoa, have a 4-day service
standard when accepted on Sunday through Thursday and a 5-day service
standard when accepted on Friday or Saturday.
(4) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination
Network Distribution Center (DNDC) rate, and that are accepted before
the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DNDC have a 5-day
service standard, if both the origin and the destination are in the
contiguous 48 states.
(5) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a DNDC rate, and
that are accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper
DNDC in the contiguous 48 states for delivery to addresses in the
states of Alaska or Hawaii or the territories of Guam, American Samoa,
Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, have a service standard of 12-
14 days, depending on the 3-digit origin-destination ZIP Code pair. For
each such pair, the applicable day within the range is based on the
number of days required for transportation outside the contiguous 48
states.
0
5. Appendix A to part 121 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 121--Tables Depicting Service Standard Day Ranges
The following tables reflect the service standard day ranges
resulting from the application of the business rules applicable to
the market-dominant mail products referenced in Sec. Sec. 121.1
through 121.4 (for purposes of Part 121, references to the
contiguous states also include the District of Columbia):
Table 1. End-to-end service standard day ranges for mail
originating and destinating within the contiguous 48 states and the
District of Columbia.
Table 1--Contiguous United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-to-end
Mail class range (days)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-Class Mail........................................ 1-5
Periodicals............................................. 3-9
USPS Marketing Mail..................................... 3-10
Package Services........................................ 2-8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. End-to-end service standard day ranges for mail
originating and/or destinating in non-contiguous states and
territories.
Table 2--Non-Contiguous States and Territories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-to-end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intra state/territory To/from contiguous 48 states To/from states of Alaska and
------------------------------------------------------------------ Hawaii, and the territories of
Guam, Puerto Rico (PR),
American Samoa (AS), Northern
Mail class Mariana Islands (MP), and U.S.
Hawaii, Hawaii, Virgin Islands (USVI)
Alaska Guam, MP, PR & USVI Alaska Guam, MP, PR & USVI --------------------------------
& AS & AS Hawaii,
Alaska Guam, MP, PR & USVI
& AS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-Class Mail..................................... 1-4 1-4 1-2 4-5 4-5 4-5 5 5 5
Periodicals.......................................... 3-5 3-5 3 13-19 12-22 11-16 21-25 21-26 23-26
USPS Marketing Mail.................................. 3-5 3-5 3-4 14-20 13-23 12-17 23-26 23-27 24-27
Package Services..................................... * 2-4 2-4 2-3 12-18 11-21 10-15 21-26 20-26 20-24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excluding bypass mail.
Table 3. Destination-entry service standard day ranges for mail
to the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia.
[[Page 43954]]
Table 3--Destination Entry Service Standard Day Ranges for Mail to the Contiguous 48 States and the District of
Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contiguous United States Destination entry (at appropriate
facility)
Mail class ---------------------------------------------------------------
DDU (days) SCF (days) ADC (days) NDC (days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodicals..................................... 1 1 1-2 2-3
USPS Marketing Mail............................. 2 3-4 .............. 5
Package Services................................ 1 2 .............. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4. Destination entry service standard day ranges for mail
to non-contiguous states and territories.
Table 4--Destination Entry Service Standard Day Ranges for Mail to Non-Contiguous States and Territories
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destination entry (at appropriate facility)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCF (days) ADC (days) NDC (days)
Mail class ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDU Hawaii, Hawaii,
(days) Alaska Guam, MP, PR & USVI Alaska Hawaii, Guam, MP, & AS PR & USVI Alaska Guam, MP, PR & USVI
& AS & AS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodicals.............................. 1 1-3 1 1-3 1-4 (AK).................. 1 (HI)................... 1-4 10-11 10 8-10
11 (JNU).................. 2 (GU)...................
11 (KTN)..................
USPS Marketing Mail...................... 2 3-4 3-5 3-5 .......................... ......................... .......... 14 13 12
Package Services......................... 1 2 2-3 2-3 .......................... ......................... .......... 12 11 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK = Alaska 3-digit ZIP Codes 995-997; JNU = Juneau AK 3-digit ZIP Code 998; KTN = Ketchikan AK 3-digit ZIP Code 999; HI = Hawaii 3-digit ZIP Codes 967 and 968; GU = Guam 3-digit ZIP Code 969.
Ruth Stevenson,
Chief Counsel, Ethics and Legal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-17127 Filed 8-6-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P