36246 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1Although these provisions of the U.S. Code are 

customarily referred to collectively as the ‘‘Private 

Express Statutes,’’ they do not all relate to private 

expresses or prohibit carriage of letters out of the 

mails. 

2See Postal Accountability and Enhancement 

Act, Public Law 109–435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006); see 

also 39 CFR 310, 320 (2005). 

3See H.R. Rep. No. 109–66, 109th Cong., 1st 

Sess., pt. 1, at 58 (2005) (H.R. Rep. No. 109–66). 

(h) No Reporting Requirement 

Although the service information 

identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this 

AD specifies to submit certain information to 

the manufacturer, this AD does not include 

that requirement. 

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or 

responsible Flight Standards Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the certification office, 

send it to ATTN: Program Manager, 

Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New 

York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 

516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. Before 

using any approved AMOC, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a 

principal inspector, the manager of the 

responsible Flight Standards Office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain instructions 

from a manufacturer, the instructions must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, 

FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA 

DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval 

must include the DAO-authorized signature. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) TCCA AD 

CF–2021–04, dated February 15, 2021; for 

related information. This MCAI may be 

found in the AD docket on the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–0560. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace 

Engineer, Mechanical Systems and 

Administrative Services Section, FAA, New 

York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 

516–228–7362; fax 516–794–5531; email 9- 

avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– 

855–7401; email thd.crj@

aero.bombardier.com; internet https://

www.bombardier.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

Issued on July 2, 2021. 

Gaetano A. Sciortino, 

Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14611 Filed 7–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket No. PI2021–2; Order No. 5930] 

Public Inquiry 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission seeks further 

input from the public about what 

regulations promulgated by the 

Commission may be necessary to carry 

out the requirements of agency law. 

This document informs the public of 

this proceeding, invites public 

comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: August 26, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Discussion 

IV. Comments 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

In this docket, the Commission seeks 

further input from the public about 

what regulations promulgated by the 

Commission may be necessary to carry 

out the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 601. 

Section 601 describes instances when 

letters may be carried out of the mail, 

or when the letter monopoly does not 

apply to a mailpiece. In particular, the 

Commission seeks to determine whether 

regulations promulgated by the 

Commission are needed to carry out 

those statutory exemptions. 

II. Background 

The Postal Service has exclusive 

rights in the carriage and delivery of 

letters under certain circumstances. 

This letter monopoly is codified in the 

Private Express Statutes (PES), which 

are a group of civil and criminal statutes 

that make it unlawful for any entity 

other than the Postal Service to send or 

carry letters. See 18 U.S.C. 1693–1699; 

39 U.S.C. 601–606.1

Section 601 provides specific 

instances (exceptions) where letters may 

be carried out of the mail (i.e., not 

subject to the letter monopoly). Section 

601(a) sets forth the conditions under 

which a letter may be carried out of the 

mail, which include requiring that the 

letter be enclosed in an envelope, that 

the proper amount of postage is affixed 

to the envelope, and that the postage is 

canceled. 39 U.S.C. 601(a). 

Section 601(b) provides additional 

exceptions such that the letter 

monopoly does not apply to letters 

charged more than six times the current 

rate for the first ounce of a Single-Piece 

First Class Letter or to letters weighing 

more than 12.5 ounces. See 39 U.S.C. 

601(b)(1), (b)(2). The ‘‘grandfather 

clause’’ in Section 601(b)(3) references 

exceptions from prior Postal Service 

regulations that permitted private 

carriage as in effect on July 1, 2005. 39 

U.S.C. 601(b)(3); see also 39 CFR 310.1 

and 39 CFR 320.2–320.8 (2005). 

Section 601(c), which is the subject of 

this proceeding, directs the Commission 

(rather than the Postal Service) to 

promulgate any regulations necessary to 

carry out this section. 39 U.S.C. 601(c). 

This Public Inquiry seeks to answer how 

the Commission shall meet this 

statutory requirement. 

Prior to the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006, the 

Postal Service issued regulations that 

purported to suspend the PES.2 The 

PAEA included the term ‘‘purport’’ to 

describe the Postal Service’s efforts to 

suspend the PES, reflecting some 

disagreement between the Postal Service 

and policymakers about the Postal 

Service’s authority to promulgate such 

regulations prior to the PAEA.3 PostPAEA, the law clearly cedes such 

authority to the Commission. These 

regulations defined the term ‘‘letter’’ as 

‘‘a message directed to a specific person 

or address and recorded in or on a 

tangible object,’’ subject to several 

provisions. 39 CFR 310.1(a) (2005). The 

regulations also described several 

statutory exceptions to the letter 

monopoly, such as when the letter 

accompanies and relates to cargo or 

when a special messenger is used. See 

39 CFR 310.3 (2005). In addition, the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 36247 

4See Comprehensive Standards for Permissible 

Private Carriage, 39 FR 33211 (Sept. 16, 1974). 

5Report of the President’s Commission on the 

United States Postal Service, Embracing the Future: 

Making the Tough Choices to Preserve Universal 

Mail Service, July 31, 2003, at 71 (President’s 

Commission). The President’s Commission 

recommended ‘‘transforming the narrowly focused 

Postal Rate Commission [ ] into an independent 

Postal Regulatory Board.’’ Id. at XIII. 

6See H.R. Rep. No. 109–66 at 57. Congress stated 

that ‘‘the bill clarifies the scope of the statutory 

monopoly that historically has been defined solely 

by the [Postal Service].’’ Id. at 58. 

7 39 U.S.C. 601(c). See Docket Nos. MC2012–14 

and R2012–8, Order Approving Addition of 

Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. Negotiated Service 

Agreement to the Market Dominant Product List, 

August 23, 2012, at 6–7 (Order No. 1448) (citing 

Section 601(c) and stating that the Postal Service no 

longer has authority to issue regulations 

interpreting or defining the postal monopoly); see 

also Docket No. MC2012–13, Order Conditionally 

Granting Request to Transfer Parcel Post to the 

Competitive Product List, July 20, 2012, at 6–7 

(Order No. 1411) (‘‘As a result of the PAEA, the 

Postal Service no longer has authority to issue 

regulations interpreting or defining the postal 

monopoly. The Commission now has the authority 

to promulgate such regulations.’’). Order No. 1411 

at 7 n.13. 

8See Docket No. RM2020–4, Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to Consider Regulations to 

Carry Out the Statutory Requirements of 39 U.S.C. 

601, February 7, 2020 (Order No. 5422). 

9 Docket No. RM2020–4, Chairman’s Information 

Request No. 1, March 4, 2020 (Docket No. RM2020– 

4, CHIR No. 1); Docket No. RM2020–4, Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 2, April 1, 2020 (Docket 

No. RM2020–4, CHIR No. 2). 

10 Docket No. RM2020–4, Responses of the United 

States Postal Service to Questions 1–3 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, March 11, 

2020, question 1 (Docket No. RM2020–4, Response 

to CHIR No. 1). 

11 Docket No. RM2020–4, Response to CHIR No. 

1, question 3; see also Response of the United States 

Postal Service to Chairman’s Information Request 

No. 2, April 3, 2020, question 1 (Docket No. 

RM2020–4, Response to CHIR No. 2). 

12 Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of The 

Berkshire Company in Response to Order No. 5442, 

April 6, 2020; Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of 

Taxpayers Protection Alliance, April 6, 2020; 

Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of American 

Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research 

Regarding Docket No. RM2020–4 Submitted to the 

United States Postal Regulatory Commission, April 

6, 2020; Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of 

United Parcel Service, Inc. on Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to Consider Regulations to 

Carry Out the Statutory Requirements of 39 U.S.C. 

601, April 7, 2020; Docket No. RM2020–4, 

Comments of FedEx Corporation, April 7, 2020; 

Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of Netflix, Inc., 

April 7, 2020; Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of 

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, April 

7, 2020; Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of the 

National Postal Policy Council and the National 

Association of Presort Mailers, April 7, 2020; 

Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of the 

Association for Postal Commerce, April 7, 2020; 

Docket No. RM2020–4, Comments of the United 

States Postal Service in Response to Order No. 

5422, April 7, 2020; Docket No. RM2020–4, Public 

Representative Comments, April 7, 2020. 

13 Docket No. RM2020–4, Order Holding 

Rulemaking in Abeyance, July 2, 2021 (Order No. 

5929). 

regulations purported to establish 

administrative suspensions of the PES 

(39 CFR 310.1(a)(7) n.1, 320 (2005)), 

including suspensions for certain data 

processing materials or for extremely 

urgent letters. See 39 CFR 320.2, 320.6 

(2005). 

These regulations were originally 

promulgated by the Postal Service in 

1974 and were amended several times 

prior to enactment of the PAEA.4 In 

2003, the President’s Commission on 

the United States Postal Service 

recommended that the scope of the 

letter monopoly should be clarified and 

periodically reviewed by a Postal 

Regulatory Board.5 In 2006, Congress 

passed the PAEA, which, inter alia, 

added new price and weight limits to 

the postal monopoly, repealed the 

Postal Service’s purported authority to 

adopt administrative suspension of the 

monopoly, and repealed the Postal 

Service’s authority to implement 

provisions of the criminal code defining 

the scope of the monopoly.6

In addition to adding price and 

weight limits as exceptions (Sections 

601(b)(1), (b)(2)), Congress also added a 

‘‘grandfather clause’’ in Section 

601(b)(3) to authorize the continuation 

of private activities that the Postal 

Service had purportedly permitted by 

regulations to be carried out of the mail. 

The House Report on the PAEA explains 

that this paragraph protects mailers and 

private carriers who had relied upon the 

regulations adopted as of the date of the 

bill. See H.R. Rep. No. 109–66 at 58. 

Congress also eliminated the Postal 

Service’s authority to adopt any 

regulations creating exceptions or 

defining the scope of the postal 

monopoly. See 39 U.S.C. 401(2), 

404(a)(1), 601. Congress instead gave the 

Commission the authority to promulgate 

‘‘[a]ny regulations necessary to carry out 

this section [601].’’ 7 To date, the 

Commission has not promulgated any 

regulations pursuant to Section 601(c). 

In Docket No. RM2020–4, the 

Commission issued an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking to seek input from 

the public about what regulations 

promulgated by the Commission may be 

necessary to carry out the requirements 

of 39 U.S.C. 601.8 In particular, the 

Commission sought comments on 

fourteen issues, such as whether the 

statutory requirements of Section 601 

are clear and concise, whether any 

terms in the statute required further 

definition, and whether consumers and 

competitors can easily determine when 

a mailpiece is subject to monopoly 

protections. Order No. 5422 at 7–8. 

Prior to the comment deadline, the 

Commission issued two Chairman’s 

Information Requests, regarding certain 

Postal Service regulations.9 In its 

response, the Postal Service explained 

that it had not issued regulations or 

other administrative directives in 

connection with Sections 601(b)(1) and 

(2) since the effective date of amended 

Section 601(b).10 The Postal Service also 

provided information regarding 

alternative payment agreements 

pursuant to 39 CFR 310.2(b).11 In 

addition, the Postal Service provided 

information regarding advisory opinions 

pursuant to 39 CFR 310.6. Docket No. 

RM2020–4, Response to CHIR No. 1, 

question 2. 

Comments were received from The 

Berkshire Company; Taxpayers 

Protection Alliance; American 

Consumer Institute Center for Citizen 

Research; United Parcel Service, Inc.; 

FedEx Corporation; Netflix, Inc.; Small 

Business & Entrepreneurship Council; 

the National Postal Policy Council and 

the National Association of Presort 

Mailers; the Association for Postal 

Commerce; the Postal Service; and the 

Public Representative.12 Based on the 

comments received, the Commission 

found it necessary to gather more 

information from the public before 

promulgating regulations under Section 

601 and therefore, that proceeding is 

held in abeyance until the conclusion of 

this inquiry.13

III. Discussion 

In this proceeding, the Commission 

seeks to focus its inquiry on the 

statutory exemptions in Sections 601(a) 

and (b), and what regulations under 

Section 601(c), if any, are needed to 

carry out those exemptions. In 

particular, the Commission limits this 

inquiry to two issues: (1) Whether Postal 

Service regulations administering 

current Sections 601(a), 601(b)(1), and 

601(b)(2) should be adopted by the 

Commission; and (2) what private 

carrier services are within the scope of 

Section 601(b)(3). 

First, the Commission is interested in 

identifying Postal Service regulations 

that administer Sections 601(a), 

601(b)(1), and 601(b)(2) and if the 

Commission should adopt them. Section 

601(a) provides for the private carriage 

of letters when, among other things, the 

letter is in an envelope that is properly 

addressed, the proper amount of postage 

is affixed to the envelope, and the 

postage is canceled in ink by the sender. 

39 U.S.C. 601(a). Sections 601(b)(1) and 

(b)(2) further provide that a letter must 

meet price and weight requirements in 

order to be carried out of the mail. 39 

U.S.C. 601(b)(1), 601(b)(2). 

Prior to the PAEA, the Postal Service 

issued regulations concerning the 

restrictions on the private carriage of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
36248 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

letters. Several of these regulations were 

modified and superseded by the 

adoption of the PAEA. For example, the 

PAEA supersedes a Postal Service 

regulation that allows private carriage if 

the amount paid is ‘‘at least three 

dollars or twice the applicable U.S. 

postage for First-Class Mail (including 

priority mail) whichever is greater.’’ 39 

CFR 320.6(c). In addition, a Postal 

Service regulation closely tracks the 

language in Section 601(a) but also 

allows for alternative payment 

agreements in written agreements 

between customers and the Postal 

Service. 39 CFR 310.2(b). The 

Commission is specifically interested in 

whether certain Postal Service 

regulations implement the current 

statutory exemptions found in Sections 

601(a), 601(b)(1), and 601(b)(2), and 

whether the Commission should adopt 

or revise these and other regulations to 

clarify the statutory exemptions. 

Second, the Commission is interested 

in identifying what private carrier 

services are within the scope of Section 

601(b)(3). See 39 U.S.C. 601(b)(3). The 

‘‘grandfather clause’’ in Section 

601(b)(3) authorized the continuation of 

private activities that the Postal Service 

had purportedly permitted by 

regulations to be carried out of the mail. 

Specifically, it allows private carriage 

that is within the scope of specific 

purported suspensions to the letter 

monopoly. 39 CFR 310.1 (2005) 

included twelve putative exceptions to 

the definition of ‘‘letter’’ and/or 

purported suspensions of the letter 

monopoly. 39 CFR 320.2–8 (2005) 

provided seven additional purported 

suspensions of the PES, including for 

certain data processing materials, for 

certain letters of college and university 

organizations, and for certain 

international-ocean carrier-related 

documents. The Commission seeks 

comments on what services were 

‘‘described by regulations of the United 

States Postal Service . . . that purport to 

permit private carriage by suspension of 

the operation of this section’’ as of July 

1, 2005. See 39 U.S.C. 601(b)(3). 

Additionally, the Commission seeks 

suggestions regarding what regulations 

may be needed to enumerate in clear 

terms all instances where private carrier 

services are within the scope of Section 

601(b)(3). 

For both issues, the goal of the 

Commission is to determine whether it 

is necessary to clarify the statutory 

exemptions regarding the letter 

monopoly. The Commission seeks 

information as to how best to resolve 

any ambiguities in the application of the 

exceptions. The Commission also 

inquires whether consolidating 

regulations and definitions under one 

section, rescinding redundant and/or 

conflicting sections, or standardizing 

the terminology used in the regulations 

would be helpful. 

IV. Comments 

The Commission invites interested 

persons to identify whether there are 

any Postal Service regulations that the 

Commission should adopt to carry out 

the requirements of Section 601 and if 

so, whether the Commission should 

revise those regulations. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comments that 

identify what private carrier services are 

within the scope of Section 601(b)(3) 

and whether regulations are needed to 

clearly enumerate those services. 

Commenters are encouraged to provide 

specific suggestions on revisions or 

recommend new regulations. 

The Commission recognizes that 

comments on these issues have been 

provided in Docket No. RM2020–4. 

However, given the length of time since 

those comments were received and the 

breadth of different topics covered by 

the previous advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the Commission finds it 

prudent to solicit updated comments to 

assist in focusing this proceeding on a 

few particular issues. Commenters who 

previously submitted comments in 

Docket No. RM2020–4 may provide 

updated comments in this proceeding. 

The Commission envisions that the 

comments provided in this proceeding 

will help inform any proposed rules that 

may be issued in Docket No. RM2020– 

4. 

Comments are due August 26, 2021. 

Material filed in this docket will be 

available for review on the 

Commission’s website, http://

www.prc.gov. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. 

Richardson will serve as the officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. PI2021–2 for the purpose of 

considering potential regulations under 

39 U.S.C. 601. 

2. Interested persons may submit 

written comments on potential 

regulations no later than August 26, 

2021. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth 

E. Richardson will serve as the officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this Notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14636 Filed 7–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS