Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

43942

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
enhance the efficiency of its surface transportation network.
The scope of the changes is also limited. Most First-Class Mail 61
percent would stay at its current standard, and overall 70 percent of First-Class Mail would be subject to a standard of 3 days or less, consistent with the current standards within the contiguous United States. For the minority of volume that is subject to a shift in service standard, the standard would only change by 1 or 2 days with most of such volume experiencing a 1day change. At the same time, the Postal Service would be positioned to provide service on a significantly more predictable basis.
On April 21, 2021, the Postal Service submitted a request to the Postal Regulatory Commission PRC for an advisory opinion on these service standard changes proposed for FirstClass Mail and Periodicals, in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3661b. The PRC initiated Docket No. N20211, in which it conducted formal hearings with testimony on the record in order to consider the Postal Services request. A
number of interested persons and entities intervened and conducted discovery to probe the Postal Services request and evidence; the PRCs 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 Services 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 PRCs advisory opinion, including how the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:21 Aug 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

PRC analyzed aspects of the evidence presented by the Postal Service. That said, the Postal Service largely agrees with the PRCs 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 Services 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. N20211in response to a PRC recommendation in an earlier advisory opinionconstitutes 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 PRCs 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
PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

United States Postal Service, PRC
Docket No. N20211 June 21, 2021, https go.usa.gov/xF5n4; Reply Brief of the United States Postal Service, PRC
Docket No. N20211 June 25, 2021, https go.usa.gov/xF5n2. While almost all commenters express some form of opposition to the changes, they do not offer clear alternative proposals or revisions.
Many comments raise issues that fall outside the scope of this proceeding. For example, such non-germane issues included:
Pensions and retiree health benefits;
Postal banking;
Appropriations;
Service standards and/or service performance regarding packages;
Removal of sorting machines and collection boxes;
Tenure of the current Postmaster General;
Potential changes to the retail network; and Privatization of aspects of or indeed the entirety of the Postal Service.
None of these issues, irrespective of their importance, properly fall within the scope of this rulemaking. Changes to the service standards for First-Class Mail and end-to-end Periodicals do fall within the scope of this rulemaking, and comments that focused on such changes were taken into closer account and are addressed below.
Many commenters predict that the changes to service standards for FirstClass Mail and end-to-end Periodicals will degrade service, disrupting the provision of goods and services while leaving vulnerable customers and financially stressed business with no viable recourse. By way of support, many of these commenters relate anecdotes of service failures that have impacted them negatively. Other comments raise various concerns that bear at least some relation to the service standard changes at issue, such as the following:
Impacts of the proposed changes on rural customers;
The appropriateness of the proposed changes during the pendency of the COVID19 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
E:FRFM11AUR1.SGM

11AUR1