Quiero saber acerca de...

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

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 Services 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 commentsparticularly those that merely incorporate by reference the identical briefs or statements of position that had been filed in the PRC proceedingraise 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. 3691c, and has concluded that the service standard changes should serve and help it to achieve the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3691b. 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. 3691a 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. 3691a concerned the initial
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:21 Aug 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

establishment of the service standards regulations in 2007, rather than subsequent modifications of the service standards.
That subsection 3691a 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 Services formal request for an advisory opinion under 39 U.S.C.
3661b 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 emphasizing other priorities including the control of costs. See 39
U.S.C. 101a, f, g; see also 39 U.S.C.
403a, b1, 2010, 3661a, 3691b1C. 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 changing its service standard to address long-term trends only after it reliably meets its current performance targets. And the States suggest that the Postal Service is intentionally sacrificing marketdominant volume to bolster package capabilities. To the contrary, adopting the States position would straightjacket the Postal Service because meeting current service standards in a reliable manner is not feasible, as evidenced by the fact that the Postal Service has not met its service performance targets for years. Waiting to achieve the infeasible would prevent the Postal Service from ever implementing necessary reforms.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

43947

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 Services obligation to be self-sustaining. Given this selfsufficiency mandate, the Postal Service must ensure that it provides services in a cost-effective manner, particularly if it is to ensure affordable rates. As the States note in passing, 39 U.S.C. 101a 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. 101d.1
The very services that many critics of the service standards emphasize are essential are at risk due to the Postal Services 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 Services dire financial situation. Given the Postal Services 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 1 The Postal Services operations are generally funded by revenues, not by taxpayer appropriations. See 39 U.S.C. 2401.

E:FRFM11AUR1.SGM

11AUR1