Rule2025-20740
Postmarks and Postal Possession
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 24, 2025
Effective
December 24, 2025
Issuing agencies
Postal Service
Abstract
The Postal Service is adding section 608.11, "Postmarks and Postal Possession," to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). This new section defines postmarks, identifies the types of Postal Service markings that qualify as postmarks, and describes the circumstances under which those markings are applied. It also advises customers of how to obtain evidence of the date on which the Postal Service accepts possession of their mailings. This new language in the DMM does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices, but is instead intended to improve public understanding of postmarks and their relationship to the date of mailing.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 224 (Monday, November 24, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 224 (Monday, November 24, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52883-52892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-20740]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Postmarks and Postal Possession
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Postal Service is adding section 608.11, ``Postmarks and
Postal Possession,'' to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM). This new
section defines postmarks, identifies the types of Postal Service
markings that qualify as postmarks, and describes the circumstances
under which those markings are applied. It also advises customers of
how to obtain evidence of the date on which the Postal Service accepts
possession of their mailings. This new language in the DMM does not
change any existing postal operations or postmarking practices, but is
instead intended to improve public understanding of postmarks and their
relationship to the date of mailing.
DATES: Effective December 24, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Johnson, Senior Public
Relations Representative, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe939f8c8a969fd08dd0949196908d9190be8b8d8e8dd0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cda0acbfb9a5ace3bee3a7a2a5a3bea2a38db8bebdbee3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 268-
2000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Comments
III. Response to Comments
IV. Explanation of Final Rules
I. Introduction
On August 12, 2025, the Postal Service published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register, Postmarks and Postal Possession, 90 FR 38716
(Aug. 11, 2025)
[[Page 52884]]
(hereafter ``the Proposed Rule''). The Proposed Rule defined the
postmark and explained the Postal Service's operational use of the
postmark; identified the types of Postal Service markings that qualify
as postmarks (together with certain auxiliary markings and scan data
that are generated during the course of postal operations and that
indicate postal possession of a mailpiece but do not qualify as
postmarks); described how and where in the course of postal operations
such markings are applied; and clarified the scope of information that
such markings do and do not convey. The Proposed Rule further advised
that, while the presence of a postmark on a mailpiece confirms that the
Postal Service was in possession of the mailpiece on the date of the
postmark's inscription, the postmark date does not inherently or
necessarily align with the date on which the Postal Service first
accepted possession of the mailpiece. The Proposed Rule further noted
that this lack of alignment has and will become more common with the
implementation of the Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO)
initiative and the corresponding adoption of ``leg''-based service
standards. (90 FR 10857). The Proposed Rule then advised customers to
request a manual (local) postmark at a retail location if they want to
ensure that their mailpiece receives a postmark containing a date that
aligns with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted
possession of their mailpiece, and reminded customers who wish to
retain proof of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted
possession of their mailpiece(s) of the services (including
Certificates of Mailing) that provide such proof. Finally, the Proposed
Rule submitted a new Section 608.11 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM),
for the public's consideration.
While the Postal Service has chosen to utilize the notice-and-
comment rulemaking process for this Proposed Rule, we note that this is
not a rulemaking in the traditional sense. As stated in the Proposed
Rule, nothing in DMM Section 608.11 effectuates any changes in how, or
the extent to which, the Postal Service applies postmarks to
mailpieces. However, the postmark was not previously defined in any
current Postal Service regulations, and the Postal Service considered
it appropriate to reflect these existing practices in the DMM to ensure
that customers have a clear understanding of the postmark and what it
means.
The Proposed Rule sought public input on DMM Section 608.11,
welcoming the perspectives of customers, government entities, industry
stakeholders, and other interested parties. In particular, the Proposed
Rule solicited recommendations on how to effectively inform customers
of the new DMM provision and explain its meaning and feasible
suggestions to advise and accommodate customers who want proof of the
date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their
mailings.
II. Comments
The Postal Service received 130 comments on the Proposed Rule,
approximately 80 of which consisted of form letters--or, more
precisely, one of three distinct form letters (each one using similar,
if not verbatim, language) submitted multiple times. Issues raised by
these letters include the alleged ``dilution'' of the postmark's
meaning, impacts on rural and sparsely populated regions, and the
importance of postmarks for mail-in ballots and other documents (e.g.,
tax returns) subject to strict deadlines. Approximately 25 additional
comments were submitted by members of the public writing on their own
behalf; these comments range from simple statements of opposition to
detailed critiques of proposed DMM Section 608.11. Numerous
commenters--among them several election officials, one county Board of
Elections, and certain independent institutions--expound at length on
mail-in voting, raising concerns about postmarking deadlines and
potentially discarded Ballot Mail. Finally, some industry mailers and
labor organizations contributed comments echoing the concerns of other
commenters, notably with regard to mail-in voting, postmarking
deadlines more generally, and the need for robust public education and
outreach. These concerns are discussed more fully below.
Some commenters suggested operational or staffing changes, new or
expanded product offerings, educational outreach endeavors, various
means of communicating relevant information to customers, and detailed
revisions to DMM Section 608.11. The Postal Service thanks these
commenters for their recommendations, which are discussed more fully
below. Some comments raised issues (and/or advanced arguments) outside
the scope of the present rulemaking. These issues and arguments, which
will be excluded from the discussion below, include:
<bullet> Criticism of mail-in voting as a general practice. While
the Proposed Rule contains information of potential relevance to
election officials and to citizens who choose to vote by mail, the
Postal Service does not administer elections, establish the rules or
deadlines that govern elections, or determine whether or how election
jurisdictions utilize the mail or incorporate our postmark into their
rules. The Postal Service also does not advocate for or against any
particular voting practices (including mail-in voting). Instead, the
Postal Service collects, processes, transports, and delivers mail and
packages that are mailable under federal law. As part of that role, we
deliver the nation's Election Mail when public policy makers and
election officials choose to use the mail as a part of their election
system and when citizens choose to utilize our services to participate
in an election.
<bullet> Concerns about missed or belatedly applied postmarks. As
explained in the Proposed Rule, DMM Section 608.11 in no way signals a
change in our postmarking procedures; postmarks will continue to be
applied to Single-Piece First Class Mail pieces, both letter-shaped and
flat-shaped, in the same manner and to the same extent as before. Of
course, mistakes occur in the normal course of postal operations; the
Proposed Rule explains as much, noting that occasional circumstances
may arise where a legible postmark is not applied (for instance when
two mailpieces are stuck together as they run through a cancelling
machine, when the machine runs out of ink or smears when applying
postmarks, and so forth). For this reason, we have informed our
customers who choose to vote by mail that they can ``ensure that a
postmark is applied to [their] return ballot by visiting a Postal
Service retail [location] and requesting a postmark from a retail
associate when dropping off the ballot.'' Kit 600, USPS Postmarking
Guidelines (2024), available at <a href="https://about.usps.com/kits/kit600/kit600_039.htm">https://about.usps.com/kits/kit600/kit600_039.htm</a>. That same guidance would also address concerns about
postmark dates, as the date on a manual (local) postmark applied at
retail location aligns with the date that the customer tendered the
return ballot for mailing. The present rulemaking, however, does not
involve any operational changes that would increase the frequency of
missed or misapplied postmarks; it is intended to explain the Postal
Service's operational use of the postmark and to clarify what
information postmarks can be reliably taken to convey.
<bullet> Criticisms of the Delivering for America (DFA) strategic
plan. As noted in the Proposed Rule, RTO increases the likelihood that
a postmark applied at originating processing facilities--the locations
where postmarks are typically
[[Page 52885]]
applied--will contain a date that does not align with the date on which
the Postal Service first accepted possession of the mailpiece. RTO was
the subject of an earlier rulemaking (90 FR 10857) and separate
proceedings before the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC Docket No.
N2024-1). The Proposed Rule here is intended to define the postmark and
inform the public of its meaning and operational uses. While the need
for such clarification is due in part to RTO's changes to
transportation and processing schedules, which will enable the Postal
Service to significantly increase our operational efficiency and reduce
costs, thereby supporting our efforts to continue to provide universal
postal services in a financially self-sufficient manner, as the law
requires, neither RTO nor any other initiative within the DFA plan are
themselves the subject of this Proposed Rule.
<bullet> Postal Service Funding. One comment urges: ``It's
essential that the USPS be funded at a level that maintains the service
on which we rely.'' As an initial matter, the Postal Service, by
statute, is designed to be self-funded and self-sufficient. The Postal
Service generally receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and
relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its
operations. To the extent this comment is recommending legislative
changes, such recommendations are beyond the scope of this rulemaking
and the Postal Service's authority. Moreover, while certain operational
initiatives discussed in the Proposed Rule (e.g., RTO) are designed to
promote financial sustainability, such initiatives do not themselves
fall within the scope of the present rulemaking, which is, as noted,
confined to the postmark. Finally, as explained in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the postmark is not, and never has been, a
service, but has always performed functions (e.g., cancelling postage)
internal to the Postal Service operations.
Other comments betray factual misapprehensions that, while not
addressed in the discussion below, warrant correction. According to one
comment, voters will be required to ``pay extra'' for expedited
handling of Ballot Mail. However, this Proposed Rule does not change
the handing of Ballot Mail or any other mail, but simply clarifies the
meaning of the postmark. Nor is it correct that, as predicted by other
comments, current postmarks will be supplanted by new (and
substantially different) postmarks, replaced in some way by notices
that Postal Service has possession of a mailpiece, or eliminated in
their entirety. As noted, DMM Section 608.11 seeks to define the
postmark as it presently exists, not to change it, and certainly not to
eliminate it. To reiterate, postmarks will continue to be applied to
Single-Piece First-Class Mail, both letter-shaped and flat-shaped, in
the same manner and to the same extent as before.
All remaining comments within scope of this proceeding are
addressed below.
III. Response to Comments
A. Issues and Concerns
Some comments commend the Proposed Rule for the clarity and
transparency it imparts. One observes that proposed DMM Section 608.11
``clearly defines and codifies the role of the postmark.'' Another
``applaud[s] the Postal Service's formalization and coalescence of
existing policies and understandings regarding postmarks into a single
uniform rule,'' noting that ``[t]his will provide greater clarity and
authority regarding the meaning of a postmark. . . .'' The Postal
Service appreciates these comments, as they acknowledge the intent
behind the Proposed Rule: not to diminish or supplant the postmark, but
to clarify its meaning, such that customers better understand what it
is and the purposes for which it may be relied upon.
Most comments adopt a more critical posture, but those comments
generally misapprehend the current meaning of the postmark and the
purpose of this rulemaking. One expresses concern with the perceived
impetus behind the Proposed Rule: namely, to ``move the public and
customers away from viewing the postmark as a definitive date'' on
which a mailpiece was ``received by the [Postal Service].'' As
explained in the Proposed Rule, postmarks applied at originating
processing facilities have never provided a perfectly reliable
indicator of the date on which the Postal Service first accepted
possession of a mailpiece, and this fact will become more common under
RTO. Therefore, to the extent that customers currently have this view
of the postmark, it does not reflect the realities of postal
operations. The purpose of DMM Section 608.11, and our forthcoming
education efforts, is to make the actual meaning of the postmark more
widely known, so that customers who may currently lack a clear
understanding of the postmark can, if necessary, make adjustments to
their mailing behavior--for example, by dispatching their mailings
earlier, obtaining a manual (local) postmark at a retail location at no
additional cost, or purchasing a Certificate of Mailing. However, to
suggest (in the words of one form letter) that ``this proposal quietly
ends any meaningful reliability of a postmark as indicia or proof of
mailing'' is completely inaccurate, given that DMM Section 608.11
plainly states, ``[t]he presence of a postmark confirms that the Postal
Service accepted custody of a mailpiece, and that the mailpiece was in
the possession of the Postal Service on the identified date.''
Some comments urge the Postal Service not to ``implement'' the
``policies'' described by the Proposed Rule, which also stems from a
misunderstanding of DMM Section 608.11's nature and scope. These
comments appear to assume that adoption of this DMM provision will
prompt operational changes in how the postmark is applied, thereby
altering the quality of information that postmarks as such convey. One
comment, for instance, criticizes what it claims to be ``the proposed
changes to eliminate same-day postmarks.'' This comment ignores,
however, that ``same-day postmarks'' (i.e., postmarks bearing dates
that align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted
possession of a mailpiece) will in many instances continue to be
applied through automation and will remain available in all cases upon
request at the retail counter. Meanwhile, multiple others perceive in
the Proposed Rule an attempt to ``devalue'' the traditional postmark,
and/or to ``dilute'' (or even ``destroy'') its alleged status as proof
of the date that the Postal Service first accepted possession of a
mailpiece. Yet to reiterate, the Proposed Rule aims to clarify the
meaning and value of the postmark, not to change its meaning or destroy
its utility. By notifying the public of the realities of postal
operations; by offering a definition of the postmark embodied in
regulation; and by listing out the various available indicia of postal
possession, the present rulemaking seeks to clarify and preserve,
rather than erode, the value of the postmark for customers who may rely
upon it.
The above concerns may also reflect a view of the postmark
fundamentally as a service that the Postal Service provides--one on par
with, for example, reliable mail delivery and P.O. Box rentals. Indeed,
multiple commenters characterize the postmark in just this way,
describing it variously as an ``essential benefit,'' a ``public good,''
or a ``service'' that the Proposed Rule somehow threatens. This
conception of the postmark possibly informs the demand, proclaimed in
one frequently submitted form letter, that the postmark date and the
date of first postal
[[Page 52886]]
possession be made always and without exception to align. Yet as
explained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the postmark is not a
service, and the Postal Service does not hold it out as such to the
public. In any event--despite insinuations to the contrary--the
proposed DMM language does not mean that the Postal Service plans to
postmark mailpieces less consistently, accurately, or reliably than
before. As stated throughout this process, this new language in the DMM
does not change any existing postal operations or postmarking
practices, but is instead intended to improve public understanding of
postmarks and their relationship to the date of mailing.
To be sure, the Postal Service is well aware and readily
acknowledges that third parties have utilized the postmark for various
purposes and have potentially infused it with their own particular
meanings. Indeed, the Proposed Rule identified numerous third-party
uses of the postmark, including court rules that concern the filing of
specific documents, federal statutes such as the Internal Revenue
Service code, state tax statutes and other laws, and numerous election
jurisdictions that utilize the postmark to accept certain completed
ballots as timely where they are sent by mail but are received after
Election Day. Numerous commenters also invoke these third-party uses,
along with government benefits applications; contract and business
transactions; insurance claims and premium payments; and sweepstakes,
contests and promotions. Multiple comments then assert that DMM Section
608.11 will cause an uptick in missed deadlines. This assertion is
misplaced. To reiterate, the present rulemaking entails no change to
postmarking practices but aims instead to educate the public as to the
postmark's meaning. If customers are aware that the postmark date may
not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted
possession of a mailpiece, they will be better equipped to adjust their
plans accordingly. And if policymakers or other entities that create
rules utilizing the postmark date are aware of what the postmark date
signifies, they are better equipped to determine whether their rules
adequately serve their purposes. Through the present rulemaking
process, the addition of DMM Section 608.11, and further educational
outreach endeavors (described more fully below), the Postal Service
seeks to promote such awareness.
Some comments raise concerns that DMM Section 608.11 will
disproportionately burden certain groups (including disabled, elderly,
rural-dwelling, and/or financially distressed users of the mail). As
noted, the Proposed Rule does not itself propose any changes to current
postmarking procedures; and insofar as members of the public rely on
the postmark, they are better served by a rule that clarifies the
postmark's meaning and lists the options available to those who may
require a postmark date aligning with the date of first postal
possession. Such comments may, moreover, confuse the Proposed Rule with
certain operational and service standard changes (including but not
limited to RTO) that were discussed at length in a prior rulemaking (90
FR 10857) and in proceedings before the Postal Regulatory Commission
(PRC Docket No. N2024-1). Whatever the case, mailers who desire a
postmark by a particular date are encouraged to take measures to ensure
that their mail is postmarked by the date they need, when necessary,
and at no additional cost. Those not able to appear in person at a
retail location to obtain a manual (local) stamp may choose to mail
their time-sensitive documents before the relevant deadline, again at
no additional cost.
The general concerns discussed above--regarding the postmark's
alleged ``dilution,'' its purported status as a ``service,'' its uses
by third parties, and the perceived burdens placed on (at least some)
mailers--frequently converge on the topic of Election Mail. Indeed, a
majority of comments invoke Election Mail, and as noted, election
officials account for a significant portion of the comments received.
The various (and at times interrelated) issues raised by these comments
are summarized as follows:
<bullet> In response to this rulemaking, Boards of Elections will
encourage voters to avoid mailing in their completed ballots and to use
drop-boxes instead.
<bullet> This Proposed Rule, if implemented, could somehow strain
the resources and capacities of election officials, who might be tasked
with ``tracking down potentially tens of thousands of ballots'' to
verify the date on which they were initially accepted by the Postal
Service rather than simply referring to the postmark date.
<bullet> This Proposed Rule, if implemented, could suppress voter
turnout and/or lead to ``disenfranchisement'' (as election officials
reject mail-in ballots bearing postmark dates past the deadline).
<bullet> The Proposed Rule is designed to require voters ``to pay
for services like Certificates of Mailing or to request manual
postmarks,'' which constitutes an ``an unfair burden.''
<bullet> This rulemaking will ``erode public confidence in the
election process,'' diminish the public's confidence in mail-in
ballots, or is itself ``a deliberate attempt to undermine trust in
elections.''
