Amendments to Rules of Practice
| Published date | 18 February 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 8789 |
| Record Number | 2020-03156 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Postal Regulatory Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8789-8791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03156]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Chapter III
[Docket No. RM2020-4; Order No. 5422]
Amendments to Rules of Practice
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission seeks input from the public about what
regulations promulgated by the Commission may be necessary to carry out
certain statutory responsibilities related to the letter monopoly,
specifically those instances where the letter monopoly does not apply
to a mailpiece.
DATES: Comments are due: April 7, 2020.
ADDRESSES: For additional information, Order No. 5422 can be accessed
electronically through the Commission's website at https://www.prc.gov.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online
system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments
electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202-789-6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Issues for Consideration
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
The Commission issues this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to
seek input from the public about what regulations promulgated by the
Commission may be necessary to carry out the requirements of 39 U.S.C.
601, ``Letters carried out of the mail,'' which, as explained in
greater detail below, describes when the letter monopoly does not apply
to a mailpiece.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The scope of this proceeding and inquiry does not extend to
the mailbox monopoly (or mailbox rule), which grants the Postal
Service the exclusive ability to deposit mailable matter in a letter
box. See 18 U.S.C. 1725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
The Postal Service has exclusive rights in the carriage and
delivery of letters under certain circumstances. This letter monopoly
is codified in the Private Express Statutes (PES), which are a group of
civil and criminal statutes that make it unlawful for any entity other
than the Postal Service to send or carry letters. See 18 U.S.C. 1693-
1699; 39 U.S.C. 601-606.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although these provisions of the U.S. Code are customarily
referred to collectively as the ``Private Express Statutes,'' they
do not all relate to private expresses or prohibit carriage of
letters out of the mails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 601 provides specific instances (exceptions) where letters
may be carried out of the mail (i.e., not subject to the letter
monopoly). These statutory exceptions include letters charged more than
six times the current rate for the first ounce of a single-piece first
class letter and letters weighing more than 12.5 ounces. See 39 U.S.C.
601(b)(1), (b)(2). A ``grandfather clause'' in Section 601(b)(3) also
references exceptions from prior Postal Service policies and
regulations. The statute also directs the Commission to promulgate any
regulations necessary to carry out this section. See 39 U.S.C. 601(c).
Prior to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of
2006, the Postal Service issued regulations to define and suspend the
PES.\3\ These regulations defined the crucial term ``letter'' as ``a
message directed to a specific person or address and recorded in or on
a tangible object,'' subject to several provisions. 39 CFR 310.1(a).
The regulations also described several statutory exceptions to the
letter monopoly, such as when the letter accompanies and relates to
cargo or when a special messenger is used. See 39 CFR 310.3. In
addition, the regulations describe administrative suspensions of the
PES (39 CFR 310.1(a)(7) n.1, 320), including suspensions for certain
data processing materials or for extremely urgent letters. See 39 CFR
320.2, 320.6. These regulations were originally promulgated by the
Postal Service in 1974 and have been amended several times.\4\ In 2003,
[[Page 8790]]
the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service
recommended that the scope of the letter monopoly should be clarified
and periodically reviewed by a Postal Regulatory Board.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Public Law
109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006); see also 39 CFR 310, 320.
\4\ See Comprehensive Standards for Permissible Private
Carriage, 39 FR 33211 (Sept. 16, 1974).
\5\ Embracing the Future: Making the Tough Choices to Preserve
Universal Mail Service, July 31, 2003, at 71. The President's
Commission recommended ``transforming the narrowly focused Postal
Rate Commission [ ] into an independent Postal Regulatory Board.''
Id. at XIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, Congress passed PAEA to clarify the limited statutory
exemptions to the monopoly.\6\ In addition to adding price and weight
limits as exceptions (601(b)(1), (b)(2)), Congress also added a
``grandfather clause'' in Section 601(b)(3) to authorize the
continuation of private activities that the Postal Service had
permitted by regulations to be carried out of the mail. The House
Report on the PAEA explains that the clause protects mailers and
private carriers who had relied upon the regulations adopted as of the
date of the bill. See id. at 58. Congress also eliminated the Postal
Service's authority to adopt any future regulations creating additional
exceptions or defining the scope of the postal monopoly. See 39 U.S.C.
401(2), 404a(a)(1), 601. Congress instead gave the Commission the
authority to promulgate ``any regulations necessary to carry out this
section [601].'' \7\ To date, the Commission has not promulgated any
regulations pursuant to Section 601(c), and issues this advance notice
of proposed rulemaking to explore potential options for doing so now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See H.R. Rep. No. 109-66 (2005) part 1, at 57. Congress
stated that ``the bill clarifies the scope of the statutory monopoly
that historically has been defined solely by the [Postal Service].''
Id. at 58.
\7\ 39 U.S.C. 601(c). Docket Nos. MC2012-14 and R2012-8, Order
Approving Addition of Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. Negotiated Service
Agreement to the Market Dominant Product List, August 23, 2012, at
6-7 (Order No. 1448) (citing Section 601(c) and stating that the
Postal Service no longer has authority to issue regulations
interpreting or defining the postal monopoly); see also Docket No.
MC2012-13, Order Conditionally Granting Request to Transfer Parcel
Post to the Competitive Product List, July 20, 2012, at 6-7 (Order
No. 1411) (``As a result of the PAEA, the Postal Service no longer
has authority to issue regulations interpreting or defining the
postal monopoly. The Commission now has the authority to promulgate
such regulations.''). Order No. 1411 at 7 n.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Issues for Consideration
In the more than 45 years since the Postal Service initially
promulgated its regulations, the postal industry has fundamentally
changed. The Postal Service recently stated that the ``most significant
competitor for First-Class Mail is digital communication, including
electronic mail, and other digital technologies such as online bill
payment and presentment.'' \8\ The USPS Office of Inspector General
also released a report citing electronic diversion as a key factor that
has affected the First-Class Mail correspondence segment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The U.S. Postal Service Five-Year Strategic Plan FY2020-
FY2024, January 7, 2020, at 14.
\9\ See USPS Office of Inspector General, A New Reality:
Correspondence Mail in the Digital Age, March 5, 2018, at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over time there have been several published reports discussing or
evaluating the letter monopoly. In a 2007 report, the Federal Trade
Commission stated that the monopoly should only be as broad as needed
to satisfy the statutory requirement of universal service.\10\ The
Commission, in response to Section 702 of the PAEA, issued a report on
Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, which traced the
history of the monopoly to its current status.\11\ The Government
Accountability Office reported that narrowing the monopoly could
decrease revenues and threaten the universal service obligation, but
may also lead to greater efficiencies and innovation.\12\ In 2018, the
Task Force on the United States Postal System stated that the statutory
monopoly business model is increasingly ineffective.\13\ In particular,
it explained that ``technological changes have significantly reduced
the effectiveness of the statutory monopoly business model by
undermining the historical barriers to market competition and product
substitution.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Accounting for Laws that Apply Differently to the United
States Postal Service and its Private Competitors: A Report by the
Federal Trade Commission, January 16, 2008, at 93.
\11\ Report on Universal Service and the Postal Monopoly,
December 19, 2008, at 15-84 (USO Report). The USO Report includes,
as an appendix, George Mason University's presentation and analysis
of the history of the postal monopoly. See George Mason University,
School of Public Policy, Postal Monopoly Laws: History and
Development of the Monopoly on the Carriage of Mail and the Monopoly
on Access to Mailboxes, November 2008, at 250 (``[A]ny decision by
the Commission interpreting the term letter in section 601 would be
considered tantamount to defining the scope of the monopoly.''). Id.
\12\ U.S. Governmental Accountability Office, U.S. Postal
Service, Key Considerations for Potential Changes to USPS's
Monopolies, GAO-17-543, June 22, 2017, at 8.
\13\ Task Force on the United States Postal Service, United
States Postal Service: A Sustainable Path Forward, December 2018, at
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has generally discussed or acknowledged the letter
monopoly when reviewing requests to modify the product lists. In such
cases, the Commission must consider whether a product is covered by the
monopoly. See 39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(2). For example, in Docket Nos. MC2012-
14 and R2012-8, where the Commission approved a new product as a Market
Dominant Negotiated Service Agreement, the Commission acknowledged,
without considering the merits of, assertions by the Postal Service
that a specific product is subject to the postal monopoly. Order No.
1448 at 6-7.
Specifically in dockets where the Postal Service seeks to classify
a product as competitive, it often cites various statutory and
regulatory exceptions to the monopoly. For example, in Docket No.
MC2012-13, the Postal Service asserted that the contents of Parcel Post
are outside the scope of the letter monopoly because: (1) Invoices or
receipts accompanying merchandise mailed as Parcel Post are subject to
the cargo exception in 39 CFR 310.3(a), (2) incidental, non-addressed,
non-personalized advertising may be enclosed pursuant to 39 CFR 320.7,
and (3) any letters enclosed would be permitted due to the price
exception pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 601(b)(1). Order No. 1411 at 6-7. In
another case, the Postal Service acknowledged that a sealed parcel
could contain letter material and, therefore, stated it intended to
raise prices consistent with 39 U.S.C. 601(b)(1) to avoid the
application of the PES.\14\ The Commission has acknowledged these past
assertions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Docket No. MC2015-7, Request of the United States
Postal Service to Transfer First-Class Mail Parcels to the
Competitive Product List, November 14, 2014, Attachment B at 2.
\15\ See Docket No. MC2015-7, Order Conditionally Approving
Transfer, July 20, 2017, at 35 (Order No. 4009); Order No. 1411 at
7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Docket No. MC2013-57, several parties addressed whether the
Round-Trip Mailer product, which consists of a round-trip mailing of a
disc, was covered by the postal monopoly.\16\ In particular, the
parties disputed whether the content of the Round-Trip Mailer
constitutes a ``letter'' that is subject to the Private Express
Statutes. Id. Because of a finding on market power, the Commission did
not rule on the merits of the monopoly issue. Id. at 56. However, the
Commission noted that ``[t]he legal and policy issues surrounding the
postal monopoly have far-reaching and important implications that go
beyond the boundaries of this proceeding.'' Id. The Commission further
stated that the ``issue may be appropriate for review in a separate
proceeding.'' Id. The Commission believes it is now time for that
separate proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Docket No. MC2013-57, Order Denying Request, December 23,
2014, at 54-56 (Order No. 2306).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this background, the Commission issues this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking to consider approaches to fulfilling its statutory
[[Page 8791]]
responsibilities under 39 U.S.C. 601(c), including considering whether
changes are needed to the regulations concerning the letter monopoly or
necessary to carry out Section 601.
The Commission is soliciting comments to identify issues that may
be considered when developing regulations to implement 39 U.S.C. 601.
See 39 U.S.C. 601(c). All relevant comments will be considered.
However, the Commission is interested in comments on the following
specific issues:
1. Are the statutory requirements of 39 U.S.C. 601(a) clear and
concise, or are additional regulations necessary to carry out the
intent of the statute?
2. Are the statutory requirements of 39 U.S.C. 601(b) clear and
concise, or are additional regulations necessary to carry out the
intent of the statute?
3. Is the scope of 39 U.S.C. 601(b)(3)--permitting that the
carriage of letters out of the mail provided ``such carriage is within
the scope of services described by regulations of the United States
Postal Service (including, in particular, sections 310.1 and 320.2-
320.8 of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on
July 1, 2005) that purport to permit private carriage by suspension of
the operation of this section (as then in effect)''--sufficiently clear
and concise, or are additional regulations necessary to carry out the
intent of the statute?
4. Do any terms that currently appear in 39 U.S.C. 601 require
further definition?
5. Can consumers and competitors easily determine when a mailpiece
is subject to monopoly protections?
6. What is the current effect of the letter monopoly on consumers,
small businesses, and competitors?
7. Are the weight and/or price requirements found in 39 U.S.C.
601(b) still relevant?
8. Are the weight and/or price requirements found in 39 U.S.C.
601(b) applied uniformly?
9. Have there been any post-PAEA Postal Service regulations that
appear to limit, expand, or otherwise affect the scope of the letter
monopoly contrary to law?
10. Is the term ``letter'' clear and concise, or can any
improvements be made to the definition? If so, please provide any
proposed definitions and explain how the proposed definition may better
implement the intent of Congress and affect the scope of the letter
monopoly.
11. Do the current statutory and regulatory requirements correctly
implement the intent of Congress and advance the public interest, or
should consideration be given to any changes that may be implemented by
regulation?
12. How might changes to the statutory and regulatory requirements
regarding the scope of the letter monopoly affect the financial
condition of the Postal Service, competitors of the Postal Service,
users of the Postal Service, and/or the general public interest?
13. Are there any social, economic, technological, or other trends
that should be taken into account by Congress in considering the scope
of the monopoly?
14. Because the Commission is tasked with developing regulations to
carry out 39 U.S.C. 601, to what extent should the Commission adopt
regulations that replicate, in whole or in part, the Postal Service's
regulations that appear at 39 CFR 310.1 and 320.2 through 320.8?
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. Docket No. RM2020-4 is established for the purpose of
considering amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations, title 39,
chapter III, as discussed in this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
2. Interested persons may submit comments no later than April 7,
2020.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is appointed to
serve as Public Representative in this proceeding.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Erica A. Barker,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03156 Filed 2-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
