[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43941-43954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17127]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 121


Revised Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is adding one to two days to the service 
standards for certain First-Class Mail and Periodicals.

DATES:  Effective October 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Twana Barber, Strategic Communications 
Business Partner, at 202-714-3417.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Comments
III. Response to Comments
    A. Representative Concerns
    B. Other Statutory Concerns
IV. Explanation of Final Rules
    A. Service Standards Generally
    B. First-Class Mail
    C. Periodicals

I. Introduction

    On April 23, 2021, the Postal Service published proposed revisions 
to First-Class Mail and Periodicals service standards in the Federal 
Register and sought public comment (the Proposed Rule). Service 
Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products, 86 FR 21675 (Apr. 23, 
2021). These proposed service standards constitute a central element of 
the Postal Service's Delivering for America strategic plan to achieve 
service excellence and financial sustainability, which was announced on 
March 23, 2021. The comment period for the Proposed Rule closed on June 
22, 2021. Current service standards require the Postal Service to rely 
heavily on air transportation, using air cargo transportation carriers 
and commercial passenger air carriers. Air transportation is subject to 
a number of factors that make it less reliable than surface 
transportation, such as weather delays, network congestion, and air 
traffic control ground stops; air transportation also tends to cost 
significantly more than surface transportation. The basic logic of the 
changes is that the addition of one or two days to current service 
standards for First-Class Mail and Periodicals would enable the Postal 
Service to convey a greater volume of mail within the contiguous United 
States by surface transportation, thereby achieving a better balance of 
on-time reliability and cost-effectiveness. It would also enable the 
Postal Service to

[[Page 43942]]

enhance the efficiency of its surface transportation network.
    The scope of the changes is also limited. Most First-Class Mail (61 
percent) would stay at its current standard, and overall 70 percent of 
First-Class Mail would be subject to a standard of 3 days or less, 
consistent with the current standards within the contiguous United 
States. For the minority of volume that is subject to a shift in 
service standard, the standard would only change by 1 or 2 days (with 
most of such volume experiencing a 1-day change). At the same time, the 
Postal Service would be positioned to provide service on a 
significantly more predictable basis.
    On April 21, 2021, the Postal Service submitted a request to the 
Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for an advisory opinion on these 
service standard changes proposed for First-Class Mail and Periodicals, 
in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3661(b). The PRC initiated Docket No. 
N2021-1, in which it conducted formal hearings with testimony on the 
record in order to consider the Postal Service's request. A number of 
interested persons and entities intervened and conducted discovery to 
probe the Postal Service's request and evidence; the PRC's Presiding 
Officer and its appointed Public Representative also actively examined 
the evidence through the discovery and hearing process. Some 
intervenors introduced their own rebuttal testimony and other evidence 
into the record. Several intervenors submitted arguments to the PRC in 
the form of post-hearing briefs, and many other interested persons did 
the same through submission of statements of position. The supporting 
evidence in that proceeding advanced by the Postal Service demonstrated 
a number of significant benefits from implementing the service standard 
changes consistent with the policies enumerated in Title 39 of the 
United States Code: more reliable, predictable, and consistent service 
for mailers; significant cost savings due to the creation of a more 
efficient transportation network; longer-term financial sustainability; 
and further operational benefits in the future.
    The proceeding culminated in an advisory opinion issued by the PRC 
on July 20, 2021, which concluded that the Postal Service's proposed 
changes, in principle, are rational and not inconsistent with statutory 
requirements. The PRC did make a number of recommendations for how the 
Postal Service should implement its changes. The Postal Service does 
not concur with many portions of the PRC's advisory opinion, including 
how the PRC analyzed aspects of the evidence presented by the Postal 
Service. That said, the Postal Service largely agrees with the PRC's 
recommendations, and will be following most of them as these new 
service standards are implemented.
    Specifically, the Postal Service agrees with the principle of 
setting realistic performance targets based on actual operating 
conditions. The Postal Service has not claimed that it will achieve the 
95 percent service performance target set forth in the Delivering for 
America plan instantaneously with the service standard change; rather, 
the implementation of this change is a necessary step towards 
ultimately achieving that target, in conjunction with other elements in 
the plan. Interim targets will be set as the plan is implemented. The 
Postal Service also agrees with the principles of closely monitoring 
the implementation process to ensure that the new transportation 
network is achieving the Postal Service's goals, measuring customer 
satisfaction with the changes, and working closely with customers. 
Successful implementation not only of this service standard change, but 
of the plan generally, requires careful and systematic operational 
planning and execution, as well as customer engagement. On the other 
hand, the Postal Service continues to believe that the econometric 
analysis that it presented in Docket No. N2021-1--in response to a PRC 
recommendation in an earlier advisory opinion--constitutes a robust and 
objective approach to understanding how these service standard changes 
may impact mail volumes, and therefore the Postal Service does not 
agree with the PRC's new recommendation to disregard that analysis.

II. Comments

    The Postal Service received about 136,317 comments in response to 
the Proposed Rule. These responses came overwhelmingly from individuals 
using very similar, if not verbatim, language, but also from a small 
variety of other sources, including the Attorneys General of a group of 
states together with cities, a union, and public advocacy groups. Some 
of the comments submitted in the Proposed Rule, including those by the 
Attorneys General and others, are simply copies of the same briefs or 
statements of position that they had filed in the PRC proceeding, re-
submitted to the Postal Service as their comments for this rulemaking. 
The Postal Service likewise incorporates by reference its Initial Brief 
and Reply Brief as filed publicly in the PRC proceeding. Initial Brief 
of the United States Postal Service, PRC Docket No. N2021-1 (June 21, 
2021), https://go.usa.gov/xF5n4; Reply Brief of the United States 
Postal Service, PRC Docket No. N2021-1 (June 25, 2021), https://go.usa.gov/xF5n2. While almost all commenters express some form of 
opposition to the changes, they do not offer clear alternative 
proposals or revisions.
    Many comments raise issues that fall outside the scope of this 
proceeding. For example, such non-germane issues included:
     Pensions and retiree health benefits;
     Postal banking;
     Appropriations;
     Service standards and/or service performance regarding 
packages;
     Removal of sorting machines and collection boxes;
     Tenure of the current Postmaster General;
     Potential changes to the retail network; and
     ``Privatization'' of aspects of (or indeed the entirety 
of) the Postal Service.
    None of these issues, irrespective of their importance, properly 
fall within the scope of this rulemaking. Changes to the service 
standards for First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals do fall 
within the scope of this rulemaking, and comments that focused on such 
changes were taken into closer account and are addressed below.
    Many commenters predict that the changes to service standards for 
First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals will degrade service, 
disrupting the provision of goods and services while leaving vulnerable 
customers and financially stressed business with no viable recourse. By 
way of support, many of these commenters relate anecdotes of service 
failures that have impacted them negatively. Other comments raise 
various concerns that bear at least some relation to the service 
standard changes at issue, such as the following:
     Impacts of the proposed changes on rural customers;
     The appropriateness of the proposed changes during the 
pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic;
     The impact of the proposed changes on election mail;
     The purportedly illegitimate prioritizing of cost 
reduction over delivery speed;
     Loss of mail volume; and
     An alleged strategy to deemphasize First-Class Mail in 
favor of packages.
    As noted, most of the comments are in the form of short letters, 
using very similar or identical verbiage. Frequently, these form 
letters stated that

[[Page 43943]]

they were opposed to the proposed service standard changes, which they 
alleged would ``permanently'' slow down the delivery of much of the 
mail; that the Postal Service's focus should be on improving the delays 
that ``plagued'' service during the past year; that the Postal Service 
is ``critical'' to keeping all citizens connected; and that the 
commenters ``depend on reliable and affordable postal services.'' These 
last views, expressed repeatedly in over 100,000 submissions, confirm 
that the American public overwhelmingly depends upon reliable and 
affordable postal services.
    To be clear, this does not mean that many comments do not also 
express an interest in more expeditious service. Yet the comments 
undeniably recognize that reliability is significant. Further, what 
they express clearly was the ``essential'' nature of postal services to 
the public, and that they want to see these essential services both 
maintained and improved for years to come. The comments highlight the 
many aspects of what quality postal services include: reliability and 
affordability, as well as fast delivery. These sometimes competing 
qualities must be balanced when designing service standards. 39 U.S.C. 
3691(b)(1)(C).
    The Postal Service has taken the comments into account, and has 
determined that they do not furnish a reasonable basis to deviate from 
the initial set of proposed changes to the service standards in 
question. In particular, the comments do not present any compelling 
explanation for why adding a day or two to a minority of First-Class 
Mail and end-to-end Periodicals volume would make postal services 
insufficiently speedy, let alone negate the benefits of enhanced 
reliability, cost effectiveness, and financial sustainability that will 
inure to all. The Postal Service therefore considers that these new 
standards properly balance the various statutory policies regarding the 
design of service standards, and should be implemented.

III. Response to Comments

A. Representative Concerns

    To the extent that anecdotes of performance failures relate to 
First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals, the Postal Service has 
concluded that the changes will help to ameliorate, rather than worsen, 
service performance and customer satisfaction. By enacting these 
service standards, the Postal Service will be able to increase service 
reliability and thus ensure that its service standards provide 
customers with more meaningful service expectations compared to the 
current standards.
    As an initial matter, the Postal Service notes that over 60 percent 
of First-Class Mail volume will remain unaffected by the changes, and 
that 70 percent of First-Class Mail volume will continue to have a 
service standard of 3 days or less. The Postal Service further notes 
that it has been unable to achieve its service performance targets for 
many years, and that these service failures illustrate the weakness of 
the current transportation model. Indeed, the commenters who cite these 
failures make a strong case for the changes. Bills do not, in general, 
arrive late due to the insufficient speed of surface transportation, 
but rather because a mailer relied on a service standard that failed to 
materialize: had the mailer known that delivery would take longer, the 
mailer could have mailed sooner. Many of the commenters' frustrations, 
in other words, appear to have arisen from the lack of reliability 
currently ingrained in the transportation network. Service standards 
that are reliably achieved can be planned around; service failures of 
fluctuating duration often cannot.
    Numerous commenters related anecdotes of service performance 
failures, complaining of slow delivery times and occasional lost items, 
which resulted in missed payments on bills, delayed receipt of 
prescription medications, and other inconveniences. These commenters 
frequently misconstrue service changes as an attempt to enshrine and 
regularize the service failures of the past year. As noted above, to 
the extent that these anecdotes relate to First-Class Mail and end-to-
end Periodicals, the Postal Service submits that the changes will help 
to ameliorate, rather than worsen, service performance and customer 
satisfaction. Many of the items about which customers express concern, 
such as bills, tend to ship from locations of relatively close 
geographical proximity, and as such, they will figure among the group 
of unaffected mailings. Further, the Postal Service aims, with the new 
service standards, to deploy a transportation network capable of 
delivering on time and with consistency, one on which customers can 
count. Vulnerable customers who rely on the Postal Service for 
predictable delivery would particularly stand to benefit from the 
enhanced service reliability that will result from these changes.
    Some comments express skepticism of surface transportation. For 
example, one commenter asserts that ``[t]he justification/rationale . . 
. that airplanes are less reliable than trucks driving across country 
is beyond absurd,'' and speculated that ``[d]elivering [F]irst[-C]lass 
[M]ail cross country by using only trucks realistically would need a 
standard `maximum' of 12 days,'' and that ``[e]ven then the actual 
could exceed 15 days.'' One individual commenter, who intervened in the 
PRC docket and then re-submitted a copy of his brief from that case, 
comments that air and surface transportation are comparably reliable, 
and that, moreover, non-transportation root causes of delay make a 95 
percent service performance target impossible. However, experience 
indicates both that the air transportation network is less reliable 
than surface transportation, and that by beneficially exploiting the 
capabilities of the surface transportation network, the Postal Service 
can achieve a greater degree of reliability. With regard to root causes 
of delay, the changes afford additional time to rectify certain 
handling errors and transit failures. Furthermore, these changes form 
but one part of a broader strategy, set forth in the Postal Service's 
comprehensive Delivering for America strategic plan, to achieve 95 
percent success in the metric of service performance; the Postal 
Service has not portrayed these changes as sufficient to achieve that 
end, but rather as a necessary component, among others, to ultimately 
achieving a 95 percent service level.
    The same commenter references certain service standard changes 
implemented in the years 2000 and 2001, pursuant to which ``the Postal 
Service defined a service standard to match a range of truck driving 
time.'' The commenter then asserts that these former changes did not 
yield an increase in improved reliability, and suggests that the 
current changes will likewise fail to realize their stated goal. 
Nonetheless, the commenter offers little evidence to legitimize any 
such comparison between two different service standard changes 
occurring in two vastly different contexts. The current changes are 
different from and more extensive than the changes implemented two 
decades ago.
    At least one commenter alleges that ``[i]f one can plan for 95 
percent on-time delivery within a five-day timeframe, one can make a 
plan for 95 percent on-time delivery within a three-day timeframe.'' 
Actual experience, though, overwhelmingly indicates that the Postal 
Service cannot, in a cost-effective manner, achieve 95 percent on-time 
delivery within a 3-day timeframe. The Postal Service has not met its 
First-Class Mail service targets in years, and these service failures 
have been particularly

[[Page 43944]]

pronounced for mail subject to a 3-day standard. This is because the 
current First-Class Mail standards require delivery in 3 days or less 
throughout the continental United States regardless of the distance 
between origin and destination, a short timeframe that necessitates 
excessive use of less reliable air transportation. The short timeframe 
also results in tight timelines for processing and transporting mail, 
further increasing the risk of service failures caused by contingencies 
that arise in the normal course of business.
    One commenter contends that, if service standards are lengthened, 
some mail will be delivered early, thereby undercutting the Postal 
Service's goal of consistency. This type of ``inconsistency,'' however, 
is not a cause for criticism. The Postal Service seeks to deliver more 
mail within its stated service performance targets, and thus to avoid 
delays--especially of the sort of which so many commenters complain.
    Some commenters suggest that the Postal Service has illegitimately 
prioritized cost reduction over speed of delivery. In particular, joint 
comments by advocacy groups state that ``[t]he Postal Service proposal 
. . . puts costs above the `expeditious' delivery of mail'' in 
violation of 39 U.S.C. 101(a) and 101(e). The Postal Service stresses 
that projected cost savings, while important, do not constitute the 
sole factor motivating the changes. The service standard changes will 
both reduce cost and improve service reliability, with minimal impact 
on delivery speed, particularly in light of recent actual performance. 
Furthermore, the cost savings associated with this plan are not 
envisioned as ends in themselves; rather, they are intended to ensure 
that universal service, provided at least 6 days a week at affordable 
rates, remains financially sustainable into the future. The Postal 
Service has discretion to balance service reliability, speed, and 
delivery frequency in light of reasonable rates and best business 
practices and to account for costs, existing service levels, and 
various factors that affect the financial viability of the universal 
service network. The changes represent a considered and reasonable 
effort to strike an appropriate balance among these considerations.
    Numerous commenters question the projected financial benefit 
associated with the new service standards. These comments frequently 
predict that the changes will precipitate a ``downward spiral,'' 
whereby declining service leads to declining demand and thus to 
declining revenue that outstrips the cost savings. In a similar vein, 
joint comments by public advocacy groups conjecture that ``by 
potentially decreasing mail volumes or harming the Postal Service 
brand, the proposal may not result in cost savings for the Postal 
Service.'' An industry mailer in financial services likewise speculates 
that ``the Postal Service may experience significantly more volume loss 
as a result of the proposed changes than it expects as companies shift 
to faster, more reliable, and easier to manage electronic channels in 
response'' to the changes. An individual commenter echoes this by 
stating his belief that the Postal Service has underestimated the 
volume loss associated with the changes.
    No commenter offers evidence to corroborate these suppositions. On 
the other hand, the Postal Service has, in its proceeding before the 
PRC, developed record evidence about potential demand effects in the 
form of an expert econometric analysis. While that analysis forecasts a 
decline in volume, the forecasted decline is not anticipated to spark a 
negative feedback loop or to swallow all concomitant benefits. 
Bolstering this analysis is evidence, in the form of regular customer 
survey data presented before the PRC, that customers generally place 
higher value on service reliability than speed. To the extent that some 
customers may prefer delivery speed faster than these standards, the 
evidence does not support a conclusion that these customers will prompt 
a cascade of demand decline, but rather that customer satisfaction will 
remain stable, if not improve, with more reliable service. Rather than 
harm the Postal Service's brand, then, the changes should help to 
alleviate the reputational damage accruing to late and missed 
deliveries.
    Some commenters question the appropriateness of the changes during 
the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic, observing the role played by the 
Postal Service in delivering prescription medications, food and pantry 
staples, stimulus checks, and coupons. First, package deliveries--
including those of prescription medications and food--are not affected 
by the changes at issue in this rulemaking, which are limited to First-
Class Mail and Periodicals. Further, many of the service performance 
failures raised by other commenters have been exacerbated by the 
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on air transportation and by the 
strain on the Postal Service's surface transportation networks in 
attempting to shoulder the resulting burden of meeting current service 
standards. See Postal Regulatory Comm'n, Annual Compliance 
Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2020 (Mar. 29, 2021), at 109-16. The 
evidence indicates that the new changes will help to ameliorate, rather 
than worsen, these performance failures. The pendency of COVID-19, its 
disruption of air transportation, and the resultant burden on surface 
transportation to meet current service standards therefore makes these 
corrective measures more, not less, urgent.
    Many commenters express concern that the changes might negatively 
impact the delivery of election mail. For example, joint comments by 
public advocacy groups aver that ``[d]elaying mail delivery risks 
significant numbers of completed ballots that might not be counted 
because they are delivered after states' deadlines for receipt of mail-
in ballots.'' The Postal Service notes the limited scope of these 
service standard changes, as well as the distinction between lengthened 
service standards and delays. The changes will add one or two days to 
the current service standards for certain mail volume, particularly 
mail traveling long distances, but intrastate mail volume will be 
largely unaffected: Local mail (i.e., First-Class Mail that is 
traveling 3 hours or less between origin and destination) will remain 
subject to a 2-day standard, and First-Class Mail traveling within a 
State will, with the exception of certain mail in Alaska, still be 
subject to a standard of 3 days or less. Indeed, as for election mail 
specifically, based on November 2020 general election data and the use 
of the ballot Service Type ID (STID) in the Intelligent Mail Barcode 
(IMB), only approximately 3.84 percent of inbound First-Class Mail 
ballot volume would experience a slight downward change in service 
standards--to which affected mailers can respond by adjusting their 
mailing times accordingly. Indeed, the enhanced reliability should 
provide ballot mailers with more, not less, assurance that their 
mailings will be delivered within the expected service standard.
    In order to mitigate any impact on election mail, the Postal 
Service has already held two briefings with election officials since 
the release of its Delivering for America Plan. At both briefings, the 
proposed service standards changes were discussed, and feedback was 
received. The Postal Service will continue to work closely with 
national election associations, federal organizations, state election 
executives, and local election officials regarding these changes.
    A public advocacy group on behalf of prison populations contends 
that the changes ``vitiate the value and utility of First-Class Mail to 
incarcerated

[[Page 43945]]

customers,'' a subset of customers who ``depend on First-Class Mail 
perhaps more extensively than any other constituency in today's 
world.'' The Postal Service acknowledges the unique challenges faced by 
incarcerated mailers. Far from undermining the value and utility of 
First-Class Mail for these mailers, however, the changes are highly 
unlikely to affect them negatively and will counterbalance any marginal 
inconveniences with a higher degree of reliability.
    The advocacy group suggests that the changes ignore ``the needs of 
Postal Service customers, including those with physical impairments.'' 
See 39 U.S.C. 3691(c)(3). To this end, it invokes the scenario of an 
incarcerated person, subject to a civil action, who suffers prejudice 
due to a 5-day service standard. The advocacy group also, and on 
similar grounds, contends that the changes infringe 39 U.S.C. 
3691(b)(1)(B), which mandates that service standards for market-
dominant products be designed to ``preserve regular and effective 
access to postal services in all communities.''
    The Postal Service acknowledges that, to the extent that 
incarcerated customers generally lack access to electronic means of 
communication, they may be more reliant on First-Class Mail for sending 
and receiving tax documents, court filings, and other correspondence. 
It does not follow, however, that the changes would impair those 
activities. First, most Single-Piece First-Class Mail would retain its 
current service standard, and the operational changes enabled by the 
new service standards will significantly increase the probability that 
that mail will be delivered on time. Second, most incarcerated persons 
are in state or local facilities, many of these incarcerated persons 
are presumably residents of the states where they are incarcerated, and 
the courts with jurisdiction over their incarceration are presumably 
located in the same state. None of this intrastate correspondence will 
be subject to a 5-day service standard. With limited exception, all 
intrastate Single-Piece First-Class Mail will continue to have a 
service standard of 2 or 3 days. Only Alaska will have a 4-day service 
standard for some intrastate Single-Piece First-Class Mail. Third, even 
if some Single-Piece First-Class Mail to or from incarcerated persons 
were subject to materially longer service standards or actual delivery 
times, the prevalence of postmark rules minimizes the impact of longer 
delivery times on incarcerated persons' business and legal matters. 
See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. 7502; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C), 
6(d); Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 45(c), 49(a)(4)(C); 
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). Other common rules 
withhold legal completion of service of a mailed summons until the 
recipient has executed a written acknowledgment of receipt within some 
period extending far beyond even a 5-day First-Class Mail service 
standard--and not before. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure 
section 415.30; North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 4(j)(1); South 
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 4(d)(8). Because the service of court 
documents is not sensitive to the time between mailing and receipt, the 
advocacy group's scenario, referenced above, is unlikely to 
materialize.
    The advocacy group also disputes that the Postal Service took 
customer satisfaction into account, on the theory that the Postal 
Service's customer satisfaction surveys do not include incarcerated 
people among potential participants. However, the advocacy group offers 
no contrary evidence of incarcerated people's preferences to support 
its hypothesis of divergence from the preferences of the general 
mailing populace. Absent such evidence, there is no basis on which to 
conclude that incarcerated persons do not value reliability and 
consistency over speed, as the Postal Service's customer survey data 
indicate for postal customers generally. The advocacy group itself 
appears to agree that reliability is of paramount importance to 
incarcerated persons, given its fear that ``the proposed 1-5 day 
delivery range leaves incarcerated mailers utterly unable to reliably 
estimate the time in which it will take for First-Class Mail to be 
delivered.'' In fact, the changes will demonstrably improve 
incarcerated mailers' ability to rely on standard delivery times.
    Finally, the advocacy group contends that the changes violate 39 
U.S.C. 3691(c)(7), which requires that service standards take into 
account ``the effect of changes in technology, demographics, and 
population distribution on the efficient and reliable operation of the 
postal delivery system.'' For this claim, the advocacy group adduces 
two grounds: That with these changes, the Postal Service ``arbitrarily 
ignores the nation's robust and extensive air network that has 
routinely been used to transport First-Class Mail''; and that the ``1-5 
day delivery range leaves incarcerated mailers utterly unable to 
reliably estimate the time in which it will take for First-Class Mail 
to be delivered.'' This characterization of the air network as 
``robust'' is belied by evidence showing that, in terms of transporting 
mail, it is actually less reliable and resilient than surface 
transportation. As mentioned above, all intrastate mailings (with the 
exception of some Alaska ZIP Code pairs) will fall within the 1-3 day 
delivery range; and the changes, by enabling superior service 
performance, will better allow incarcerated persons to estimate the 
time it will take First-Class Mail to be delivered, since the delivery 
standards will be more reliably achieved.
    A financial services company expresses concern that the changes 
will cause certain impacts on its mailing operations. The company 
relates that it recently consolidated the facilities from which it 
processes mailings and avers that the changes will reverse its cost 
savings associated with that consolidation. The company further notes 
that, currently, it can send mailings to its geographically diverse 
accountholders on a single timeline, and that the changes will oblige 
it to account for differing travel times. ``Mailpieces in the same 
advertising campaign,'' it explains, ``will need to be entered at 
different times to achieve similar in-home dates.'' Invoices on the 
same billing cycles and with the same due dates may likewise need to be 
staggered. While the Postal Service acknowledges that the new standards 
may require adjustments on the part of business mailers, mailers will 
also benefit from enhanced reliability. Such mailers may find that the 
benefits of increased reliability, which will enable customers to have 
more confidence in the specific date of delivery, offset any costs 
associated with staggered mailing invoices and mailing campaigns. 
Furthermore, such mailers have a vested interest in the Postal 
Service's ability to achieve long-term financial sustainability while 
maintaining affordable rates, and the changes will enable progress 
toward that end.
    A postal labor organization opposes the changes on several grounds. 
First, it alleges that the changes will hinder the distribution of 
local dues reimbursements, reduce the timeliness of its communications 
regarding collective bargaining and union activities, and compromise 
the value of its monthly periodical. Second, it observes that ``the 
American public have expressed strong opposition to the changes 
proposed as measured by the high number of public comments submitted.'' 
Finally, it opines that putative harm to the Postal Service's brand 
will outweigh the projected cost savings, and suggests, in lieu of the 
changes, and as a measure of brand protection, that the Postal Service 
adopt ``more realistic performance targets (to

[[Page 43946]]

less than 95 percent) for cross-country mail.''
    With regard to the first point, the Postal Service notes that the 
union itself, in its comments, affirms its commitment to and support of 
improved reliability. The Postal Service further observes that the 
enhanced reliability enabled by the changes can counterbalance any 
marginal impact on the union's mailing activities that the standards 
may cause. With regard to the second point, it bears mentioning that 
approximately 98 percent of the comments received consisted of short 
form letters that were prompted by critics of the proposed change; it 
is not the case that such letters are indicative of opposition by ``the 
American public'' generally of this proposal. Moreover, evidence 
suggests that customers typically value reliability above speed, and 
that--as the numerous anecdotes of service performance failures further 
attest--delayed or missed deliveries inflict at least as much, and 
likely more, damage to the Postal Service's brand than would a slightly 
lengthened service standard affecting less than 40 percent of First-
Class Mail. The Postal Service therefore disagrees with the suggestion 
that, by maintaining the current standards while setting forth lower 
service targets, the Postal Service could more effectively protect its 
current high approval rating among the American public.
    At least one commenter claims that with the changes comes a higher 
risk that time-sensitive Periodicals will arrive late at their 
destination. The Postal Service observes that, when subject to delays, 
time-sensitive Periodicals may lose value to customers. As such delays 
cannot be planned around, customers who ship and receive Periodicals 
will stand to benefit from the greater degree of reliability enabled by 
the changes, which will also only extend the standard by one or two 
days. In addition, this change affects only end-to-end Periodicals, 
which represent a very small portion of overall Periodicals volume, and 
are more likely to be quarterly or monthly publications that are less 
time-sensitive than Periodicals generally.
    Numerous comments were submitted by, or on behalf of, customers 
domiciled in Alaska. First, a group of Alaskan state legislators allege 
that the changes ``would grossly violate the Universal Service 
Obligation.'' The Postal Service notes, in response, that the PRC's 
Report on Universal Postal Service and Postal Monopoly, Dec. 19, 2008, 
at 197-98, finds service quality to be an attribute of the universal 
service obligation, and further finds the statutory requirement to seek 
an advisory opinion before changing service quality nationwide to be a 
necessary component of service quality. For the changes at issue in 
this rulemaking, the Postal Service has already sought an advisory 
opinion; the changes, moreover, aim to rebalance speed and reliability, 
in order to address well-documented concerns about the latter and 
thereby to maintain and indeed improve service quality.
    Further, some business owners express concern that the changes will 
affect their ability to ship products (such as smoked salmon) to 
locations within the 48 contiguous states. Others worry that the 
changes will compromise their ability to receive food and prescription 
medications via the Postal Service. Several commenters note that the 
Alaska Public Guardian manages the shelter, food, medical and financial 
needs of approximately 1,700 incapacitated Alaskans, and that the 
Postal Service is the only method available to the Public Guardian to 
send checks and documents to these individuals, their landlords, 
service providers, and families. These commenters note the time-
sensitive nature of many such mailings; observe that they ``are already 
routinely late, many times already arriving on the date information is 
due or after deadlines have passed''; and voice the concern that 
``[c]hanging the delivery standards will . . . exacerbate these 
issues.''
    The Postal Service acknowledges the unique challenges faced by 
incapacitated Alaskans, and further acknowledges that customers in 
rural Alaska may rely on the Postal Service for prescription 
medications and foodstuffs. However, it bears repeating that the 
changes under review in this rulemaking will affect only First-Class 
Mail and Periodicals--not the packages which bear items like food, 
prescription medications, and other merchandise. With regard to the 
Public Guardian and its clients, it also bears mentioning that mailings 
can--and often do--arrive earlier than the deadlines indicated by 
service standards. Furthermore, as discussed, the changes will help 
ameliorate, rather than exacerbate, the service performance failures 
which these commenters note. Thus, the increase in reliability enabled 
by these changes should counterbalance inconveniences which result from 
the addition of one day to the service standards for First Class Mail 
originating in and destined for Alaska.
    Two farmers' organizations draw attention to the special challenges 
faced by their members. These commenters note that farmers rely on the 
Postal Service to ship and receive seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, 
tools, and other essential products, as well as to receive live animals 
like chicks and bees. They also note that, as their members tend to 
live in rural areas not covered by private carriers and frequently not 
equipped with broadband internet, they rely on the Postal Service for 
prescription medications and for purposes of general communication. In 
opposing the changes, these commenters appear to operate under the 
misimpression that the service standards for all First-Class Mail will 
be lengthened from 1-3 days to 5 days.
    The Postal Service reiterates that the changes at issue here 
concern only First-Class Mail letters and flats and Periodicals, and 
not the packages used for conveying the supplies, seeds, and animals 
listed by these commenters as matters of special concern. Moreover, 
with respect to the non-package mail at issue, the Postal Service 
reiterates that over 60 percent of First-Class Mail will remain 
unaffected by the changes, and that, of the affected mailings, only a 
fraction (approximately 10 percent) will see service standards 
lengthened to 5 days. Most First-Class Mail (70 percent) will remain 
subject to a service standard of 3 days or less. The Postal Service 
also notes that the increased reliability accruing to the changes 
should counterbalance any inconveniences associated with longer 
delivery times.
    Numerous commenters cite or allude to Article I, Section 8, of the 
U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power to ``establish Post 
Offices and post Roads.'' Many, though perhaps not all, of these 
commenters either suggest or claim outright that the changes would 
somehow violate this clause. This claim is premised on the view that 
the changes amount to a wholesale ``destruction'' or ``sabotage'' of 
the postal system.
    The Postal Service disagrees. Far from acting contrary to 
Congress's design, the service standard changes flow from Congressional 
delegations of authority to establish and revise service standards and 
to plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate and efficient postal 
services. 39 U.S.C. 101(a), 403(a), (b)(1), 2010, 3691(a). Moreover, 
these changes reasonably balance the various policies that those 
statutory delegations require the Postal Service to achieve or take 
into account when designing service standards. The changes will leave 
unaffected approximately 60 percent of First-Class Mail mailings; will 
enable higher levels of satisfactory service performance and 
operational efficiency; and will help put the Postal Service on a 
sounder financial footing, so that it may continue to serve its 
customers

[[Page 43947]]

with universal postal services for many years to come. As such, the 
changes are designed to preserve, and not to undermine, the Postal 
Service.
    Some commenters assert that the Postal Service did not, in 
conceptualizing the new service standards, conduct ``impact studies.'' 
The Postal Service notes that it modelled the impacts of the new 
service standards on customers across the country, as well as on the 
Postal Service's transportation network. And it has employed various 
methodologies to project the costs savings and volume declines that the 
new service standards are anticipated to produce.

B. Other Statutory Concerns

    Some of the comments--particularly those that merely incorporate by 
reference the identical briefs or statements of position that had been 
filed in the PRC proceeding--raise concerns that the proposed service 
standard changes are inconsistent with relevant statutory criteria. 
Upon considering these comments, the Postal Service remains convinced 
that the service standard changes are consistent with all applicable 
statutory provisions, especially when considering the provisions 
together. The Postal Service has taken into account the factors of 39 
U.S.C. 3691(c), and has concluded that the service standard changes 
should serve and help it to achieve the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 
3691(b). These provisions require that the Postal Service balance of 
number of considerations. The Postal Service has evaluated these 
factors and objectives holistically, and believes that these service 
standard changes reflect a reasonable balance that, on the whole, will 
benefit the American public in the near and long term. In addition, the 
PRC extensively considered this issue and concluded that the proposed 
service standard changes in principle are not inconsistent with any 
statutory requirements.
    In a statement of position filed with the PRC on June 21, 2021 (and 
incorporated by reference in this proceeding), the Attorneys General 
for 21 States, together with several cities (collectively, the 
``States''), suggest that the Postal Service has short-circuited the 
process of planning and seeking an advisory opinion by avoiding 
``consultation'' with the PRC under 39 U.S.C. 3691(a) before submitting 
its request or issuing its Proposed Rule. However, the Postal Service 
has fully complied with the regulatory requirements applicable to this 
process. The ``consultations'' envisaged in 39 U.S.C. 3691(a) concerned 
the initial establishment of the service standards regulations in 2007, 
rather than subsequent modifications of the service standards.
    That subsection 3691(a) provides that ``the Postal Service shall, 
in consultation with the Postal Regulatory Commission, by regulation 
establish (and may from time to time thereafter by regulation revise) a 
set of service standards for market-dominant products.'' Importantly, 
the phrase about PRC consultation follows ``shall'': as such, it 
applies only to that modal clause (``shall . . . establish''), and not 
to the separate modal clause set forth in the parentheses (``may . . . 
revise''). Had Congress intended otherwise, the framers would have 
structured the sentence so that the consultation clause would modify 
both ``shall . . . establish'' and ``may . . . revise,'' rather than 
only the former. In any event, the Postal Service's formal request for 
an advisory opinion under 39 U.S.C. 3661(b) would satisfy any arguably 
applicable ``consultation'' obligation in this instance.
    With respect to substance, one statute reflects the variety of 
policies that the Postal Service must address, including providing 
service that is ``prompt, reliable, and efficient'' with ``prompt and 
economical delivery,'' while also ``emphasiz[ing]'' other priorities 
including the ``control of costs.'' See 39 U.S.C. 101(a), (f), (g); see 
also 39 U.S.C. 403(a), (b)(1), 2010, 3661(a), 3691(b)(1)(C). Many 
commenters fixate narrowly on promptness and would relegate 
reliability, efficiency, economy, and control of costs to second-tier 
policy objectives. Yet the statute does not offer a basis for such a 
ranking. The Postal Service must balance achievement of all policy 
objectives in a manner that is operationally and financially 
sustainable. That cannot be done under current service standards.
    The States, without concrete suggestions, contend that the Postal 
Service should consider ``chang[ing] its service standard to address 
long-term trends'' only after it ``reliably meet[s] its [current] 
performance targets[.]'' And the States suggest that the Postal Service 
is intentionally sacrificing market-dominant volume to bolster package 
capabilities. To the contrary, adopting the States' position would 
straightjacket the Postal Service because meeting current service 
standards in a reliable manner is not feasible, as evidenced by the 
fact that the Postal Service has not met its service performance 
targets for years. Waiting to achieve the infeasible would prevent the 
Postal Service from ever implementing necessary reforms.
    The States contend that the new service standards will increase the 
delivery time for some mail from government entities, including 
election mail, government payments, and applications for government 
benefits programs. They recognize that the Postal Service has not met 
existing service standards ``for some time'' but aver that, rather than 
adjust them, the Postal Service should simply begin meeting them. 
Similarly, the Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom) contends that, 
even if the Postal Service must incur additional costs to meet service 
standards, it should simply do so because it ``is not a profit-seeking 
business.''
    While such criticisms repeatedly argue that the Postal Service has 
a responsibility under Title 39 to deliver First-Class Mail quickly, 
they ignore the fact that the Postal Service must balance speed of 
delivery with other statutory considerations. One such consideration is 
the Postal Service's obligation to be self-sustaining. Given this self-
sufficiency mandate, the Postal Service must ensure that it provides 
services in a cost-effective manner, particularly if it is to ensure 
affordable rates. As the States note in passing, 39 U.S.C. 101(a) 
states that the Postal Service will be ``supported by the people.'' 
But, beyond operational challenges unrelated to cost, they ignore that, 
if the Postal Service is unable to recoup the costs of operations 
through revenues, its essential services cannot be provided. 39 U.S.C. 
101(d).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Postal Service's operations are generally funded by 
revenues, not by taxpayer appropriations. See 39 U.S.C. 2401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The very services that many critics of the service standards 
emphasize are essential are at risk due to the Postal Service's present 
unsustainable position. It is no solution to this problem to say that 
the Postal Service should simply deliver mail more reliably within the 
existing service standards: This not only ignores the infeasibility of 
the task under the current standards, but also the Postal Service's 
dire financial situation. Given the Postal Service's long-standing 
service performance, operational, and financial problems and its 
statutory obligations to provide adequate, efficient, and economical 
services, it is certainly no solution to say that the Postal Service 
should simply expend more resources on unreliable, inefficient 
transportation providers in an attempt to meet the current standards.
    It is also incorrect to claim that the Postal Service has not 
considered the potential impact of the service standards on election 
mail. As noted above, the

[[Page 43948]]

Postal Service has used Intelligent Mail[supreg] barcode tracking 
specifically to evaluate the amount of inbound ballot volume that would 
experience a downward change and concluded that it was only 3.84 
percent of such volume. The Postal Service has already held briefings 
to discuss the changes with election officials to enable them to align 
their mailings with service standards and will continue to conduct 
outreach during and after any implementation. Finally, none of the 
changes is specific to election mail or implicates the kinds of 
measures the Postal Service has taken during past elections to expedite 
election mail.
    Before the PRC, the Postal Service explained how it has reasonably 
balanced the various 39 U.S.C. 3691 objectives and factors and the 
statutory policies set forth in 39 U.S.C. 101, 403, 2010, and 3661(a), 
and the PRC concluded that the proposed changes do not facially 
conflict with any statutes. The service standards would enhance the 
value of postal services by improving reliability and consistency, 
while minimizing the tradeoffs in terms of lengthened service 
standards. This balancing of reliability, speed, and frequency is also 
consistent with reasonable rates and best business practices, both of 
which require efficient cost management, and with various other 
statutes that require a balance between efficiency and service. 
Congress committed to the Postal Service the discretion to perform this 
balancing of numerous and sometimes competing policies. Other parties 
may favor one statutory policy or another in their own narrower 
interests, or may wish for a different balance amongst the various 
policies, but only the Postal Service bears the statutory 
responsibility of accounting for all of the relevant policies in 
weighing initiatives. In furtherance of this duty, the Postal Service 
has set forth a reasonable balance regarding these new service 
standards.
    The States compare the operational changes at issue to other 
changes challenged in certain federal lawsuits from 2020, but this 
comparison is entirely misplaced. First, the substance of the alleged 
operational changes in those cases had nothing to do with either these 
service standard changes or their operational motivations (such as the 
planned shift from air transportation to surface). Instead, those cases 
concerned alleged operational changes from July 2020, including alleged 
changes to policies regarding late and extra surface transportation 
trips and overtime, among other claims, particularly in the unusual 
context of the pandemic and the 2020 election. The courts therefore did 
not review the Postal Service's balancing of the various statutory 
policies in designing the then-existing service standards, let alone 
those proposed well after the events at issue in the 2020 lawsuits. 
Second, the statutory challenges in those cases arose largely from 
procedural allegations that the Postal Service had not sought proper 
regulatory review of the alleged operational changes prior to 
implementation. Irrespective of whether such regulatory review was 
required in connections with those matters, here it is beyond dispute 
that the Postal Service formally sought precisely the ex ante 
regulatory review that litigants in those cases had suggested was 
lacking there. To the extent those federal lawsuits have any bearing on 
this case, they merely support the process that the Postal Service has 
employed here.
    The States mischaracterize the Postal Service's motivation as 
seeking to favor package performance at the expense of First-Class 
Mail. That is not what the Delivering for America Plan says or implies; 
to the contrary, the Plan explicitly and repeatedly emphasizes the 
Postal Service's intent to improve reliability for both mail and 
packages, not favoring the latter at the expense of the former. E.g., 
Plan at 6, 8, 24, 27, 30, 34, 40. Indeed, a fundamental goal of the 
Plan is to ensure the reliable delivery of all mail 6 days a week, at 
affordable rates, meaning the Plan fully recognizes the centrality of 
mail to the Postal Service's statutory mission. (At the same time, the 
States express concerns about the delivery of prescription medications; 
as noted earlier, however, such packages are not at issue in this 
rulemaking.)
    The States' concerns about First-Class Mail used for their 
governments' mailings to their own residents are unfounded. It is only 
reasonable to infer that a substantial proportion of governmental-to-
individual mailings is mailed from somewhere in the same general 
region; indeed, the States admit that ``much of [such mailings] 
involves in-state mail.'' In other words, the likelihood that the 
service standards would lengthen the delivery time of these mailings--
particularly that any would now be subject to 4- or 5-day service 
standards--is low. Only between 1 and 27 percent (depending on the 
state) of 2-day mail in only 28 contiguous states would move to a 3-day 
standard; further, no First-Class Mail would actually shift to a 5-day 
standard for pairs originating and destinating within the same state, 
and Alaska is the only state in which some 3-day could shift to a 4-day 
standard for pairs within the state.
    The States criticize the proposal as if its motivation were to 
degrade service. It is incorrect, however, to suggest that, because the 
Postal Service has failed to meet service performance targets in the 
past, the proposal amounts to nothing more than ``simply moving the 
goalposts.'' It is not only rational, but critical, that the Postal 
Service take steps to address its longstanding service performance, 
operational efficiency, and financial problems, in order to provide the 
American public with reliable service through a financially sustainable 
postal system. This is the goal of the Delivering for America Plan, of 
which this proposal is a (but far from the only) critical element. The 
principal purposes of the changes are to enable operations to provide 
more reliability for customers and a more cost-effective network to 
help sustain the Postal Service's long-term financial stability by 
shifting some volume from air to surface transportation. Similarly, for 
offshore delivery, the changes would enable a shift from air cargo to 
commercial air.
    The new service standards balance promptness with reliability, 
efficiency, and economy by preserving current service standards for the 
majority of First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals, and by 
tailoring the service standard changes to increase the use of more 
reliably prompt and cost-effective surface transportation. The changes 
will also enable other measures to improve the promptness and 
efficiency of the surface transportation network. These measures 
include modern methods of transporting mail by containerization, as the 
changes would allow the Postal Service to directly containerize trays 
where volume warrants. See 39 U.S.C. 101(f).
    Furthermore, most First-Class Mail would continue to be delivered 
within 3 days, and while certain long-distance customers would receive 
a service standard that is 1 or 2 days longer, they would be assured of 
consistent and predictable delivery within those service standards. For 
those customers who need faster delivery than would be provided under 
these service standards for their letters, Priority Mail Express and 
Priority Mail would continue to be available. See id. at (e). 
Similarly, Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail will continue to 
rely on modern methods of containerization and systems designed to 
achieve expeditious, overnight transportation and delivery of important 
letter mail to all parts of the Nation where it is economical to do so. 
Id. at (f).

[[Page 43949]]

    The Postal Service has reasonably balanced the relevant statutory 
objectives and factors. The revised service standards would enhance 
value for customers, providing greater reliability and consistency. Id. 
at 3691(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), (c)(2). Customers would have a better 
ability to predict when to expect First-Class Mail delivery, based on 
objective criteria. The Postal Service has reasonably determined that 
the service standards would improve both delivery reliability and 
efficiency, while minimizing the extent of impact on delivery speed. 
Id. at 3691(b)(1)(C), (c)(1), (c)(6). But, contrary to the view 
portrayed by the States, the Postal Service is not merely ``moving the 
goal posts'' of the service standards. The service standards are 
necessary to facilitate much more concrete operational initiatives to 
improve delivery reliability and transportation efficiency.
    Several commenters argue that the changes violate 39 U.S.C. 101, 
but fail to recognize how the changes appropriately balance the various 
policies set forth in that provision. The States, for example, quote 39 
U.S.C. 101(e), but never mention subsection (f) of that section. An 
individual commenter argues that the proposed service standards are 
contrary to 39 U.S.C. 101(e) and (f) (``Congress generally considered 
`faster' delivery to be `better' delivery''), without reconciling the 
statutory mandate to balance both ``prompt'' and ``economical'' 
delivery in selecting modes of transportation. The Postal Service notes 
that the ``economical'' prong cannot be relegated to some lesser 
aspirational goal, given the longstanding expectation that the Postal 
Service be financially self-sufficient. See generally 39 U.S.C. 101(a), 
2401; H.R. Rep. 91-1104, at 17 (1970). The Postal Service cannot simply 
incur huge costs to ensure a narrower conception of speed, particularly 
one that experience shows is not consistently achievable in practice.
    First, 39 U.S.C. 101(e) does not say that all letter mail must be 
delivered in the fastest manner at all costs, nor does it define 
``important.'' Similarly, the second sentence of subsection (f) does 
not require overnight delivery of all mail, and instead recognizes that 
only certain important letter mail may warrant overnight treatment. In 
that regard, the Postal Service is not changing the current service 
standard for First-Class Mail subject to an overnight standard. The 
Postal Service also has other options for speedier delivery available 
to customers who want their important letter mail to travel overnight, 
even for long distances: Specifically, Priority Mail Express and 
Priority Mail.
    By contrast, the first sentence of subsection (f) does address 
``all mail'' and thus is much more relevant to the present initiative, 
which will affect First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals based on 
distance of transportation. Subsection (f) also focuses specifically on 
``modes of transportation''--the underlying issue with respect to the 
changes here at issue. Prompt and economical, when considered together, 
cannot mean speediest in all instances, but necessarily entails 
reasonably fast speeds to the extent that they can be achieved at 
reasonable costs. The Postal Service's current usage of air 
transportation has proven inadequate to meet that test, and so the 
Postal Service is taking measured steps to improve the selected modes 
of transportation. To do so, however, the service standards need to be 
adjusted.
    Moreover, the proposed changes are limited in scope, and are 
designed to address the consequences of the current standards that 
result in an unreliable, inefficient service, while also mitigating the 
impact on speed of delivery. In this regard, most mail volume will 
remain at its current standard, and overall, most mail volume will 
continue to be subject to a standard of 3 days or less. All mail will 
also receive much more reliable service, meaning actual service 
performance will be better aligned with the service standards, rather 
than having consistent performance failures (a problem particularly 
pronounced for mail currently subject to a 3-day standard). Hence, and 
regardless of how one might choose to define the scope of ``important 
letter mail,'' the Postal Service has given appropriate consideration 
to the interest in ensuring expeditious delivery of First-Class Mail 
letters generally, and has appropriately balanced that interest to the 
extent possible with the other policies of the statute, including 
reliability, efficiency, and affordability.
    Some commenters suggest that the changes would be inconsistent with 
39 U.S.C. 101(b), which requires the Postal Service to ``provide a 
maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, 
communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-
sustaining.'' The Postal Service notes that, by distinguishing on the 
basis of mailing distance and not on the nature of the origin or 
destination, the service standards would affect urban and rural mailers 
similarly. Moreover, the service standards are measured only after 
acceptance at a postal facility, and would not alter that status quo. 
Accordingly, whether post offices are present in a community--and hence 
39 U.S.C. 101(b)--is irrelevant to the present changes.
    Various commenters suggest that the changes may infringe 39 U.S.C. 
403(c), which bars the Postal Service, in providing services, from 
``mak[ing] any undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the 
mails'' or ``grant[ing] any undue or unreasonable preferences to any 
such user.'' Notably, upon consideration of detailed briefs on both 
sides of this precise question, the PRC concluded that the service 
standard changes are not unreasonable and do not facially violate 39 
U.S.C. 403(c). The Postal Service certainly agrees with the PRC's 
assessment in that important respect. Nevertheless, it is important to 
examine carefully the nature of the comments alleging discriminatory 
impact of the changes.
    In accord with PRC precedent, three conditions must be met to 
establish a claim of unreasonable discrimination: (1) One or more 
mailers must be offered less favorable rates or terms and conditions 
than those offered to other mailers; (2) the two sets of mailers must 
be similarly situated; and (3) there must be no rational or legitimate 
basis for differing treatment. Order No. 718, Order on Complaint, PRC 
Docket No. C2009-1 (Apr. 20, 2011), at 28. Several commenters suggest 
that the service standards would implicate these conditions, but the 
Postal Service does not find this argument persuasive.
    Most broadly, some commenters seem to suggest that any geographical 
disparities resulting from the service standards will suffice to 
satisfy the first two 39 U.S.C. 403 (c) criteria. However, the relevant 
question is not where customers live, but how far their mailings 
travel. The Postal Service is not degrading service standards in 
selected states or for selected mailers, but rather is lengthening the 
service standards for all mailings that traverse longer distances based 
on objective distance criteria that will apply nationwide. Furthermore, 
the Postal Service notes that when considering whether First-Class Mail 
service, as a whole, would inappropriately discriminate among customers 
following this service standard change, longer-distance mailers will 
continue to benefit from the uniform First-Class Mail rate, whereby 
they pay less per mile than shorter-distance mailers. Moreover, with 
respect to expected delivery times, many longer-distance mailers 
subject to lengthened service standards will continue to enjoy a 
delivery speed (i.e., distance traveled

[[Page 43950]]

per day) that is significantly faster than that for shorter-distance 
mail, even if longer-distance mail's speed advantage will now be 
somewhat less. Initial Brief of the United States Postal Service, PRC 
Docket No. N2021-1 (June 21, 2021), at 47-49.
    As for the third prong in the 39 U.S.C. 403 (c) analysis, the 
Postal Service notes that both courts and the PRC have granted it broad 
latitude in distinguishing between different mailers, given the Postal 
Service's statutory responsibility to provide universal service in an 
economical and efficient manner. See, e.g., Egger v. USPS, 436 F. Supp. 
138, 142 (W.D. Va. 1977) (declaring it ``obvious that the Postal 
Service may provide different levels of delivery service to different 
groups of mail users so long as the distinctions are reasonable''); UPS 
Worldwide Forwarding, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 66 F.3d 621, 634-35 
(3d Cir. 1995) (noting that Postal Service may treat mailers 
differently so long as that different treatment is reasonable); Order 
No. 4294, Order Granting the Postal Service's Motion to Dismiss, PRC 
Docket No. C2019-1 (Dec. 12, 2018), at 10 (``the Postal Service may 
differentiate among customers where the differences have a rational 
basis''); Order No. 5491, Order Granting the Postal Service's Motion to 
Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice, PRC Docket No. C2020-2 (Apr. 28, 
2020), at 9.
    The Postal Service has adduced a rational, non-arbitrary basis for 
the differences in standards: namely, to improve service performance by 
enhancing reliability through greater use of surface transportation, 
which in turn depends on designing standards that predicate days of 
delivery on geographic distances. Moreover, courts have recognized that 
objective geographic disparities can serve as a rational justification 
for different levels of service in connection with 39 U.S.C. 403(c). 
UPS Worldwide Forwarding, 66 F.3d at 634-35.
    Some commenters suggest that 39 U.S.C. 101(a) and 404(c) constrain 
the interpretation of the phrase ``undue or unreasonable 
discrimination,'' in support of the broader view that any geographical 
disparities in service standards would, by definition, trigger a 39 
U.S.C. 403(c) violation. One commenter, for instance, discusses the 
uniform-rate requirement under 39 U.S.C. 404(c) and then speculatively 
asserts that the scope of ``discrimination'' under 39 U.S.C. 403(c) 
should likewise bar geographically-based differentials in service 
standards. This argument is inapposite: 39 U.S.C. 404(c) speaks to 
rates, not to service standards, and nothing in the statutory text ties 
the two provisions together in the manner suggested by the commenter. 
Another commenter purports to read, in 39 U.S.C. 101(a)'s stated goal 
of ``binding the nation together,'' an obligation to impose uniform 
service standards across the United States. The Postal Service further 
notes, though, that geographically-tiered service distinctions already 
exist in the prior service standards upheld by this and other 
commenters. If such distinctions do not give the commenters pause in 
regard to the prior service standards, then it cannot be that the mere 
occurrence of a geographical disparity constitutes undue discrimination 
in connection with the new service standards, either.
    Some commenters contend that the changes would result in 
discrimination with respect to certain demographic groups. The States 
thus express concern over the changes' impact on rural, low-income, 
elderly, and disabled customers. The Postal Service notes, however, 
that the States do not assert that the changes will fall unequally on 
such customers; in other words, they neither claim nor purport to 
demonstrate that these changes would target a disproportionately large 
percentage of mailings conveyed by vulnerable populations. Furthermore, 
even assuming for the sake of argument that rural, low-income, 
disabled, and/or other vulnerable customers may be disproportionately 
reliant on First-Class Mail, they likewise prove particularly 
vulnerable to the unreliable air network and to the resulting service 
failures that have persisted for years, both of which the changes aim 
to relieve.
    Certain commenters likewise express concerns about the possible 
impact of the changes on their own interests as veterans, rural 
customers, disabled customers, elderly customers, small businesses, and 
other vulnerable customers. With regard to rural communities in 
particular, joint comments by public advocacy groups suggest that the 
changes violate 39 U.S.C. 101(b), which requires that the Postal 
Service ``provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal 
services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post 
offices are not self sustaining'' and to ensure ``effective postal 
services . . . to residents of both urban and rural communications.'' 
However palpable their policy interests as a general matter, none of 
these commenters present evidence that they disproportionately align 
with the minority of mail volume affected by the service standard 
changes (for example, that a greater percentage of rural customers' 
mail will have a changed service standard than for non-rural 
customers). As noted earlier, the service standard changes are based on 
distance traveled by a mailpiece, without further distinction as to the 
location or nature of the mailer or recipient. Moreover, the Postal 
Service notes that insofar as persons in vulnerable communities--
including rural communities--currently experience delivery delays and 
other service failures, they stand to benefit from the changes, which 
aim to provide more reliable deliveries and therefore consistent 
customer expectations. Moreover, and as discussed above, the service 
standards are limited in scope.
    One commenter, a public advocacy group for prisoners, claims that 
the current changes would violate 39 U.S.C. 404(c). First-Class Mail, 
on its theory, fulfills the mandate that the ``Postal Service shall 
maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters 
sealed against inspection[, one of which] shall provide for the most 
expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the 
Postal Service.'' It asserts that, under the proposed service 
standards, First-Class letters would ``categorically be excluded from 
air transportation,'' even though other classes of mail would continue 
to be transported by air; and that ``this discrepancy plainly violates 
the requirement that First-Class letters be provided the most 
expeditious handling and transportation.'' As an initial matter, it is 
incorrect to state that First-Class Mail would be ``categorically'' 
excluded from air transportation under this proposal; much long-
distance First-Class Mail would continue to be transported by air. In 
any event, the Postal Service notes that 39 U.S.C. 404(c) requires only 
that one class of sealed letters receive ``most expeditious'' 
treatment, not that each class of sealed letters do so. Thus, the 
``most expeditious'' type of sealed mail has long been understood to 
mean what is now Priority Mail Express, which is handled and 
transported more expeditiously than First-Class Mail.
    In sum, the service standard changes do not conflict with any 
statutory obligations; to the contrary, considering those obligations 
as a whole, the changes properly balance the policies of the statute. 
Consequently, modifications to the Proposed Rule in light of the 
comments received are unwarranted.

IV. Explanation of Final Rules

    The Postal Service's market-dominant service standards are 
contained in 39 CFR part 121. The revised version of 39 CFR part 121 
appears at the end of this

[[Page 43951]]

Notice. The following is a summary of the revisions. In addition to the 
changes described below, minor edits are made to (i) conform to product 
name changes for USPS Marketing Mail[supreg], (ii) correct a clerical 
error in the subsection on Destination Entry Periodicals, (iii) delete 
expired provisions, and (iv) refer to common or defined terms in a more 
consistent manner throughout the rules. What was previously known as 
``Standard Mail'' has been rebranded as ``USPS Marketing Mail,'' see 
generally 81 FR 93,606 (2017), and therefore Part 121 (including 
section 121.3 and Appendix A) has been updated to refer to the current 
name of this product.

A. Service Standards Generally

    Service standards contain two components: (1) A delivery day range 
within which mail in a given product is expected to be delivered; and 
(2) business rules that determine, within a product's applicable day 
range, the specific number of delivery days after acceptance of a mail 
piece by which a customer can expect that piece to be delivered, based 
on the 3-Digit ZIP Code prefixes associated with the piece's point of 
entry into the mail stream and its delivery address.
    Business rules are based on critical entry times (CETs). The CET is 
the latest time on a particular day that a mail piece can be entered 
into the postal network and still have its service standard calculated 
based on that day (this day is termed ``day-zero''). In other words, if 
a piece is entered before the CET, its service standard is calculated 
from the day of entry, whereas if it is entered after the CET, its 
service standard is calculated from the following day. (If the 
following day is a Sunday or holiday, then the service standard is 
calculated from the next Postal Service delivery day.) For example, if 
the applicable CET is 5:00 p.m., and a letter is entered at 4:00 p.m. 
on a Tuesday, its service standard will be calculated from Tuesday, 
whereas if the letter is entered at 6:00 p.m. on a Tuesday, its service 
standard will be calculated from Wednesday. CETs are not contained in 
39 CFR part 121, because they vary based on where mail is entered, the 
mail's level of preparation, and other factors.

B. First-Class Mail

    The Postal Service is changing some of the service standards 
applicable to certain First-Class Mail with respect to both of the two 
components of the standards. First, the Postal Service is promulgating 
modifications to the delivery day ranges within which mail in a given 
product is expected to be delivered. Second, the Postal Service is 
promulgating modifications to the business rules, changing the maximum 
number of hours of drive time that corresponds to the specific number 
of delivery days after acceptance of a mail piece by which a customer 
can expect that piece to be delivered (within a product's applicable 
delivery day range).
    In particular, the changes to service standards include the 
delivery-day range for certain First-Class Mail. Currently, a one-day 
(overnight) service standard is applied to intra-SCF Presort First-
Class Mail pieces properly accepted at the SCF before the day-zero CET. 
A two-day service standard is applied to intra-SCF single-piece First-
Class Mail properly accepted before the day-zero CET, as well as to 
inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the 
day-zero CET if the drive time between the origin P&DC/F and 
destination SCF is 6 hours or less. A three-day service standard is 
applied to inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted 
before the day-zero CET if the drive time between the origin P&DC/F and 
destination SCF is more than 6 hours and the origin and the destination 
are within the contiguous 48 states.
    Under the new service standards, the delivery day range for First-
Class Mail within the contiguous United States will expand from the 
current 1-3 days, to 1-5 days. The overnight service standard does not 
change. Among the changes detailed below, a two-day service standard 
will apply to intra-SCF First-Class Mail where the SCF is also the 
origin P&DC/F, and to intra-SCF and inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail 
where the combined drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination 
ADC, and destination SCF is 3 hours or less; a three-day service 
standard for inter-SCF First-Class Mail would apply where the combined 
drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination 
SCF is 20 hours or less (but over 3 hours) within the contiguous United 
States, and the same three-day standard would also apply for intra-SCF 
single-piece First-Class Mail if the combined drive time exceeds 3 
hours and the SCF is not the origin P&DC/F; a four-day service standard 
for inter-SCF First-Class Mail would apply where the combined drive 
time between the origin P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination SCF is 
41 hours or less (but over 20 hours) within the contiguous United 
States; and combined drive times between the origin P&DC/F, destination 
ADC, and destination SCF in excess of 41 hours would result in a 
service standard of five days.
    Furthermore, the Postal Service's regulations pertaining to the 
current service standards for First-Class Mail do not expressly account 
for the combined drive time between origin P&DC/Fs, ADCs, and SCFs, 
though often distribution routes encompass several such facilities. In 
order to clarify these service standards, the final rule specifies, in 
the new service standards for First-Class Mail, that the combined drive 
time encompasses all such P&DC/Fs, ADCs, and SCFs.
    In addition, among the changes detailed below, the Postal Service 
is promulgating certain changes to the service standards for mail 
originating from or destined to areas outside of the contiguous United 
States. The Postal Service will apply a 4-day standard for First-Class 
Mail originating in the contiguous 48 states destined to the city of 
Anchorage, Alaska, the 968 3-digit ZIP Code area in Hawaii, or the 006, 
007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto Rico; for First-Class Mail 
originating in the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto 
Rico and destined to the contiguous 48 states; for First-Class Mail 
originating in Hawaii and destined to Guam, or vice versa; for First-
Class Mail originating in Hawaii and destined to American Samoa, or 
vice versa; and for other First-Class Mail that has both its origin and 
its destination within Alaska. The Postal Service will apply a 5-day 
standard for other First-Class Mail originating from and/or destined to 
the non-contiguous states and territories.

C. Periodicals

    Certain Periodicals are merged with First-Class Mail, and their 
service standards are consequently tied to the respective First-Class 
Mail service standards. In other words, the changes to First-Class Mail 
service standards will result in similar changes to the corresponding 
service standards of the merged Periodicals.
    The Postal Service is therefore promulgating a related change 
concerning certain Periodicals. Under current service standards, for 
end-to-end Periodicals, a three-to-four-day service standard is applied 
to Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET and 
merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface transportation, with 
the service standard specifically equaling the sum of one day plus the 
applicable First-Class Mail service standard (i.e., either two or three 
days, depending on whether the drive time is more than 6 hours). Under 
the new service standard, a three-to-six-day service standard will be 
applied to Periodicals pieces properly accepted

[[Page 43952]]

before the day-zero CET and merged with First-Class Mail pieces for 
surface transportation, with the service standard specifically equaling 
the sum of 1 day plus the applicable First-Class Mail service standard.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 121

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service adopts the 
following revisions to 39 CFR part 121:

PART 121--SERVICE STANDARDS FOR MARKET-DOMINANT MAIL PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 1001, 3691.


0
2. Section 121.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  121.1   First-Class Mail.

    (a) A 1-day (overnight) service standard is applied to intra-
Sectional Center Facility (SCF) domestic Presort First-Class Mail 
pieces properly accepted at the SCF before the day-zero Critical Entry 
Time (CET), except for mail between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and mail destined to American Samoa and the following 3-digit 
ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 (5-digit 
ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
    (b) A 2-day service standard is applied to:
    (1) Intra-SCF single-piece domestic First-Class Mail properly 
accepted before the day-zero CET if:
    (i) The SCF is also the origin Processing & Distribution Center or 
Facility (P&DC/F), or
    (ii) the combined drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination 
Area Distribution Center (ADC), and destination SCF is 3 hours or less;
    (2) inter-SCF domestic First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted 
before the day-zero CET if the combined drive time between the origin 
P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination SCF is 3 hours or less;
    (3) Presort First-Class Mail properly accepted before the day-zero 
CET with an origin and destination that are separately in Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and
    (4) intra-SCF Presort First-Class Mail properly accepted before the 
day-zero CET with an origin or destination that is in American Samoa or 
one of the following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated 
portions thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 
997, 998, and 999.
    (c) A 3-day service standard is applied to domestic First-Class 
Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET, if the 1-day and 
2-day service standards do not apply, the combined drive time between 
the origin P&DC/F, destination ADC, and destination SCF is 20 hours or 
less, and both the origin and the destination are within the contiguous 
48 states.
    (d) A 4-day service standard is applied to domestic First-Class 
Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET, if the 1-day, 2-
day, and 3-day service standards do not apply, and:
    (1) The combined drive time between the origin P&DC/F, destination 
ADC, and destination SCF is 41 hours or less, and both the origin and 
the destination are within the contiguous 48 states;
    (2) The origin is in the contiguous 48 states, and the destination 
is in any of the following: The city of Anchorage, Alaska (5-digit ZIP 
Codes 99501 through 99539); the 968 3-digit ZIP Code area in Hawaii; or 
the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Puerto Rico;
    (3) The origin is in the 006, 007, or 009 3-digit ZIP Code areas in 
Puerto Rico, and the destination is in the contiguous 48 states;
    (4) The origin is in Hawaii, and the destination is in Guam, or 
vice versa;
    (5) The origin is in Hawaii, and the destination is in American 
Samoa, or vice versa; or
    (6) Both the origin and destination are within Alaska.
    (e) A 5-day service standard is applied to all remaining domestic 
First-Class Mail pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET.
    (f) The service standard for Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 
International\TM\; pieces properly accepted before the day-zero CET is 
equivalent to the service standard for domestic First-Class Mail pieces 
originating from the same 3-digit ZIP Code area and destined to the 3-
digit ZIP Code area in which the designated International Service 
Center is located.
    (g) The service standard for Inbound Letter Post pieces properly 
accepted before the day-zero CET is equivalent to the service standard 
for domestic First-Class Mail pieces destined to the same 3-digit ZIP 
Code area and originating from the 3-digit ZIP Code area in which the 
designated International Service Center is located.

0
3. Section 121.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and 
(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.2   Periodicals.

    (a) End-to-End. (1) A 3- to 6-day service standard is applied to 
Periodicals pieces properly accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry 
Time (CET) and merged with First-Class Mail pieces for surface 
transportation (as per the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)), with the 
standard specifically equaling the sum of 1 day plus the applicable 
First-Class Mail service standard.
    (2) A 3-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces 
properly accepted before the day-zero CET if: The origin and 
destination are separately in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; 
or if the origin is in Alaska, the service standard set forth in 
paragraph (a)(1) does not apply, and the destination is in the 
following 3-digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions 
thereof): 995 (5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, 
and 999.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) A 3-day service standard is applied to Periodicals pieces that 
qualify for a DSCF rate and are properly accepted before the day-zero 
CET at the designated DSCF, if they are entered at the DSCF in Puerto 
Rico and destined to the U.S. Virgin Islands, entered at the DSCF in 
Hawaii and destined to American Samoa, or destined to the following 3-
digit ZIP Code areas in Alaska (or designated portions thereof): 995 
(5-digit ZIP Codes 99540 through 99599), 996, 997, 998, and 999.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 121.3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  121.3   USPS Marketing Mail.

    (a) End-to-End. (1) The service standard for Sectional Center 
Facility (SCF) turnaround USPS Marketing Mail[supreg] pieces accepted 
at origin before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is 3 days when the 
origin Processing & Distribution Center/Facility (origin P&DC/F) and 
the SCF are the same building, except for mail between the territories 
of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    (2) The service standard for Area Distribution Center (ADC) 
turnaround USPS Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin before the 
day-zero Critical Entry Time is 4 days when the origin P&DC/F and the 
ADC are the same building, unless the ADC is in the contiguous 48 
states and the delivery address is not, or the mail is between Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the mail is between Hawaii and 
American Samoa.
    (3) The service standard for intra-Network Distribution Center 
(NDC)

[[Page 43953]]

USPS Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero 
Critical Entry Time is 5 days for each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code 
origin-destination pair within the same Network Distribution Center 
service area if the origin and destination are within the contiguous 48 
states; the same standard applies to mail that is intra-Alaska or 
between the state of Hawaii and the territory of Guam or American 
Samoa.
    (4) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair 
within the contiguous 48 states, the service standard for USPS 
Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin before the day-zero Critical 
Entry Time is the sum of 5 or 6 days plus the number of additional days 
(from 1 to 4) required for surface transportation between each 3-digit 
ZIP Code origin-destination pair.
    (5) For each remaining 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair, 
the service standard for USPS Marketing Mail pieces accepted at origin 
before the day-zero Critical Entry Time is the sum of 5 or 6 days plus 
the number of additional days (from 7 to 21) required for intermodal 
(highway, boat, air-taxi) transportation outside the contiguous 48 
states for each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair.
    (b) Destination entry. (1) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify 
for a Destination Delivery Unit (DDU) rate and that are accepted before 
the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DDU have a 2-day service 
standard.
    (2) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination 
Sectional Center Facility (DSCF) rate and that are accepted before the 
day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DSCF have a 3-day service 
standard when accepted on Sunday through Thursday and a 4-day service 
standard when accepted on Friday or Saturday, except for mail dropped 
at the SCF in the territory of Puerto Rico and destined to the 
territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands, or mail destined to American 
Samoa.
    (3) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a DSCF rate and 
that are accepted before the day zero Critical Entry Time at the SCF in 
the territory of Puerto Rico and destined to the territory of the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, or are destined to American Samoa, have a 4-day service 
standard when accepted on Sunday through Thursday and a 5-day service 
standard when accepted on Friday or Saturday.
    (4) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a Destination 
Network Distribution Center (DNDC) rate, and that are accepted before 
the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper DNDC have a 5-day 
service standard, if both the origin and the destination are in the 
contiguous 48 states.
    (5) USPS Marketing Mail pieces that qualify for a DNDC rate, and 
that are accepted before the day-zero Critical Entry Time at the proper 
DNDC in the contiguous 48 states for delivery to addresses in the 
states of Alaska or Hawaii or the territories of Guam, American Samoa, 
Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, have a service standard of 12-
14 days, depending on the 3-digit origin-destination ZIP Code pair. For 
each such pair, the applicable day within the range is based on the 
number of days required for transportation outside the contiguous 48 
states.

0
5. Appendix A to part 121 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 121--Tables Depicting Service Standard Day Ranges

    The following tables reflect the service standard day ranges 
resulting from the application of the business rules applicable to 
the market-dominant mail products referenced in Sec. Sec.  121.1 
through 121.4 (for purposes of Part 121, references to the 
contiguous states also include the District of Columbia):
    Table 1. End-to-end service standard day ranges for mail 
originating and destinating within the contiguous 48 states and the 
District of Columbia.

                    Table 1--Contiguous United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            End-to-end
                       Mail class                          range  (days)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-Class Mail........................................             1-5
Periodicals.............................................             3-9
USPS Marketing Mail.....................................            3-10
Package Services........................................             2-8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2. End-to-end service standard day ranges for mail 
originating and/or destinating in non-contiguous states and 
territories.

                                                     Table 2--Non-Contiguous States and Territories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   End-to-end
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Intra state/territory         To/from contiguous 48 states     To/from states of Alaska and
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------  Hawaii, and the territories of
                                                                                                                             Guam, Puerto Rico (PR),
                                                                                                                          American Samoa (AS), Northern
                      Mail class                                                                                          Mariana Islands (MP), and U.S.
                                                                   Hawaii,                          Hawaii,                   Virgin Islands (USVI)
                                                         Alaska   Guam, MP,  PR & USVI    Alaska   Guam, MP,  PR & USVI --------------------------------
                                                                     & AS                             & AS                           Hawaii,
                                                                                                                           Alaska   Guam, MP,  PR & USVI
                                                                                                                                       & AS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-Class Mail.....................................        1-4        1-4        1-2        4-5        4-5        4-5          5          5          5
Periodicals..........................................        3-5        3-5          3      13-19      12-22      11-16      21-25      21-26      23-26
USPS Marketing Mail..................................        3-5        3-5        3-4      14-20      13-23      12-17      23-26      23-27      24-27
Package Services.....................................      * 2-4        2-4        2-3      12-18      11-21      10-15      21-26      20-26      20-24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excluding bypass mail.

    Table 3. Destination-entry service standard day ranges for mail 
to the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia.

[[Page 43954]]



 Table 3--Destination Entry Service Standard Day Ranges for Mail to the Contiguous 48 States and the District of
                                                    Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Contiguous United States  Destination entry  (at appropriate
                                                                             facility)
                   Mail class                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    DDU  (days)     SCF  (days)     ADC  (days)     NDC  (days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodicals.....................................               1               1             1-2             2-3
USPS Marketing Mail.............................               2             3-4  ..............               5
Package Services................................               1               2  ..............               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4. Destination entry service standard day ranges for mail 
to non-contiguous states and territories.

                                            Table 4--Destination Entry Service Standard Day Ranges for Mail to Non-Contiguous States and Territories
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Destination entry (at appropriate facility)
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   SCF  (days)                                        ADC  (days)                                         NDC  (days)
                Mail class                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               DDU                   Hawaii,                                                                                                Hawaii,
                                             (days)      Alaska     Guam, MP,   PR & USVI            Alaska              Hawaii, Guam, MP, & AS    PR & USVI    Alaska     Guam, MP,   PR & USVI
                                                                      & AS                                                                                                   & AS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodicals..............................           1         1-3           1         1-3  1-4 (AK)..................  1 (HI)...................         1-4       10-11          10        8-10
                                                                                           11 (JNU)..................  2 (GU)...................
                                                                                           11 (KTN)..................
USPS Marketing Mail......................           2         3-4         3-5         3-5  ..........................  .........................  ..........          14          13          12
Package Services.........................           1           2         2-3         2-3  ..........................  .........................  ..........          12          11          11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK = Alaska 3-digit ZIP Codes 995-997; JNU = Juneau AK 3-digit ZIP Code 998; KTN = Ketchikan AK 3-digit ZIP Code 999; HI = Hawaii 3-digit ZIP Codes 967 and 968; GU = Guam 3-digit ZIP Code 969.


Ruth Stevenson,
Chief Counsel, Ethics and Legal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-17127 Filed 8-6-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P