Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43941 

Commandant to review the COTP’s 

notice, in which case its effective date 

is delayed pending a decision by the 

Commandant. Petitions to the 

Commandant must be submitted in 

writing via the COTP who issued the 

requirement to amend the Operations 

Manual. 

(2) If the COTP finds that there is a 

condition requiring immediate action to 

prevent the discharge or risk of 

discharge of oil or hazardous material 

that makes the procedure in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section impractical or 

contrary to the public interest, the COTP 

may issue an amendment effective on 

the date the facility operator receives 

notice of it. In such a case, the COTP 

will include a brief statement of the 

reasons for the findings in the notice. 

The owner or operator may petition the 

Commandant to review the amendment, 

but the petition does not delay the 

amendment. 

(b) The facility operator may propose 

amendments to the operations manual 

by: 

(1) Submitting any proposed 

amendment and reasons for the 

amendment to the COTP in printed or 

electronic format not less than 30 days 

before the requested effective date of the 

proposed amendment; or 

(2) If an immediate amendment is 

needed, requesting the COTP to 

examine the amendment immediately. 

(c) The COTP will respond to 

proposed amendments submitted under 

paragraph (b) of this section by: 

(1) Notifying the facility operator that 

the amendments have been examined by 

the Coast Guard; or 

(2) Notifying the facility operator of 

any inadequacies in the operations 

manual or proposed amendments, with 

an explanation of why the manual or 

amendments do not meet the 

requirements of this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

(e) Amendments may be submitted as 

page replacements or as an entire 

manual. When an entire manual is 

submitted, the facility operator must 

highlight or otherwise annotate the 

changes that were made since the last 

version examined by the Coast Guard. A 

revision date or other revision-specific 

identifying information must be 

included on the page replacements or 

amended manual. 

■ 8. Amend § 154.325 as follows: 

■ a. Remove paragraph (a); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (b) through 

(g) as paragraphs (a) through (f), 

respectively; and 

■ c. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (a) through (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 154.325 Operations manual: Procedures 

for examination. 

(a) Not less than 60 days prior to the 

first transfer operation, the operator of a 

new facility must submit, with the letter 

of intent, an Operations Manual in 

printed or electronic format to the COTP 

of the zone(s) in which the facility is 

located. 

(b) After a facility is removed from 

caretaker status, not less than 30 days 

prior to the first transfer operation, the 

operator of that facility must submit an 

Operations Manual in printed or 

electronic format to the COTP of the 

zone in which the facility is located, 

unless the manual has been previously 

examined and no changes have been 

made since the examination. 

(c) If the COTP finds that the 

Operations Manual meets the 

requirements of this part and part 156 

of this chapter, the COTP will provide 

notice to the facility stating the manual 

has been examined by the Coast Guard. 

The notice will include the date, 

revision date of the manual, or other 

revision-specific identifying 

information. 

(d) If the COTP finds that the 

Operations Manual does not meet the 

requirements of this part or part 156 of 

this subchapter, the COTP will notify 

the facility with an explanation of why 

the manual does not meet the 

requirements of this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 156—OIL AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 156 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 

3703, 3703a, 3715, 70011, 70034; E.O. 11735, 

3 CFR 1971–1975 Comp., p. 793; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 

00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 10. Revise § 156.120(t)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 156.120 Requirements for transfer. 

* * * * * 

(t) * * * 

(2) Has readily available in the marine 

transfer area a copy of the most recently 

examined facility operations manual or 

vessel transfer procedures, as 

appropriate; and 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 3, 2021. 

J.W. Mauger, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16869 Filed 8–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 121 

Revised Service Standards for MarketDominant 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 FirstClass Mail and Periodicals service 

standards in the Federal Register and 

sought public comment (the Proposed 

Rule). Service Standards for MarketDominant 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43942 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FirstClass 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 FirstClass 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 ontime 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43944 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FirstClass 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 SinglePiece 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 inhome 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43946 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 FirstClass 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 43947 

1The Postal Service’s operations are generally 

funded by revenues, not by taxpayer 

appropriations. See 39 U.S.C. 2401. 

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 marketdominant 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 selfsufficiency 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

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43948 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Postal Service has used Intelligent 

Mail® 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 thenexisting 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 longterm 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). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfsustaining.’’ 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43950 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 geographicallybased 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, lowincome, 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 nonrural 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 FirstClass Mail would be ‘‘categorically’’ 

excluded from air transportation under 

this proposal; much long-distance FirstClass 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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®, (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 FirstClass 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 FirstClass 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 FirstClass 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 interSCF 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43952 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 

1001, 3691. 

■ 2. Section 121.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 dayzero 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 

InternationalTM; 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 FirstClass 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. 

■ 3. Section 121.2 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and 

(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 121.3 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 121.3 USPS Marketing Mail. 

(a) End-to-End. (1) The service 

standard for Sectional Center Facility 

(SCF) turnaround USPS Marketing 

Mail® 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 intraNetwork Distribution Center (NDC) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 dayzero 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 dayzero 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 origindestination pair. 

(b) Destination entry. (1) USPS 

Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a 

Destination Delivery Unit (DDU) rate 

and that are accepted before the dayzero 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. 

■ 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 §§ 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

Mail class 

End-to-end 

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

Mail class 

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 

Mariana Islands (MP), and U.S. 

Virgin Islands (USVI) 

Alaska 

Hawaii, 

Guam, 

MP, & AS 

PR & 

USVI Alaska 

Hawaii, 

Guam, 

MP, & AS 

PR & 

USVI Alaska 

Hawaii, 

Guam, 

MP, & AS 

PR & 

USVI 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
43954 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—DESTINATION ENTRY SERVICE STANDARD DAY RANGES FOR MAIL TO THE CONTIGUOUS 48 STATES AND THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mail class 

Contiguous United States 

Destination entry 

(at appropriate facility) 

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

Mail class 

Destination entry (at appropriate facility) 

DDU 

(days) 

SCF 

(days) 

ADC 

(days) 

NDC 

(days) 

Alaska 

Hawaii, 

Guam, 

MP, & AS 

PR & USVI Alaska 

Hawaii, 

Guam, MP, 

& AS 

PR & USVI Alaska 

Hawaii, 

Guam, 

MP, & AS 

PR & USVI 

Periodicals ........................ 1 1–3 1 1–3 1–4 (AK) .....

11 (JNU) 

11 (KTN) 

1 (HI) ..........

2 (GU) 

1–4 10–11 10 8–10 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2021–0212; FRL–8738–02– 

R10] 

Air Plan Approval; OR; Updates to 

Adoption by Reference of Federal 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Oregon State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted on January 29, 2021. 

The revision updates the date by which 

Federal provisions are adopted by 

reference into the Oregon SIP, making 

air quality requirements more current. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 10, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2021–0212. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall (15–H13), EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), Seattle, 

WA 98101, (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it refers to the 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 29, 2021, the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted a SIP revision to the EPA for 

approval. The revision, State effective 

January 21, 2021, updates the adoption 

by reference of Federal requirements 

used throughout the Oregon air quality 

rules. Oregon’s air quality rules are 

codified in Divisions 200 through 268 of 

Chapter 340 of the Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR). 

We proposed to approve the revisions 

on April 5, 2021 (86 FR 17569). The 

reasons for our proposed approval were 

included in the proposal and will not be 

restated here. The public comment 

period for our proposal closed on May 

5, 2021. We received two public 

comments. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comments 

The commenters raised a wide range 

of concerns, including but not limited to 

the importance of human rights, legal 

recourse for victims of crimes, and just 

compensation for personal injury and 

loss of property. Most of the concerns 

raised by the commenters are broad in 

nature and do not identify any specific 

requirements that are inconsistent with 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES