Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations customers, a subset of customers who depend on First-Class Mail perhaps more extensively than any other constituency in todays 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.
3691c3. 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. 3691b1B, which mandates that service standards for market-dominant products be designed to preserve regular and effective access to postal services in all communities.
The Postal Service acknowledges that, to the extent that incarcerated customers generally lack access to electronic means of communication, they may be more reliant on First-Class Mail for sending and receiving tax documents, court filings, and other correspondence.
It does not follow, however, that the changes would impair those activities.
First, most Single-Piece First-Class Mail would retain its current service standard, and the operational changes enabled by the new service standards will significantly increase the probability that that mail will be delivered on time. Second, most incarcerated persons are in state or local facilities, many of these incarcerated persons are presumably residents of the states where they are incarcerated, and the courts with jurisdiction over their incarceration are presumably located in the same state. None of this intrastate correspondence will be subject to a 5-day service standard. With limited exception, all intrastate Single-Piece First-Class Mail will continue to have a service standard of 2 or 3 days. Only Alaska will have a 4-day service standard for some intrastate SinglePiece First-Class Mail. Third, even if some Single-Piece First-Class Mail to or from incarcerated persons were subject to materially longer service standards or actual delivery times, the prevalence of postmark rules minimizes the impact of longer delivery times on incarcerated persons business and legal matters. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. 7502; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5b2C, 6d; Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:21 Aug 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

Rules of Criminal Procedure 45c, 49a4C; California Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. 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 standardand not before. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30; North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 4j1; South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 4d8.
Because the service of court documents is not sensitive to the time between mailing and receipt, the advocacy groups 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 Services customer satisfaction surveys do not include incarcerated people among potential participants. However, the advocacy group offers no contrary evidence of incarcerated peoples 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 Services 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 15 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.
3691c7, 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 nations robust and extensive air network that has routinely been used to transport First-Class Mail; and that the 15 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
PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

43945

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 13 day delivery range; and the changes, by enabling superior service performance, will better allow incarcerated persons to estimate the time it will take First-Class Mail to be delivered, since the delivery standards will be more reliably achieved.
A financial services company expresses concern that the changes will cause certain impacts on its mailing operations. The company relates that it recently consolidated the facilities from which it processes mailings and avers that the changes will reverse its cost savings associated with that consolidation. The company further notes that, currently, it can send mailings to its geographically diverse accountholders on a single timeline, and that the changes will oblige it to account for differing travel times. Mailpieces in the same advertising campaign, it explains, will need to be entered at different times to achieve similar inhome dates. Invoices on the same billing cycles and with the same due dates may likewise need to be staggered.
While the Postal Service acknowledges that the new standards may require adjustments on the part of business mailers, mailers will also benefit from enhanced reliability. Such mailers may find that the benefits of increased reliability, which will enable customers to have more confidence in the specific date of delivery, offset any costs associated with staggered mailing invoices and mailing campaigns.
Furthermore, such mailers have a vested interest in the Postal Services 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 Services 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
E:FRFM11AUR1.SGM

11AUR1