Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

43944

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
pronounced for mail subject to a 3-day standard. This is because the current First-Class Mail standards require delivery in 3 days or less throughout the continental United States regardless of the distance between origin and destination, a short timeframe that necessitates excessive use of less reliable air transportation. The short timeframe also results in tight timelines for processing and transporting mail, further increasing the risk of service failures caused by contingencies that arise in the normal course of business.
One commenter contends that, if service standards are lengthened, some mail will be delivered early, thereby undercutting the Postal Services 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 delaysespecially 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 the Postal Service proposal . . . puts costs above the expeditious delivery of mail in violation of 39 U.S.C. 101a and 101e. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:21 Aug 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 Services 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 COVID19
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 foodare not affected by the changes at issue in this rulemaking, which are limited to FirstClass Mail and Periodicals. Further, many of the service performance failures raised by other commenters have been exacerbated by the effects of the COVID19 pandemic on air transportation and by the strain on the Postal Services surface transportation networks in attempting to shoulder the resulting burden of meeting current service standards. See Postal Regulatory Commn, Annual Compliance
PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Determination Report, Fiscal Year 2020
Mar. 29, 2021, at 10916. The evidence indicates that the new changes will help to ameliorate, rather than worsen, these performance failures. The pendency of COVID19, 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 delaying 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 2day 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 standardsto 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
E:FRFM11AUR1.SGM

11AUR1