As noted above, the present rulemaking clarifies the meaning of the
postmark, including for both election officials and voters who choose
to use the mail to vote. The Postal Service does not administer
elections, establish the rules or deadlines that govern elections, or
determine whether or how elections utilize the mail or incorporate our
postmark. The Postal Service also does not advocate for or against
voting by mail. Instead, the Postal Service collects, processes,
transports, and delivers mail and packages, and remains fully committed
to transporting the nation's Election Mail when public policy makers
choose to use the mail as a part of their election system or when
voters choose to utilize our services to participate in an election.
Boards of Elections and other officials who administer elections are
free to issue guidance to voters as they see fit. To voters who choose
to vote by mail, the Postal Service has long recommended as a common-
sense measure that they mail their completed ballot before Election
Day, and at least one week before it must be received by their local
election office. Otherwise, the Postal Service has also long advised
that voters who wish to ensure that a ballot envelope is postmarked on
the day it is tendered to the Postal Service can request a manual
(local) postmark at a retail unit, which will be applied to the
mailpiece free of charge and which will inherently bear a date that
aligns with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted
possession of the mailpiece.
While voters who use mail-in ballots may also elect to purchase a
Certificate of Mailing, which will provide the individual mailer with a
receipt indicating the date on which the mailpiece was tendered to the
Postal Service for mailing, the Postal Service's guidance to voters who
choose to vote by mail does not include recommending the purchase of a
Certificate of Mailing. In any event, whether to purchase a Certificate
of Mailing is a decision for the individual mailer and does not
constitute a supplemental fee for the act of voting by mail. The Postal
Service has adjusted the language in the Final Rule so DMM 608.11.5 now
says customers who wish to retain a record of proof of the date on
which the Postal Service first accepted possession of their
mailpiece(s) may purchase a Certificate
[[Page 52887]]
of Mailing, rather than saying that they are encouraged to do so. While
this language is not specific to Election Mail, the Postal Service
believes the updated language may avoid further confusion.
Given that the present rulemaking (together with other educational
outreach endeavors, discussed below) educates election officials about
the information conveyed by postmarks and educates voters who choose to
use the mail to vote that they can take certain measures if they need a
postmark date that aligns with the date of mailing, it should
contribute to a more effective use of the mail for their purposes.
Concerns that DMM Section 608.11 may ``disenfranchise'' voters and/or
overtax the capacities of Boards of Elections are therefore misplaced.
B. Recommendations
Many of the above issues and concerns--most especially, though not
exclusively, the effects of postmarking on Election Mail--were
accompanied by recommendations. These recommendations fall roughly into
three categories: outreach and communication, operational and staffing
changes, and product offerings. The Postal Service thanks the public
for its constructive input and addresses each category of
recommendation below.
1. Outreach and Communication
Multiple comments recommended educational outreach endeavors beyond
the context of the present rulemaking. As explained below, a
communications strategy regarding postmarks is indeed under
development. Overall, our advice is simple: customers who wish to
obtain a postmark aligning with the date of mailing should request a
local (manual) at a retail location. The intent of this messaging is to
provide information that customers would find useful, avoiding
potential confusion; and to provide information that is accurate and
does not constrain our operational flexibility. Commenters'
recommendations regarding educational outreach were evaluated with
these considerations in mind.
Some comments recommended that retail locations post notices
indicating whether mail deposited by a particular time will arrive at
the processing facility (and be postmarked at that facility) on the day
of deposit. Such cutoff times, however, cannot always be predicted
across all locations, given varied operating hours at retail locations,
unscheduled trips, and transportation contingencies beyond the Postal
Service's control that may possibly result in delays. This is why, as
the Proposed Rule explained, the postmark date applied at processing
never provided a perfectly reliable indicator of the date on which the
Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, even before
RTO. Furthermore, the service standard changes coincident with RTO's
implementation (90 FR 10857) confer operational flexibility by
divorcing collection schedules from transportation and processing
schedules. As noted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and elsewhere,
with an extra day allotted for transportation to the originating
processing facility, originating processing operations (including
automated machine cancellations) do not need to respond reactively to
volume arrivals, but can instead allocate processing capacity more
predictably and efficiently based on known volume arrival profiles.
USPS-T-4, PRC Docket No. N2024-1 (October 4, 2024), <a href="https://prc.arkcase.com/portal/filings/131269">https://prc.arkcase.com/portal/filings/131269</a>. Displays of the type of cutoff
times recommended here would compel more rigid transportation schedules
and would as a result constrain the very flexibility that RTO was in
part designed to accommodate, thereby blunting the downstream network
efficiencies that such flexibility allows. It is, therefore, neither
practical, nor in all cases possible, to display ``same-day postmark''
cutoff times at retail locations. It is also unnecessary, as customers
at those retail locations who need a postmark with the date of
acceptance can ensure that their mailpieces receive that day's postmark
by bringing their mailpieces to the retail counter and requesting a
manual (local) postmark, free of charge. This option serves the purpose
underlying the above-mentioned recommendation, while preserving the
Postal Service's operational flexibility.
One comment suggests modifying blue collection box labels to
indicate whether mail deposited by a particular time will arrive at the
processing facility (and be postmarked at that facility) on the day of
deposit. Blue collection box labels indicate when mail is retrieved
from the boxes themselves, which is relevant information to the mailer
who may be concerned about how long their mail may sit in the blue
collection box prior to a carrier retrieving it. As RTO does not alter
these retrieval times but instead impacts outgoing transportation
schedules from delivery units, the suggested label modifications would
convey supplementary information concerning downstream transportation,
further compounding the risk of customer confusion. Moreover, for the
reasons discussed above, transportation and processing schedules cannot
always be predicted with enough precision to make such information
consistently dependable, which could make such displays misleading for
customers who seek to obtain postmarks reflecting that day's date.
Nevertheless, blue collection boxes already feature QR codes that link
to our public website, <a href="http://usps.com">usps.com</a>, which includes a tool for mailers to
locate the closest Post Office; and the Postal Service plans to include
on <a href="http://usps.com">usps.com</a> information on postmarks and postmark dates, including a
recommendation that mailers bring their mail to a retail location and
request a manual (local) postmark if they need a postmark with a date
aligning with the date of mailing.
Multiple comments urged the Postal Service to launch a ``massive
education program'' regarding postmarks, including notification to
customers that the date on a postmark applied at a processing facility
may not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepts
possession of a mailpiece (including a vote-by-mail ballot), newly
established points of contact ``to address public concerns,'' and close
collaboration with election officials. In addition to the present
rulemaking, the Postal Service is developing an approach to provide
public and internal education regarding postmarking. We will engage in
a coordinated effort to post customer-facing information on <a href="http://usps.com">usps.com</a>,
including making it easier to find resources we have already developed
to provide information about the service standard changes generally,
and about postmarking specifically. We will also engage in targeted
education to specific mailing communities, including election
officials. For example, we plan to include in the Official Election
Mail communication (known as Kit 600), which we send to Boards of
Election nationwide in advance of each federal general election season,
specific information about DMM Section 608.11 and practical advice on
mail-in voting consistent with prior advice (i.e., that voters mail
their completed ballots before Election Day and at least one week
before it must be received by their election office), along with
contact information for stakeholders who wish to inquire further.
Furthermore, the Postal Service has established points of contact with
election officials in every jurisdiction throughout the country, and we
plan to communicate clear information on postmarking and address any
areas of concern.
As the date of first postal possession and the date on the postmark
applied at processing facilities will diverge most frequently in ZIP
Codes subject to RTO, some comments suggest that RTO-
[[Page 52888]]
impacted facilities be widely publicized. This recommendation, which
the Postal Service has seen in the context of service-standard changes
more broadly as well, is, however, less helpful or straightforward than
it may initially seem. Regarding both postmarking and service
standards, the Postal Service's intent is to provide information to
customers that is most useful and understandable (as opposed to putting
the onus on the customer to determine what it means if a Post Office is
or is not subject to RTO). While some information may be gleaned from
an RTO designation, the Postal Service does not want customers to
attach unwarranted significance to that designation. For example,
whether a Post Office is subject to RTO does not determine the actual
service standard for a given mailpiece; both the origin and the
destination of the mailpiece must be considered. USPS.com features a
service-standard lookup tool that provides this information accurately,
without forcing customers to identify the various elements of our rules
for determining service expectations. Customers apprised of whether a
specific Post Office is subject to RTO may draw conclusions at odds
with the lookup tool's outputs--as RTO is one of several inputs
determining service standards, and the ``leg 2'' acceleration that RTO
underwrites may counterbalance any day added within ``leg 1.''
Regarding the postmark, because the Postal Service has never guaranteed
that the postmark date would align with the date of mailing, our
messaging to customers is the same whether or not their Post Office is
subject to RTO: customers should request a manual (local) postmark at a
retail location if they want to ensure that their mailpiece receives a
postmark containing a date that aligns with the date on which the
Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece. For these
reasons, the Postal Service has chosen to focus on user-friendly tools
and messaging, rather than identifying specific locations that may be
subject to RTO transportation schedules.
2. Operational and Staffing Changes
Multiple comments recommended additional accommodations at retail
locations for customers who desire a manual (local) postmark aligning
with the date of first postal possession--for instance, a dedicated
mail slot where customers can request such a postmark, or alternately,
a special window held open during certain times of year (e.g., tax
season). The Postal Service has taken these recommendations under
advisement, and, if there appears to be a need, we will consider making
appropriate adjustments to retail operations as feasible.
Some comments also recommend that the Postal Service deploy extra
staff in the days and weeks preceding important deadlines, and/or
provide additional training for postal personnel in anticipation of
such deadlines. As yet, however, there is no evidence of surging retail
traffic by customers desiring a postmark ahead of various deadlines
that might necessitate additional staff to ensure that sensitive
documents receive a postmark. Indeed, the overriding concern expressed
in comments, as noted above, is not that mailpieces will not be
postmarked at all--an issue beyond the scope of the present
rulemaking--but rather that postmarks applied by automated machinery
will inscribe a date later than the date of first postal possession: a
concern that additional retail staff would not directly address. The
Postal Service therefore deems the request for additional retail
staffing premature, though it will continue to monitor the need for
such staffing.
One comment demanded that ``for periods close to key election
dates, USPS . . . adjust its Regional Transport Optimization initiative
to hire and employ . . . additional staff and transportation vehicles
to ensure that ballots are timely transported to RPDC/LPC locations to
receive a timely postmark.'' It should be noted that the deployment of
additional transportation, when warranted to ensure timely delivery, is
part of the Postal Service's normal business practices, and the Postal
Service will continue to monitor the need for such deployments at all
times of year. Regarding ``timely postmarks,'' the Postal Service's
messaging is intended to make clear to customers what ``timely'' means
in terms of postal operations so customers can plan accordingly.
Some commenters recommend quarantining RTO-volume and non-RTO
volume into distinct batches, and postmarking those batches separately,
as this would in theory allow the postmark dates on RTO volume to be
rolled back to the date on which the Postal Service took possession of
it. The Postal Service has considered the feasibility of such a
procedure, and has concluded that it would prove operationally
impracticable, cost-prohibitive, and contrary to the aims of RTO. There
is no reliable way to segregate RTO from non-RTO volume within all
originating processing facilities; any attempt to do so would add
significant complexity to an already complex set of operations,
delivering inconsistent results at an inordinate cost. Furthermore, the
volume arrival profiles enabled by RTO--which in turn allow for more
efficient staffing, more productive machine deployments, and earlier
dispatches into the network--depend on the simultaneous processing of
RTO and non-RTO volume within compressed timeframes. Direct Testimony
of Gregory White, USPS-T-4, PRC Docket No. N2024-1 (October 4, 2024),
at 13-19, 25-35, <a href="https://prc.arkcase.com/portal/filings/131269">https://prc.arkcase.com/portal/filings/131269</a>. These
processing efficiencies, which underwrite accelerated service standards
for a majority of market-dominant mail volume, and which are expected
to yield significant cost savings over time, would be unlikely to
survive a scheme designed (again, unreliably) to cancel RTO and non-RTO
volume in separate batches, each with its own distinct postmark date.
Adding such costs and complexity is particularly unsupportable given
the Postal Service's financial condition, and when there are means
available for those customers who want to ensure that the postmark
reflects the day of acceptance to do so.
Some comments recommend postmarking all mail before it leaves the
retail unit for processing. This recommendation would also add
significant costs and is therefore not being accepted. The Postal
Service discontinued this practice decades ago, and the practice had
functionally disappeared well before that. As such, some historical
context regarding automated postmarking may be helpful. The Postal
Service has for many years relied on machines at processing facilities
to postmark mail; indeed, versions of the Advanced Facer Canceller
System now currently deployed date back to the early 1990s, and were
themselves acquired to replace an earlier generation of facer
cancellers. That replacement was completed in 2008. (Postal Service
High-Speed Sorters Get Smarter, Faster). As the Postal Service
explained in a 2008 Postal Bulletin (<a href="https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22238/html/updt_001.html">https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22238/html/updt_001.html</a>): ``Cancellation and
routine postmarking of mail at Post Offices, except for transactions at
the retail window, were made obsolete with the mechanized cancellation
systems installed at larger facilities in the 1970s. After the
installation of the Advanced Facer Canceller Systems (AFCSs) at
processing plants more than 15 years ago, routine cancellation of mail
at local Post Offices was virtually eliminated. The efficiencies of the
AFCSs help keep postage rates as low as possible for all
[[Page 52889]]
customers.'' In light of this shift away from routine postmarking at
retail locations, the Postal Service amended Postal Operations Manual
(POM) Section 312.2 to provide, in language that persists to this day,
that ``[c]ustomers may request a local postmark at the retail counter
at all Post Offices, stations, and branches.'' As the circumstances
underlying this revision have not changed--that is, as the AFCS 200
machines deployed in processing facilities continue to provide a
significantly more efficient means of postmarking mail than would the
practice of applying postmarks at retail facilities as a matter of
course--the Postal Service would not be justified in turning back the
clock.
In a similar vein, other comments propose that all mailpieces
deposited at retail locations by customers receive a manual (local)
handstamp as a matter of course, and not merely upon request. POM
Section 312.2 was adopted in its current form for a reason, however. As
noted, automated processing machines at processing facilities provide a
much more efficient means of postmarking mail than would 19th-century-
style production lines of hand-stampers housed in every Post Office,
station, and branch. We recognize that some customers may want to
ensure that a piece of mail sent on a particular day receives a
postmark bearing that day's date, and we accommodate those customers by
applying a manual (local) postmark upon the customer's request when
they tender their mail at a retail location. To go beyond that
accommodation, by creating a separate postmarking process in which all
mailings deposited at retail facilities receive a manual postmark
regardless of mailer intent or need, would result in significant
additional costs and inefficiencies.
Finally, one form letter urges that postmarks should indicate the
date and time of a mailpiece's receipt by the Postal Service. As an
initial matter, none of our postmarking methods--including manual
postmarks applied at retail or machine postmarks applied at
processing--entail stamping a specific time of day on a mailpiece. Even
as to the date, reengineering the postmark so that it always shows the
date of initial postal possession would vitiate the current processing
system, as the automated cancellation system deployed at processing
facilities affords no visibility into the date (much less the precise
time) when a mailpiece first entered postal possession. As observed in
the Proposed Rule, the date on postmarks applied at processing
facilities represents the date of the first automated processing
operation applied at that facility. The machines that apply the
postmarks, and the staff who operates those machines, have no way of
ascertaining whether that date happens to align with the date on which
the Postal Service initially took possession of any specific mailpiece.
As machines can feasibly inscribe only the date of cancellation,
implementation of a postmark that uniformly inscribes the date of first
postal acceptance would, in practical terms, require the circumvention
of all such machines in favor of a manual stamp applied at the point of
collection--resulting in the operational costs and inefficiencies noted
above. Again, for customers who need a postmark with that day's date,
they can go to a Postal Service-operated retail location and request a
manual (local) postmark when dropping off their mail.
3. Product Offerings
One commenter recommends expanding services within the Informed
Greetings platform, which generates an Intelligent Mail[supreg] Barcode
(IMb), to provide insights into when and where the Postal Service had
possession of a mailpiece. First, it bears noting that the Informed
Greetings platform was not designed for this purpose; its intended use
is, instead, to assist customers in the creation of digital greetings
that then accompany the dispatch of physical mail--and the Postal
Service has no intention of expanding this relatively specialized
product into an all-purpose mail-tracking system. Furthermore, as noted
in the Proposed Rule, IMb scans indicate possession of a mailpiece, but
do not constitute evidence of the date when the Postal Service first
accepted possession of a mailpiece, and neither does their absence
imply that the Postal Service never accepted possession of a mailpiece.
The Postal Service does not consider such scans to serve as proof of
the date of postal acceptance; they therefore are not adequate
substitutes for a manual (local) postmark applied at retail or services
such as Certificates of Mailing.
C. Proposed Revisions to DMM 608.11
One comment urges the Postal Service to include in DMM Section
608.11 ``its longstanding policy and practice that all Ballot Mail
returned by voters should receive a postmark.'' If the present
rulemaking effectuated a change in postmarking practices impacting
Ballot Mail, such an addition would perhaps be appropriate. As noted,
however, the present rulemaking is intended to explain the Postal
Service's operational use of the postmark, identify the markings that
qualify as postmarks, and clarify what information such markings can be
reliably taken to convey. As such, it does not signal any change to
postmarking practices, which will continue to the same extent as
before. This holds true for Ballot Mail, most of which is sent as
Single-Piece First-Class Mail, and which the Postal Service postmarks
in the manner described by the present rulemaking. (It bears mentioning
that the additional efforts to postmark all Ballot Mail fall under the
Postal Service's practices specifically related to Election Mail, and
that these measures exceed the present rulemaking's scope and are as
such not contemplated by DMM 608.11). The Postal Service therefore
declines to adopt this suggested revision.
Some comments recommend the inclusion of language in the DMM
stating that IMb scans may serve as proof of mailing. The Postal
Service declines to adopt this suggestion, as DMM Section 608.11
already contains an entry on IMb scans. As noted there, IMb scans
indicate that a mailpiece was in the Postal Service's possession, but
do not constitute evidence of the date when the Postal Service first
accepted possession of a mailpiece.
One commenter proposed numerous detailed revisions to DMM Section
608.11. The Postal Service thanks this commenter for their thorough
engagement and addresses the commenter's recommendations at length as
follows.
Regarding Section 608.11.1, the commenter observes, correctly, that
when mail that otherwise would be cancelled on an automated processing
machine is unable to be cancelled, it is the Postal Service's practice
to apply a manual postmark to such mail at an originating processing
facility. The commenter then opines that the proposed definition
offered by Section 608.11.1 does not account for this eventuality. Such
manual postmarks, however, are typically applied after a mailpiece is
rejected by an automated processing machine; and the originally
proposed language of Section 608.11.1, which indexes the postmark date
to the performance of automated processing operations, does indeed
contemplate those rare instances when a mailpiece is in this way
rejected (and subsequently hand-stamped).
The commenter also recalls that, as explained by the Proposed Rule,
the Postal Service utilizes a ``rollover'' time on its processing
machines to reflect the fact that originating operations for particular
mailpieces occur overnight, and hence those operations can cross
calendar days. On this basis, the
[[Page 52890]]
commenter recommends that Section 608.11.1 align the postmark date as
applied at processing facilities with ``the date on which the mailpiece
was inducted into processing.'' The Postal Service declines to adopt
this revision, for two reasons. First, the phrase ``was inducted into
processing'' may be taken to mean ``arrived at a processing facility'';
some volume, however, may arrive at a processing facility before
midnight, but after that day's cutoff time for processing--a nuance
that the proposed revision, if interpreted in this manner, would fail
to capture. Second, ``inducted into processing'' may instead be taken
to mean ``entered into processing operations''; and such a construction
would not account for volume that arrives before the cutoff time for
processing operations, and thus receives a postmark aligned with its
date of arrival, but is not ``inducted into processing'' until after
midnight. In light of these complexities, the Postal Service has
determined that the original proposed language supplies the most
comprehensible, succinct, and accurate formulation available to
describe postmark dates as applied at processing facilities.
The commenter also observes that some postmarks display location
indicators (such as ``Metroplex, MI'') that do not strictly correspond
to geographical entities, but instead map onto postal processing
facilities; accordingly, the commenter recommends that in Section
608.11.1, postmarks be characterized as displaying the ``name or
location'' (rather than just the location) of the facility in which
they were applied. This recommendation is well-taken and will be
incorporated into the Final Rule.
Finally, the commenter recommends that Section 608.11.1 be broken
into shorter sentences. In its original proposed form, Section 608.11.1
aimed to encompass the entire definition of ``postmarks'' within one
sentence in order to emphasize that postmarks are officially defined by
Section 608.11.1 in its entirety. The Postal Service acknowledges,
however, that simplified syntax would likely make Section 608.11.1
easier to understand, and it is already clear that the entirety of the
text in Section 608.11.1, whether expressed as a single sentence or as
multiple sentences, constitutes the definition of a ``postmark,'' just
as the Section title implies. We will therefore revise Section 608.11.1
in a manner consistent with the commenter's recommendations in this
regard.
Regarding Section 608.11.2, the commenter urges greater specificity
in the description of manual postmarks that are applied at processing
facilities to non-machinable mail. Namely, in lieu of the phrase,
``when a mailpiece that would ordinarily be postmarked on an automated
cancellation machine is unable to be canceled,'' the commenter suggests
language specifying that mail characteristics may impact machinability.
The original proposed language, however, captures the circumstance
evoked by the commenter--mailpieces may, after all, prove ``unable to
be cancelled'' due to their physical characteristics. The Postal
Service therefore declines to adopt the suggested specification.
The commenter also observes that while some Postage Validation
Imprint (PVI) labels display the city, state, and ZIP Code of the
postal facility at which they are printed, others display only the
facility's ZIP Code. On this basis, the commenter disputes the accuracy
of DMM Section 608.11.2 as originally proposed, insofar as it
represents that PVI labels ``indicate . . . the location of the retail
unit at which the mailpiece was accepted.'' While it is true that some
PVI labels feature only the ZIP code of the relevant facility, this
fact is not, in the Postal Service's view, inconsistent with the
language of Section 608.11.2 as proposed, since ZIP Codes designate
location.
Finally, the commenter recommends that Section 608.11.2 state
explicitly that local (manual) postmarks may be obtained free of
charge. The Postal Service agrees that a reminder of this postal policy
would be helpful and will therefore make conforming changes to Section
608.11.2. The phrase ``first accepts possession'' occurs regularly in
the Proposed Rule, including throughout the proposed DMM Section. The
commenter criticizes this phrase on two grounds: that the qualifier
``first'' is redundant (since in nearly every conceivable instance, the
Postal Service accepts possession of a mailpiece only once); and that
the phrase as a whole is supposedly inaccurate (in that the Postal
Service does not in fact ``accept possession'' of mailpieces, but
rather ``takes possession'' of them, often in an allegedly passive
manner). For these reasons, the commenter suggests replacing the phrase
``first accepts possession,'' with the phrase ``first possesses.'' On
the first count, the phrase ``first accepts possession'' has the merit
of accentuating that there is a point in time when the Postal Service
(through its employees) has taken custody of a mailpiece through some
affirmative action--collecting the mail from a residence or a
collection box, accepting a mailpiece tendered to a retail employee by
a customer, etc. On the second count, the difference between ``first
accepting possession,'' ``first taking possession,'' and ``first
possessing'' is less than fully clear; if, as the commenter hints, the
latter formulation implies a certain measure of passivity in how the
Postal Service takes possession of the mail, its premise is inaccurate.
The Postal Service, acting through its employees, actively takes
possession of mailpieces tendered by mailers. Indeed, the notion of
accepting possession more precisely renders the transactional nexus
between the Postal Service and its customers, since custody of a
mailpiece cannot properly be transferred unless it is both voluntarily
offered and affirmatively received. For these reasons, DMM 608.11 will
retain the phrase, ``first accepts possession.''
IV. Explanation of Final Rules
After evaluating the comments, the Postal Service is adopting the
new DMM Section 608.11. The final text of DMM Section 608.11
incorporates the revisions noted above. The Postal Service will also,
on its own initiative, make two amendments concerning manual (local)
postmarks obtained at retail locations. First, the phrase ``Manual
(local) postmarks are available, upon a customer's request . . . ,'' in
Section 608.11.2, is changed to ``Manual (local) postmarks are applied
to a mailpiece, upon a customer's request. . . .'' Second, Section
608.11.4 includes the following reminder of the 50 mailpiece limit for
manual (local) postmarks: ``Customers planning to present significant
mail volume--50 or more mailpieces--for (local) postmarks should
contact the postmaster or other manager in advance to ensure that
adequate resources are available.''
The Postal Service adopts the described changes to Mailing
Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. We
will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect
these changes.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, the Postal Service amends Mailing Standards of the
United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated
by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations as follows (see 39 CFR
111.1):
PART 111--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 52891]]
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-
1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401-404, 414, 416, 3001-3018, 3201-3220, 3401-
3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631-3633, 3641, 3681-3685, and 5001.
0
2. Revise the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,
Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as follows:
* * * * *
600 Basic Standards for All Mailing Services
* * * * *
608 Postal Information and Resources
* * * * *
[Add the text of part 11 to read as follows:]
11.0 Postmarks and Postal Possession
11.1 Postmark Defined
A postmark is a marking applied by the Postal Service to a
mailpiece. If applied at a retail unit, the postmark displays the name
or location of the retail unit and the date on which the mailpiece was
accepted at the retail unit. If applied at a processing facility, the
postmark displays the name or location of the processing facility and
the date of the first automated processing operation performed on that
mailpiece. Where necessary, a postmark also cancels postage so that it
cannot be reused.
11.2 Locations at Which a Postmark Is Applied
Postmarks are generally applied by the Postal Service via
automation on machines in originating processing facilities but may
also be applied manually by Postal Service personnel at those
facilities, or by a Postal Service employee at a retail unit when a
customer presents a mailpiece at a retail counter and requests a
postmark.
<bullet> Automated Machine-Applied Postmarks. These are applied by
automated cancellation machines located in originating processing
facilities, including in Regional Processing and Distribution Centers
(RPDCs) and select Local Processing Centers (LPCs). Automated machine-
applied postmarks cancel postage and identify the processing facility
that applied the postmark and the date of the first automated
processing operation performed on that mailpiece. Mailpieces prepared
according to certain criteria will bypass automated cancellation to
improve delivery speed.
<bullet> Manual Postmarks on Non-Machinable Mail at Processing
Facilities. Where a mailpiece that would ordinarily be postmarked on an
automated cancellation machine is unable to be canceled, the Postal
Service's common practice is to apply a manual postmark to the
mailpiece at the originating processing facility. Like automated
machine cancellations, these manual postmarks register the facility at
which the mailpiece was received and the date that the first automated
processing operation would have been performed on that mailpiece.
<bullet> Postmarks at Retail Locations: Manual (local) postmarks
are applied to mailpieces, upon a customer's request, free of charge at
the retail counter of every Post Office, station, or branch. Manual
(local) postmarks at retail locations cancel postage (if necessary),
and indicate the location of the retail unit at which the postmark is
applied and the date on which the mailpiece was accepted at that unit.
<bullet> Postage Validation Imprint (PVI) Labels at Retail
Locations. These are printed by Postal Service employees at retail
locations and are applied to a mailpiece by a Postal Service employee
upon acceptance of the piece. These labels indicate the postage paid
for a mailpiece and, like manual (local) postmarks applied at retail
locations, indicate the location of the retail unit at which the
postmark is applied and the date on which the mailpiece was accepted at
that unit.
11.3 Information Conveyed by a Postmark
The presence of a postmark confirms that the Postal Service
accepted custody of a mailpiece, and that the mailpiece was in the
possession of the Postal Service on the identified date. However, for
the reasons that are further described below, the postmark date does
not necessarily indicate the first day that the Postal Service had
possession of the mailpiece. Moreover, the absence of a postmark does
not imply that the Postal Service did not accept custody of a
mailpiece, because the Postal Service does not postmark all mail in the
ordinary course of operations.
The name or location displayed on a postmark shows the processing
facility or retail unit at which the postmark was applied. The date
displayed on a postmark shows the date of the first automated
processing operation performed on a mailpiece or, alternately, the date
when a mailpiece was accepted at a retail unit. Because most postmarks
are applied at processing facilities, they do not necessarily represent
either the place at which, or the date on which, the Postal Service
first accepted possession of the mailpiece. The date inscribed by a
postmark applied at a processing facility may be later than the date
that the mailpiece was first accepted by the Postal Service. See 11.5.
for options available to customers who seek proof of the date on which
the Postal Service first accepted custody of a mailpiece.
11.4 Postmarks Aligning With the Date of Acceptance
Customers who want a postmark aligning with the date on which the
Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece may
request, for no additional fee, a manual (local) postmark at any Post
Office, station, or branch when tendering their mailpiece. