Modern Service Standards for Market-Dominant Products, 72216-72231 [E7-24365]

Agencies

• Postal Service

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72216-72231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24365]



[[Page 72215]]

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

Part III





Postal Service





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



39 CFR Parts 121 and 122



Modern Service Standards for Market-Dominant Products; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 19, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 72216]]


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

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Parts 121 and 122


Modern Service Standards for Market-Dominant Products

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal ServiceTM establishes modern service 
standards for its market-dominant products. Section 301 of the Postal 
Accountability and Enhancement Act, Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat 3198 
et seq. (December 20, 2006) requires the Postal Service, after 
consultation with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), to establish 
by regulation within a year of its enactment, a set of modern service 
standards for its market-dominant products. This notice responds to 
that requirement by establishing the required regulations.

DATES: Effective date: December 19, 2007. For information on 
implementation, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey C. Williamson, Manager, 
Network Development and Support, United States Postal Service, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260, tel: 202-268-2065, e-mail: 
service.standards1@usps.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Within 6 months of today's date, the Postal 
Service, after consultation with the PRC, is required by section 302 of 
the Act to submit to Congress a plan that, inter alia, establishes 
service performance goals for its market-dominant products; describes 
changes to its processing, transportation, delivery and retail networks 
necessary to allow achievement of those goals; and describes its long-
term vision for rationalizing its infrastructure and workforce. 
Publication of these regulations today is a first step that allows the 
Postal Service to turn its attention to the requirements of section 302 
(120 Stat. 3219-21). The full extent of any realignment of the postal 
mail processing and transportation network to achieve these standards 
cannot be known until the Postal Service develops the plan required by 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) section 302. Thus, 
there will be a lag between the publication of these service standards 
and implementation of the related operational changes necessary to 
support them.
    Regulatory history: 72 FR 58946 (October 17, 2007).
    The remainder of this notice is divided into four sections. Section 
I highlights the general legal and procedural background for the 
establishment of market-dominant product service standard regulations. 
Section II summarizes and explains revisions that the Postal Service 
has made to the regulations proposed in its October 17, 2007, Federal 
Register solicitation in response to the PRC's subsequent market-
dominant postal products designations. Section III summarizes the 
Postal Service's establishment of service standards for special 
services that the PRC recently has designated as market-dominant, and 
explains corrections and clarifications to its originally proposed 
regulations. Section IV summarizes and discusses many of the comments 
received in response to the October 17, 2007, solicitation, and any 
resulting amendments, clarifications or corrections to the proposed 
regulations. Section V contains the final regulations and explains how 
those regulations achieve the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1), and 
reflect consideration of the factors of 39 U.S.C. 3691(c).

I. Background

    The establishment of modern service standards for market-dominant 
postal products is the first in a series of related mandates in 
sections 301 and 302 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 
(hereinafter, the ``PAEA'' or ``Postal Law of 2006'' or the ``Act''). 
Section 301 requires the Postal Service to establish modern service 
standards for its market-dominant products within a year of the law's 
December 20, 2006, enactment. Section 302 mandates that, 6 months after 
the establishment of those modern service standards, the Postal Service 
must submit to Congress a plan that reflects the establishment of 
performance goals and includes a description of the changes to its 
networks deemed necessary to meet those goals.
    As codified in 39 U.S.C. 3691(a), PAEA section 301 requires the 
Postal Service to consult with the PRC before establishing modern 
service standards for its market-dominant products.\1\ The extensive 
service standard consultations that took place between the two agencies 
earlier this year are summarized at 72 FR 58948 (October 17, 2007). 
Based upon subsequent consultations with the PRC regarding service 
performance measurement under PAEA section 301 (as codified in 39 
U.S.C. 3691(b)(1)(D) and (b)(2)), the Postal Service also has requested 
the PRC's approval of proposed systems for the measurement of service 
standard achievement for its market-dominant products.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ By operation of 39 U.S.C 410(a), the Postal Service is 
exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding 
proposed rule makings. Nevertheless, the Postal Service invited 
public comment on its proposed market-dominant product service 
standard regulations. See 72 FR 58946 et seq. (October 17, 2007).
    \2\ The Postal Regulatory Commission has initiated a docket to 
solicit public comments regarding the details of the measurement 
systems proposed by the Postal Service. See PRC Docket No. PI2008-1, 
Notice of Request for Comments on Service Performance Measurement 
Systems for Market Dominant Products (December 4, 2007) at https://
www.prc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. New Service Standard Determinations Resulting From Subsequent PRC 
Administrative Rulings

    Under the terms of 39 U.S.C. 3621(a), 39 U.S.C. 3691(a) requires 
the establishment of modern service standards for the following: First-
Class Mail[supreg] letters and sealed parcels, First-Class Mail cards, 
Periodicals, Standard Mail[supreg], Single-Piece Parcel Post[supreg], 
Media Mail[supreg], Bound Printed Matter, Library Mail, Special 
Services and Single Piece First-Class Mail International.\3\ The Postal 
Service's October 17, 2007, solicitation of public comment on its 
proposed market-dominant product service standards reflected this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Single-Piece Parcel Post, Media Mail, Bound Printed Matter, 
and Library Mail are separate under the terms of section 3621(a). 
The service standards for these types of mail, historically, have 
been the same. For as long as that remains the case, and for 
purposes of this notice and the service standards established below, 
these types of mail are collectively referred to as ``Package 
Services'' mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 9, 2007, the PRC clarified the market-dominant status 
of certain postal services. See 72 FR 63662 et seq. (November 9, 2007). 
The PRC's ruling designates the following as market-dominant: Inbound 
Single-Piece First-Class Mail International, Inbound Surface Parcel 
Post (at Universal Postal Union rates), International Certificate of 
Mailing, International Registered Mail, International Restricted 
Delivery, and International Return Receipt. See 72 FR 63682-85. As 
demonstrated below, the final market-dominant service standard 
regulations established today reflect the Postal Service's careful 
consideration of the PRC's more recent market-dominant product 
designations.

A. Outbound and Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International

    The PRC's ruling at 72 FR 63682-85 (November 9, 2007) clarified 
that any service standard for Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 
International should apply to parcel-shaped pieces, and designated 
Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail as a separate market-

[[Page 72217]]

dominant product. Accordingly, service standards for Outbound Single-
Piece First-Class Mail International and Inbound Single-Piece 
International are being published in 39 CFR 121.1(f) and 39 CFR 
121.1(g), respectively. Both standards contain the same day ranges and 
business rules as domestic First-Class Mail in transit between the 3-
digit ZIP Code\TM\ area of the designated inbound International Service 
Center (ISC) to the 3-digit ZIP Code of the delivery address.

B. Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates)

    The PRC's ruling at 72 FR 63685 (November 9, 2007) designated 
Inbound Surface Parcel Post tendered at Universal Postal Union rates as 
a market-dominant product. Upon clearance through the Postal Service 
International Bulk Mail Center or International Service Center (ISC) 
and U.S. Customs, this inbound mail is processed, transported and 
delivered to its U.S. state or territorial delivery address in the same 
manner as domestic Parcel Post. Accordingly, the service standard day 
ranges and business rules for Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU 
rates) established below in 39 CFR 121.4(a)(6) are the same as for 
domestic Parcel Post or other Package Services mail from the 3-digit 
ZIP Code area of the International Bulk Mail Center or ISC to the 3-
digit ZIP Code of the delivery address.

C. International Market Dominant Special Services

    At 72 FR 58964, the Postal Service explained why the establishment 
of a service standard for certain domestic market-dominant special 
services would be unnecessary, redundant or infeasible. The same logic 
holds for most of the international special services designated by the 
PRC as market-dominant at 72 FR 63699-700. It should be noted that 
certain international ancillary special services can be used with both 
market-dominant and competitive mail. The following discussion relates 
solely to international ancillary services used with market-dominant 
mail. Under the circumstances, the Postal Service interprets 39 U.S.C. 
3691(a) as not requiring the establishment of service standards for the 
following international special services, based upon their present 
characteristics.
1. International Certificate of Mailing
    At 72 FR 58964, the Postal Service explained the basis for not 
proposing a service standard for the completion of the issuance of 
Certificate of Mailing for domestic mail. The same reasoning applies to 
an International Certificate of Mailing purchased in connection with 
outbound international mail. The international certificate is provided 
to the sender by the Postal Service as an intrinsic element of the 
acceptance of the mailpiece for which it is purchased. The purchase of 
the certificate is ancillary to sending an Outbound Single-Piece First-
Class Mail International letter, flat or parcel, and does not affect 
the service standards otherwise applicable to the transit of those 
pieces from their domestic points of origin to their designated 
International Service Centers. Provision of the certificate at the time 
of mailing at acceptance completes the special service. Accordingly, 
the Postal Service sees no means or need for a standard measuring the 
timely completion of the provision of International Certificate of 
Mailing service.
2. International Registered Mail
    International Registry service provides added security for a 
mailpiece from acceptance to delivery, and indemnity in case of loss or 
damage in transit. This ancillary service, however, does not affect the 
in-transit service standard of a mailpiece for which it is purchased. 
Thus, from its origin to its designated International Service Center, 
Registered Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International is 
subject to the same service standard as that same mail without Registry 
service. Likewise, from its designated International Service Center to 
its delivery by the Postal Service, Registered Inbound Single-Piece 
First-Class Mail International is subject to the same service standard 
as that same mail without Registry service. Accordingly, as with 
domestic market-dominant mail for which Registry service is purchased, 
the Postal Service has determined that there is no need to establish a 
separate service standard for the transit of International Registered 
Mail in the U.S. postal system.
    At 72 FR 58961-62, the Postal Service proposed a 24-hour service 
standard for online availability of domestic market-dominant product 
Registered Mail delivery scan data at https://www.usps.com. The Postal 
Service performs the same scanning in relation to the delivery of 
inbound international mail for which the sender has purchased Registry 
service from a foreign postal administration. Accordingly, for inbound 
international Registered Mail, the Postal Service is establishing the 
same 24-hour standard for the availability of delivery scan data.
    The Postal Service does not offer a tracking feature for Outbound 
Single-Piece First-Class Mail International. On this basis, the Postal 
Service finds it infeasible at this time to establish the same delivery 
scan data availability for these items.
3. International Return Receipt
    When international outbound or inbound hard-copy Return Receipts, 
which have been signed upon delivery, are in transit for any portion of 
their journey in the Postal Service mailstream, they travel though the 
U.S. postal network as First-Class Mail cards, subject to the same 
processing and delivery standards as other Single-Piece First-Class 
Mail International. Therefore, outbound international Return Receipts 
would have the same service standards as Outbound Single-Piece First-
Class Mail International; and inbound international Return Receipts 
would have the same service standards as Inbound Single-Piece First-
Class Mail International. The Postal Service explained why no 
independent service standards should be developed for the hard-copy 
Return Receipt portion of the domestic First-Class Mail. 72 FR 58964. 
Because hard-copy International Return Receipts are processed along 
with other Outbound and Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 
International, the same logic applies to justify a determination that 
independent service standards need not be established for hard-copy 
International Return Receipts.
    At 72 FR 58963, the Postal Service explained the basis for its 
proposed establishment of a service standard for domestic electronic 
Return Receipt service in 39 CFR 122.1(a)(1), as reflected at 72 FR 
58970. That standard is based upon the Postal Service's ability to scan 
mailpieces during the delivery process and upload delivery information 
to its website for access by the sender. However, there is no 
equivalent electronic International Return Receipt service offering. 
Accordingly, there is no basis for establishing an international 
equivalent service standard.
4. International Restricted Delivery
    Like its domestic counterpart, International Restricted Delivery 
service is purchased subject to the explicit understanding that the 
requested delivery restriction is subject to availability. See 72 FR 
58964. At the time when Restricted Delivery service is purchased from 
the Postal Service for Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail, it 
cannot be known whether some delivery policy exception or limitation 
applicable to the delivery address in the jurisdiction of the 
destination foreign postal administration overrides the requested 
delivery restriction. Likewise,

[[Page 72218]]

if the service is purchased from a foreign postal administration on 
inbound international mail, it cannot be known whether some Postal 
Service delivery policy exception may override the requested delivery 
restriction. Accordingly, as is the case with domestic Restricted 
Delivery service, the establishment of service standards for 
international Restricted Delivery service is unwarranted.
5. International Reply Coupon
    International Reply Coupon service (outbound and inbound) allows 
the sender to prepay a reply by purchasing reply coupons that are 
exchangeable for postage stamps by postal administrations in member 
countries of the Universal Postal Union. One coupon is exchangeable for 
a stamp or stamps representing the member country's minimum postage of 
an unregistered letter. Because the transaction is complete at the time 
of purchase of the coupon for outbound and at the time of redemption of 
the coupon for inbound, and no additional service is required, the 
Postal Service sees no means or need for a standard measuring the 
timely completion of this service. If mail for which the postage has 
been paid by means of an International Reply Coupon is processed by the 
Postal Service as an inbound or outbound market-dominant product, the 
postage payment method does not affect the service standard otherwise 
applicable to the transit of that mail.
6. International Business Reply Mail
    International Business Reply Mail service is an alternate postage 
payment method established for high-volume mail recipients who assume 
responsibility for the payment of postage on specially preprinted 
mailpieces that are delivered to them. It is similar to domestic 
Business Reply Mail in that the postage payment method does not affect 
the transit of such mail from its origin to its destination. From its 
point of entry into the United States Postal Service mailstream at an 
International Service Center (ISC) until it is delivered, inbound 
International Business Reply Mail has the same service standards as a 
comparable international mailpiece for which the postage is prepaid. As 
there is no justification for establishing independent service 
standards for domestic Business Reply Mail beyond those for domestic 
First-Class Mail,\4\ there also is no need to establish a separate 
service standard for international mail for which the Business Reply 
Mail postage payment method is employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 72 FR 58964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Service Standard Proposals or Amendments Resulting From Subsequent 
Postal Service Administrative Determinations

    After publication of its October 17, 2007, Federal Register notice, 
the Postal Service continued to review the feasibility of its proposed 
service standards regulations. As explained below, the Postal Service 
has unilaterally determined that some substantive revisions to its 
proposed regulations are appropriate. The Postal Service also has made 
minor organizational changes or clarifications to the wording of the 
regulations.

A. Substantive Changes to Proposed Service Standards for Non-Contiguous 
States and Territories

1. The Alaska 995 Intra-SCF First-Class Mail Overnight Split
    As reflected in proposed 39 CFR 121.1, the Postal Service 
originally proposed that intra-Sectional Facility (SCF) First-Class 
Mail for all 3-digit ZIP Code areas of the state of Alaska would have a 
2-day service standard, with the exception of the 995 3-digit ZIP Code 
area, which would have an overnight standard. See 72 FR 58967. Further 
review has led the Postal Service to modify this proposal and retain a 
2-day First-Class Mail standard for part of the 995 3-digit ZIP Code 
area.
    To an extreme degree, the population and logistical infrastructure 
of the 995 3-digit ZIP Code intra-SCF area in the state of Alaska are 
heavily concentrated in the subordinate 5-digit ZIP Code service areas 
that include the city of Anchorage. An overnight service standard for 
all intra-SCF First-Class Mail in the 995 3-digit ZIP Code area would 
require the Postal Service to undertake extraordinary logistical 
obligations for the intra-SCF volume that is not either to or from the 
city of Anchorage, in order to meet that standard in every isolated 
corner of a vast service area in which roads and pockets of population 
often do not co-exist. For these reasons, 39 CFR 121.1(a) now reflects 
an operational split of the 995 3-digit ZIP Code service area that 
preserves the overnight standard where the intra-SCF mail is 
concentrated.
2. Reductions in other proposed day ranges.
    A comparison of the service standard day ranges originally proposed 
for origin-destination 3-digit ZIP Code pairs that include the states 
of Alaska or Hawaii, or the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, or the 
U.S. Virgin Islands to the day ranges established today reveals that 
the Postal Service has reduced some service standard day ranges.\5\ 
These reductions result from additional refinements in logistical 
mapping for mail to and from these origins and destinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Compare the tables at 72 FR 58591-92 to 39 CFR part 121, 
Appendix A below in section IV.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Inclusion of a Service Standard for Money Order Inquiry Service

    Money Order Inquiry service is important to postal customers 
seeking to determine whether money orders they have purchased from the 
Postal Service have been cashed. Subsequent to the purchase of a money 
order, customers may complete an inquiry form and pay the appropriate 
fee. At a centralized processing center, data from each form are 
computerized and transmitted to the inquiry data system. There, they 
are matched by the Postal Service against electronic banking 
transaction records obtained from the Federal Reserve System in order 
to determine whether the money order has been cashed and to provide the 
customer with a status report on the money order. Correspondence is 
sent to the customer with the status of the money order. If the money 
order has been cashed, a copy of the record of the banking transaction 
is included. As a modern service standard, the Postal Service proposes 
that the response to a Money Order Inquiry should be transmitted from 
its electronic inquiry system and dispatched no later than 15 business 
days (excluding designated postal holidays) after the date on which the 
Postal Service accepts the completed inquiry form and payment from the 
customer.

C. Additional Postal Designation of Market-Dominant Products

    Since the publication of its October 17, 2007, Federal Register 
notice, the Postal Service has proposed that the following two 
international special services also be designated as market-dominant, 
when used with market-dominant mail: Inbound International Insurance, 
and Customs Clearance and Delivery. PRC Docket No. RM2007-1, United 
States Postal Service Submission of Additional Mail Classification 
Schedule Information in Response to Order No. 43 (November 20, 2007).
1. Inbound International Surface Parcel Insurance Claims
    Inbound International Insurance is available for Inbound Surface 
Parcels tendered at Universal Postal Union

[[Page 72219]]

rates. Purchase of this ancillary service for such parcels does not 
affect their transit in the U.S. mailstream. Accordingly, there is no 
need to establish in-transit service standards for Insured Inbound 
International Surface Parcels that are independent of the standards for 
uninsured pieces discussed above in section II.B.
    Under current Universal Postal Union procedures, an inquiry must be 
filed prior to any claims processing. The Universal Postal Union 
establishes time limits for inquiry and claims processing, but 
compliance with these time limits depends upon the exchange of 
information between postal administrations. The number of insured 
Inbound Surface Parcels at UPU rates is relatively small. The Postal 
Service has no control over the claims processing and information 
exchange response times of foreign posts, which vary. Therefore, under 
present circumstances, the Postal Service does not believe it feasible 
to establish an independent service standard for inbound international 
insurance claims processing.
2. Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee
    This service consists of the Postal Service collecting a fee from 
the recipient on each inbound package on which a customs duty or 
Internal Revenue Service tax is assessed. The Postal Service fee is 
accounted for by affixing postage-due stamps to the packages or to a 
postage-due bill and canceling. From the ISC or exchange office to the 
delivery unit, such mail has the same transit as other inbound 
international mail. Accordingly, there is no basis for establishing a 
separate service standard from the ISC or exchange office for the 
transit of pieces on which the Postal Service collects these fees or 
taxes. The fee or tax collection transaction at delivery is similar to 
the transactions at delivery that result in Collect on Delivery 
payment. Once the duty or tax is collected, no further service is 
required of the Postal Service. The Postal Service thus does not see 
any means or need for a standard measuring the speed with which the fee 
or tax is collected.

D. Minor Changes and Clarifications

    As originally proposed, the Postal Service's regulations divided 
the mail products and the special services products into parts 121 and 
122, respectively. Within part 121, all domestic products were 
addressed sequentially, followed by international mail. However, in the 
concurrent rulemaking through which the Postal Mail Classification 
Schedule is being reorganized, market-dominant domestic and 
international First-Class Mail products are grouped together, as are 
the market-dominant domestic and international Parcel Post products. 
See 72 FR 63699. To conform to the organization of the Mail 
Classification Schedule, proposed Sec.  121.5, which addressed Outbound 
Single-Piece First-Class Mail International, is being eliminated. 
Instead, the service standards for Outbound and Inbound Single-Piece 
First-Class Mail International, respectively, are now included as 
subsections (f) and (g) of Sec.  121.1, First-Class Mail. Likewise, a 
new subpart (c) is being added to Sec.  121.4, to address the PRC's 
recent designation of Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU rates) as a 
market-dominant product.
    The Postal Service also is making clarifying changes in wording 
that are not prompted by the PRC's recent market-dominant product 
designations, nor the comments submitted in response to its October 17, 
2007, Federal Register notice. As an example, the service standard for 
the resolution of domestic Insurance Claims in proposed 39 CFR 122.1(b) 
is that the final agency decision be transmitted no later than 30 days 
after the claim is deemed to be complete. See 72 FR 58970. The Postal 
Service is amending that section to specify that the standard is 30 
calendar days. This clarification is made to avoid any misunderstanding 
that may result from the establishment of the 15 business day standard 
applicable to Money Order Inquiry service in 39 CFR 122.2(d). To 
further minimize any misunderstanding, the service standard for Address 
List Services in 39 CFR 122.2(b) is being amended to incorporate the 
use of the term business day instead of workday, with the understanding 
that Mondays through Fridays are counted as business days, excluding 
designated postal holidays.

IV. Comments

    The Postal Service received comments from 27 sources in response to 
its October 17, 2007 solicitation. They came from an individual mailer, 
commercial mail advertisers and printers, periodicals publishers and 
mailers, parcel shippers, nonprofit mailers, users of various postal 
special services, mailer trade associations, the Postal Regulatory 
Commission, and a United States Senator. Many of the comments expressed 
appreciation for the Postal Service's outreach process and its 
consideration of the various mailer proposals and concerns communicated 
during the comprehensive review of market-dominant product service 
standards that led to the publication of its October 17, 2007, Federal 
Register notice.\6\ The Postal Service, likewise, expresses its 
gratitude here to all who took the time and effort to constructively 
express their views and concerns, both before and in response to the 
Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 72 FR 58946 et seq. The Postal Service's customer 
outreach efforts are summarized at 72 FR 58947-58948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Postal Service has carefully considered all of the 
aforementioned comments. As will be demonstrated below, in some 
instances these comments have resulted in amendments, clarifications or 
corrections to the proposed regulations. Below, the Postal Service 
summarizes and discusses a number of the comments.
    Clarification of Terminology. One commenter sought an explanation 
of the term ``properly accepted,'' as used in the proposed regulations. 
The term is intended to refer to properly addressed mail that meets the 
requirements for acceptance at the time that the Postal Service either 
assumes custody or control of it from the mailer (i.e., at a postal 
bulk mail entry unit) before the applicable Critical Entry Time, or, 
where permitted, when it is dropped in an authorized depository (i.e., 
street corner collection box) before the posted daily last pickup time.
    Annual Review Process. At 72 FR 58967, the Postal Service indicated 
its intention to place a high priority on annual internal review of its 
market-dominant product service standard day ranges and business rules. 
There, the Postal Service indicated that it would use its discretion to 
determine if, when and how it might solicit public input as a part of 
such internal review. A number of commenters responded to the Postal 
Service's October 17, 2007, solicitation by requesting that the Postal 
Service commit to the establishment of formal procedures that would 
ensure mailer input during each annual service standard review process.
    The Postal Service greatly values customer input, and routinely 
solicits information through a variety of venues, including, but not 
limited to, mailer industry workgroups, customer surveys, and market 
research. Additionally, solicited or otherwise, postal customer service 
and operations managers routinely receive numerous comments that 
originate from market-dominant product mail senders and receivers, and 
users of special services, regarding their experiences and 
expectations. The Postal Service is committed to the review of such 
information during its

[[Page 72220]]

internal service standards review process. However, the Postal Service 
intends to reserve the right to exercise its discretion on a case-by-
case basis in determining if, how, and when to engage in either an 
informal dialogue with some customers or a formal solicitation of 
comments from all customers as part of that annual internal review 
process.
    Of course, when the Postal Service plans to pursue implementation 
of a change in a postal service that is at least substantially 
nationwide in scope, it will request an advisory opinion from the PRC 
under 39 U.S.C. 3661. In proceedings conducted under that section, the 
public is permitted to intervene, to request a hearing, to conduct 
discovery, and to file comments and testimony.
    Concerns about the Downgrading of Service. A large number of 
comments suggested that the proposed new service standards downgraded 
service in comparison to that received under the current standards. 
Some of these comments requested that the Postal Service continue to 
maintain the current standard where the expected number of days is less 
than what is proposed in the new service standards.
    The proposed modern service standards reflect the Postal Service's 
careful consideration and balancing of a number of important factors, 
which included customer wants and needs. The customer outreach 
conducted during the development of the modern service standards 
revealed that customers wanted standards that are reliable, consistent, 
realistic, and attainable, and that any proposed changes reflect 
sensitivity to the impact of increased postal costs on the rates that 
they pay.
    Current service standards for Periodicals, Standard Mail, and 
Package Services are based primarily on mail processing technology, 
transportation availability, and logistical assumptions of the early 
1970s, mapped to destination zones based on rudimentary ``great circle 
mile'' determinations; First-Class Mail standards are based on mail 
transportation availability and logistical planning tools that existed 
in the early 1990s. These standards reflect implementing criteria or 
``business rules'' \7\ that, to a very significant degree, are based 
upon mailing practices and postal operational and costing 
considerations that no longer reflect current realities. For some 
market-dominant products, even in the absence of any comprehensive 
system of service performance measurement, it is undisputed that the 
current standards create customer expectations that have long ceased to 
be consistent with the manner in which mail is being processed and 
transported between many origin-destination 3-digit ZIP Code pairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Business rules are the implementing criteria which determine 
the number of days-to-delivery between each of the approximately 
851,000 origin-destination 3-digit ZIP Code pair combinations in the 
postal network for each market-dominant mail class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop modern service standards, the Postal Service carefully 
studied such factors as present-day mail transportation availability, 
actual highway mileage between facilities, and changes in mail entry 
practices and mailflows that reflect current mail processing facility 
functions, technology, economies and capabilities. A painstaking and 
comprehensive review process reasonably matched operational 
capabilities across the entire postal network with the wants and needs 
of the greatest number of postal customers. As is to be expected, in 
some cases, this resulted in different service standards than 
previously existed. The claim of one commenter that service standards 
have been lowered solely or primarily to save costs is without 
foundation.
    Another commenter suggested that the outer limit of service 
standards for Periodicals within the contiguous 48 states could be 
reduced from 9 to 7 days if other methods of transportation and more 
expedited mail dispatch protocols were implemented. More expeditious 
service standards tend to be more favorably received by mailers than 
standards that are less expeditious. Some of the changes established by 
the Postal Service today will raise customer expectations, by reducing 
the number of days in transit for some mail between specific 3-digit 
ZIP Code pairs. Likewise, some of the changes established today will 
lower customer expectations, by increasing the number of days for 
certain mail in transit between specific 3-digit ZIP Code pairs. The 
Postal Service understands the appeal of preserving existing service 
standards that are intended to reflect the availability of faster 
service. And, the Postal Service was cognizant of the current service 
standards as it contemplated making comprehensive, modernizing changes. 
However, the Postal Service also had to consider the impact that the 
wholesale preservation of ``faster'' standards for particular 3-digit 
ZIP Code pairs--in effect, the ``grand-fathering in'' of service 
standard day ranges and business rules adopted on the basis of criteria 
that are no longer useful--would have on its ability to fulfill the 
mandate that it achieve the objectives of subsection (b)(1) and 
consider the factors of subsection (c) of 39 U.S.C. 3691.
    The Postal Service is confident that its modern business rules and 
resultant service standard day ranges more accurately reflect current 
network capability and reasonably respond to the needs of all postal 
customers, even if it is impossible to satisfy each customer.
    Concerns About Service Consistency/``Tail of the Mail.'' Several 
commenters requested the establishment of service standards for mail 
that reaches its destination after its published service standard 
(otherwise known as ``tail of the mail''). The Postal Service's modern 
business rules and resultant service standards day ranges have been 
designed to reflect realistic operational capability across the entire 
postal network. Under these new standards, the Postal Service expects 
that the number of pieces reaching destinations after the prescribed 
service standard will be reduced. However, there will always be a small 
number of pieces that are not delivered within their service standard. 
Rather than establish additional benchmarks for mail not meeting its 
standard, the Postal Service prefers that its service standards reflect 
one goal for all mail within a market-dominant product designation, and 
that the degree to which mail is late be measured and reported to the 
PRC. This preference is reflected on pages 25, 41, 48, and 55 of the 
USPS Service Performance Measurement proposal referenced in the Notice 
of Request for Comments on Service Performance Measurement Systems for 
Market Dominant Products, PRC Order No. 48, Docket No. PI2008-1 
(December 4, 2007). As indicated in that proposal, the Postal Service 
plans to report data to the PRC regarding the late arrival of mail for 
each market-dominant mail product on a quarterly basis.
    Service Standards for Caller Service. Some commenters requested 
that standards be established for Caller Service. Caller Service 
provides an alternative means of receiving properly addressed mail at a 
postal facility call window or loading dock. See 72 FR 58962. As 
explained previously, the specific details and arrangements of Caller 
Service are individually negotiated between the customer and postal 
facility and can vary greatly among mail recipients at the same 
facility. Id. at 58964. The Postal Service has reviewed this matter in 
response to the comments filed. However, that review affirms the 
conclusion that, given the current flexible nature of the service, the 
desires expressed by customers could be better fulfilled

[[Page 72221]]

through individually negotiated arrangements, rather than a uniform 
service standard.
    Service Standards for Forwarded Mail and Change-of-Address. A 
number of commenters urge the establishment of service standards for 
mail that is forwarded to a new address for delivery. The Postal 
Service does not interpret 39 U.S.C. 3691 as requiring the 
establishment of standards for the completion of the numerous discrete 
operational functions associated with the transmission of mail within a 
particular market-dominant product designation from its origin to its 
destination. Accordingly, the Postal Service does not consider 
utilization of specific mail processing operations in forwarding 
market-dominant mail to constitute a distinct market-dominant product 
for which section 3691 requires consideration of the establishment of a 
service standard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is not to suggest that the Postal Service is averse to 
capturing additional operational data that would help it to better 
monitor its ability to efficiently and expeditiously forward and/or 
return undeliverable-as-addressed mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That being said, the Postal Service's longstanding operational goal 
is for forwarded mail to travel from its intercept point in the 
mailstream to the new address in accordance with the service standard 
applicable from that intercept point's 3-digit ZIP Code area to the 3-
digit ZIP Code area of the new delivery address. The Postal Service has 
long recognized the importance of reducing the volume of undeliverable-
as-addressed mail that it processes. For that reason, the Postal 
Service has expended considerable resources over several decades to 
improve mail recipient access to change-of-address tools. At the same 
time, it also has invested even greater resources in a variety of 
mailer address quality improvement programs, and provided bulk mailers 
with resources and incentives to reduce the volume of undeliverable-as-
addressed mail that needs to be forwarded. Several tools and products 
are available to mailers to correct addresses or barcodes, and to 
update mailing lists that contain addresses of mail recipients who have 
moved. To improve address list quality, the Postal Service is upgrading 
Coding Accuracy Support System certification requirements. Customers 
can then correct non-matching addresses using Address Element 
Correction software. More frequent mailing list updates by bulk mailers 
is a vital component of any program to reduce undeliverable mail and 
the need for forwarding. New postal MoveUpdate policies requiring 
mailers to update customer information within 95 days of mailing will 
be effective for all classes of mail in November 2008.
    Once mail is in the postal system, new processes are available with 
the implementation of the Intelligent Mail[supreg] barcode, such as 
OneCode ACS TM, to provide efficient feedback to mailers 
regarding their undeliverable or forwarded mail, so that addresses can 
be corrected before the next mailing. Current innovative pricing for 
this electronic service encourages mailers to use Address Correction 
Service to improve the quality of their mailing lists, which can result 
in more effective mailings and less forwarded mail. These initiatives 
can improve automation performance, and will drive important changes in 
list management practices to increase address quality and reduce 
forwarded mail.
    On a networkwide basis, the Postal Service has recently deployed 
its Postal Automated Redirection System (PARS) technology, which can 
automatically intercept mailpieces addressed to recipients who have 
filed change-of-address information, and cause those pieces to be 
forwarded mid-stream to the recipient's new address. This should 
expedite the forwarding process, reduce the percentage of mail that 
reaches the original delivery unit before being forwarded, and reduce 
forwarding costs. The PARS infrastructure has also enabled more 
efficient processing of change-of-address forms submitted by customers. 
With nationwide deployment of the Change-of-Address Forms Processing 
System (CFPS), all change-of-address forms are now scanned through the 
CFPS and the images sent to three remote encoding centers for automated 
processing. PARS has automated the labor-intensive Address Change 
Service process. Now images are electronically sent to the National 
Customer Service Center where more than 360,000 address change 
notification cards are printed daily. To achieve more accurate and 
faster processing of address change service requests, customers are 
encouraged to use electronic change-of-address procedures that validate 
address data at the time it is entered.
    Notwithstanding the potential benefits of these programs and 
technologies, the Postal Service and mailers must work together more 
aggressively to improve address hygiene and reduce the volume of 
forwarded mail resulting from an increasingly mobile society. The 
volume of mail that requires forwarding is significant, as are the 
associated costs. And, under the new price cap ratemaking regime, 
reducing these volumes and costs will become an even more important 
matter of mutual interest for the Postal Service and mailers. 
Accordingly, there is more incentive than ever for the Postal Service 
and its customers to work together to drive the volume and costs of 
forwarded mail downward. The Postal Service looks forward to an even 
greater level of cooperation from those who bear the costs of this 
mail. The Postal Service will also continue to devote resources to 
reducing transit times for mail subject to forwarding.
    Requests for Different Standards Within a Class. Some commenters 
proposed the establishment of distinct service standards for different 
types of mail within existing market-dominant classes: For example, 
remittance mail, as distinguished from other First-Class Mail; parcels, 
as distinguished from flats, within Standard Mail; or in-county 
Periodicals, as distinguished from outside-county Periodicals. Still 
other commenters proposed that mailpieces of the same shape, but in 
different classes (Standard Mail vs. Package Services) be assigned the 
same service standards, even if that results in different service 
standards within a mixed-shape class.
    The Postal Service does not interpret 39 U.S.C. 3691 as necessarily 
prohibiting the establishment of different service standards for 
different types of mail within a particular market-dominant class. 
Nevertheless, the modern service standards established below reflect a 
continuation of the Postal Service's preference for a consistent set of 
service standards within a particular class for mail with the same 
origin-destination pattern, without additional intra-class service 
distinctions based on such factors as shape, content, or whether 
additional mail preparation is performed beyond the minimum required to 
qualify for a particular rate category, or to qualify for an exception 
to a local Critical Entry Time deadline. The comments reflect a 
disagreement among mailers who use the same market-dominant mail 
product regarding whether the Postal Service should reconsider that 
approach.
    The Postal Service considers it important to emphasize that there 
are finite limits in the level of service standard differentiation that 
can be effectively managed on the workroom floors of a complex 
logistical network. Proposals seeking to establish some of the 
suggested intra-class service standard distinctions would require the 
exploration of a host of mail processing operational issues and could 
potentially raise threshold classification and rate issues that are 
beyond the scope of the exercise mandated by 39 U.S.C. 3691(a). 
Accordingly, such proposals are not responded to or acted upon here.

[[Page 72222]]

    No matter how broad or narrow some inter-class service features or 
mailflow differences may be, mailers are expected to consider all 
inter-class differences, including service standards, in choosing 
whether to pay for a more or less expensive service. Mail 
classification and rate differences persist, however subtle any 
differences between the processing of Standard Mail flats and Bound 
Printed Matter flats, or the processing of Standard Mail parcels and 
Package Services parcels may be. Accordingly, the Postal Service is 
continuing the long-standing practice of applying the same standard to 
all mail within a particular market-dominant class, regardless of 
mailpiece shape, content, or preparation, and is establishing modern 
service standards that continue that practice.
    Service Standard for DBMC Containerized Rate Periodicals. One 
commenter observed that the proposed Periodicals service standards did 
not explicitly address the standards applicable to mail which qualifies 
for Destination Bulk Mail Center (DBMC) containerized rates. That 
oversight has been corrected in the final regulations.
    Availability of Delivery Scan Information. For a variety of market-
dominant special services, the Postal Service proposes that delivery 
scan data be available to customers online within 24 hours of the 
delivery scan. See 72 FR 58963. A few commenters requested that the 
standard for delivery scan data availability be reduced to less than 24 
hours. A 24-hour service standard was proposed because of variations in 
time zones and their impact on scanning, and data uploading and 
availability.
    Standard Mail Service Standard Day Ranges and ``In-Home'' Delivery 
Days.
    Some comments reflect concern that the proposed service standards 
for Standard Mail are too broad. For example, one commenter observes 
that, under the proposed modern standards, mail that receives a 
destination entry discount and is dropped at a destination BMC could 
have a service standard of up to 5 days. For the sake of clarity, the 
Postal Service emphasizes that the proposed standard for such mail is 
not ``up to'' 5 days, but exactly five days, taking into account the 
deferrable nature of such mail.
    Standard Mail users wishing to more specifically influence the 
exact date on which such mail is delivered routinely request that the 
Postal Service honor specific ``in-home'' delivery days or ``in-home'' 
delivery day ranges, regardless of the applicable standard. Local 
postal mail processing and delivery managers do attempt to honor 
requested ``in-home'' dates, but only as local mail processing and 
delivery plans permit. Several commenters requested that, as an 
alternative to its long-standing ``day-specific'' targets (such as, ``4 
days'' or ``5 days'') the Postal Service adopt Standard Mail ``day 
range'' service standard targets (such as, ``3-to-5 days'' or ``4-to-6 
days'').
    Such proposals are not being adopted here. They raise a variety of 
complicated postal mail processing and delivery issues, not to mention 
considerations of service performance measurement and accountability. 
Whether or not any differences among mailers or between mailers and the 
Postal Service on these issues are reconcilable requires further 
dialogue. In advance of the publication of its October 17, 2007, 
Federal Register notice, the Postal Service indicated that it was 
willing to engage with a mailing industry working group for that 
purpose. That willingness has not abated. Through appropriate media, 
the Postal Service will organize such an undertaking.
    Seasonal Adjustments for Destination-Entered Standard Mail Pieces. 
A few commenters requested seasonal adjustments in the service 
standards for destination-entered Standard Mail pieces. The Postal 
Service acknowledges that there are significant challenges inherent in 
trying to maintain high service levels when mail volumes surge, 
typically from the months of September to December. Nevertheless, the 
Postal Service continues to be persuaded that it is better to manage 
its operations on the basis of a consistent, year-round set of service 
standards, rather than to temporarily vary those service standards at 
different times of the year. A consistent standard helps to reinforce 
the applicable goal among all postal managers and employees engaged in 
processing, transportation and delivery. The transitioning of 
operational performance from one set of standards to another could 
result in less consistent service than desired. Accordingly, the Postal 
Service intends to preserve the long-standing practice, reflected in 
its proposed regulations, of maintaining year-round service standards. 
As indicated at 72 FR 58966, the Postal Service considers that seasonal 
adjustments of performance goals would seem to be more appropriate for 
consideration, in the context of establishing such goals under PAEA 
section 302, and will meet with customers to further discuss this 
issue.
    Service Standards by Specific 3-Digit ZIP Code. Some commenters 
requested that service standards applicable to parcels, whether they be 
Package Services or Standard Mail pieces, differ by specific 3-digit 
ZIP Code. Such proposals are not being adopted here, as this type of 
customization runs contrary to the application of standardized business 
rules to calculate consistent service standards.
    Service Standards to Non-Contiguous States and Territories. Several 
commenters expressed concern about the proposed service standards for 
mail to and from states and territories beyond the contiguous 48 
states.
    One commenter appears to express the concern that the proposed 
service standards for mail moving to and from non-contiguous states and 
territories reflects a lesser effort on the part of the Postal Service 
to procure transportation to move that mail than for mail in the 48 
contiguous states. To the contrary, mail to and from the non-contiguous 
states and territories reflect the stark differences between the 
availability of economical resources for the movement of mail to and 
from the non-contiguous states and territories than for mail moving 
among the contiguous 48 states.
    Rational operating plans that take into account the numerous 
logistical variables beyond the Postal Service's control will result in 
unavoidable differences between levels of service. In the contiguous 
states, the next truck is often available in a matter of hours. To and 
from the non-contiguous states and territories, the next appropriate 
cargo ship may not be available for several days or even a week. The 
establishment of longer service standard day ranges for mail to and 
from the non-contiguous states and territories reflects an attempt to 
better match the service standards to the operational realities of 
surface and air transportation.
    The same commenter expressed recognition of the challenges faced by 
the Postal Service, sometimes the carrier of only resort, in providing 
economical service beyond the contiguous 48 states. The Postal Service 
appreciates that recognition and is committed to using its annual 
internal service standards review process, as circumstances warrant, to 
explore opportunities to economically improve its use of available 
transportation to minimize service standard day ranges for mail to, 
from and within the non-contiguous states and territories.
    The commenter also expressed concern that the service standards for 
mail between the contiguous 48 states and the separate destinations of 
the state of Hawaii and the territory of Guam appear to be aggregated 
in a manner that has the result of substantially increasing the time in 
transit between Hawaii and the contiguous states. To the contrary, the 
standards for mail between the

[[Page 72223]]

contiguous 48 states and Guam (through Hawaii) are longer than the 
standards between Hawaii and the contiguous 48 states. In this area, 
the Postal Service opted for arguably over-aggressive standards between 
the contiguous 48 states and Guam to ensure a higher level of urgency 
in the handling of such mail than might be the case if a longer 
standard were established.
    The commenter also astutely observes several inadvertent omissions 
of references to the territory of Guam in the table at 72 FR 58591. A 
corrected table is being incorporated into the final service standard 
regulations.
    Critical Entry Times (CETs). A Critical Entry Time is the latest 
time a particular type of mail can be accepted by the Postal Service in 
order for it to undergo the processing and/or dispatch in downstream 
operations necessary for delivery within the service standard for that 
mail. This is more of a measurement issue than a standards issue, for 
the CET affects the start time for performance, not the length of the 
standard itself.
    Several commenters requested information on how local changes in 
CETs would be communicated to the mailer; how mailers can access CET 
data; how CETs are established; and how the Postal Service takes 
customer needs into account in said establishment. Commenters also 
expressed their opinions on how CETs should be set. The Postal Service 
is currently meeting with customers to discuss these and other issues, 
and is committed to developing a communications process.
    P.O. Box\TM\ Uptimes. As indicated in proposed 39 CFR 122.2, the 
proposed service standard for P.O. Box service is that mail be 
available for pickup no later than the daily ``uptime'' publicly posted 
at corresponding Post Office locations. See 72 FR 58970. One commenter 
requests that the proposed service standard regulation be amended to 
explain how ``uptimes'' are determined. As explained in the original 
Federal Register notice, ``uptimes'' are determined on the basis of 
local mail processing plans and standard operating procedures. See 72 
FR 58963. It is not reasonable to expect the service standard 
regulations to contain details of mail acceptance, processing and 
delivery operations, or the criteria that determine their application.
    Standards for the Improvement of Retail Access. A few commenters 
propose the establishment of service standards for certain aspects of 
postal transactions related to the entry of mail into the postal 
system, such as the acquisition of postage, calculation of correct 
postage for a given piece, the location and number of collection boxes 
and the last collection time of these boxes, and for time spent by 
customers waiting in line or otherwise waiting for window service at 
Post Office locations.
    The Postal Service strives to enhance retail access by providing 
prompt, efficient and economical service in a variety of ways. For 
example, to maximize the availability of postal window personnel for 
more complicated transactions or for the acceptance of accountable mail 
pieces, the Postal Service offers its customers alternative outlets for 
postage purchase transactions (by mail, phone or online at 
www.usps.com, via Automated Postal Centers in Post Office lobbies, and 
through non-postal commercial retail outlets). A wealth of retail 
customer service information also is available through www.usps.com and 
the Postal Service will continue to educate customers to take advantage 
of that resource.
    Purchasing postage stamps, philatelic items, or money orders, or 
requesting information from a knowledgeable window clerk, submitting a 
passport application, or waiting in line at a Post Office\TM\ 
location--in and of themselves--do not constitute market-dominant 
products for which the Postal Service is required to consider 
establishment of a service standard under 39 U.S.C. 3691. Accordingly, 
no nationwide standards are being established as a part of this 
rulemaking.
    The Postal Service will continue to invest resources in the 
management, optimal deployment, and training of its personnel, as well 
as the accessibility of information online, so as to minimize the 
length of time that customers spend in line at Post Office locations 
and to enhance general retail access. The Postal Service will continue 
to analyze customer comments and market research performed for the 
purpose of assessing and improving its customers' postal transaction 
experiences.
    In the same vein, in response to another commenter, the Postal 
Service also recognizes that local compliance with policies regarding 
the last pickup times for collection boxes maximizes the ability of 
household and small business customers to enter mail in a manner that 
gives it the best chance of being delivered within the applicable 
origin-destination service standard. The Postal Service takes customers 
concerns about such compliance seriously and will continue to monitor 
compliance with applicable operational policies.
    The Postal Service observes that section PAEA 302(d)(2) requires it 
to consult with the PRC and submit to Congress within six months from 
today a plan regarding the expansion and marketing of retail access to 
postal services. The Postal Service looks forward to those 
consultations and the development of that plan. However, such matters 
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    Other Comments. While many of the comments addressed the substance 
of the proposed service standard regulations, others discussed matters 
that the Postal Service deems to be outside the scope of the proposed 
regulations, even if related to other aspects of sections 301 and 302 
of the PAEA generally. Such matters included the communication of the 
new standards (such as requests to publish the service standards on the 
Postal Service's public Web site, www.usps.com); service performance 
measurement, service performance goals, and reporting; and specific 
product requests and inquiries (such as a request that Delivery 
Confirmation\TM\ service be included on every parcel for no additional 
charge, a request for a change in handling hard-copy Return Receipts, 
the purpose of taggant ink on Certified Mail\TM\, and the proposed 
development of a CONFIRM[supreg] service system that alerts customers 
to system issues). Although these issues are not within the scope of 
the establishment of service standard regulations, all of these matters 
are important to the Postal Service. The Postal Service's decision not 
to acknowledge and or respond to a specific comment, or incorporate any 
particular suggestion into its service standard regulations, or to 
respond specifically to each such comment here should only be 
interpreted as a judgment that such matters are beyond the scope of its 
October 17, 2007 Federal Register solicitation and the task of 
establishing modern service standard regulations. This is not to imply 
that the above-referenced suggestions or inquiries lack merit, or that 
they are not currently being acted upon or will be acted upon.
    As indicated earlier, the full extent of any realignment of the 
postal mail processing and transportation network to achieve these 
standards cannot be known until the Postal Service, after consultation 
with the PRC, submits to Congress no later than 6 months from today its 
performance goals and the facilities plan required by PAEA section 302. 
Thus, there will be a lag between the establishment of these service 
standards and implementation of related operational changes that may be 
necessary to support them. In the meantime, the Postal Service is 
exploring numerous options regarding

[[Page 72224]]

the hardcopy and electronic publication and dissemination of 
information regarding the service standards established today.
    In conjunction with its October 17, 2007, Federal Register notice, 
the Postal Service made available online an electronic file detailing 
the modern service standards originally proposed for each origin-
destination 3-digit ZIP Code pair for First-Class Mail, Periodicals, 
Standard Mail and Package Services. As a first step in the 
dissemination of information about the modern service standards 
established today, the Postal Service has created an updated version of 
that electronic file based on the service standard day ranges and 
business rules changes adopted today. The file is now accessible online 
at https://ribbs.usps.gov/modernservicestandards.

V. The Proposed Modern Service Standards Reflect Consideration of 
Relevant Statutory Objectives and Factors

A. The Statutory Objectives

    In establishing modern market-dominant product service standards, 
the Postal Service is directed by 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(1) to:

-- Enhance the value of postal services to both senders and recipients;
-- Preserve regular and effective access to postal services in all 
communities including those in rural areas or where Post Offices are 
not self-sustaining; and
-- Reasonably assure Postal Service customers delivery reliability, 
speed and frequency consistent with reasonable rates and best business 
practices.

120 Stat. 3218. Careful consideration was given to these objectives in 
the establishment of the service standard proposals listed below, as 
demonstrated in 72 FR 58964-58965.
    39 U.S.C. 3691(b) requires that market-dominant product service 
standard performance be measured by some objective external system, or 
by internal methods approved by the PRC under 39 U.S.C. 3691(b)(2). As 
indicated above, the Postal Service has submitted a plan for service 
performance measurement to the PRC for review. On December 4, 2007, the 
PRC initiated an administrative public inquiry docket for the purpose 
of soliciting comment on the details of that plan and declared its 
intent to publish a corresponding Federal Register notice.

B. The Statutory Factors

    As demonstrated at 72 FR 58965-67, the market-dominant product 
modern service standards proposed on October 17, 2007, ref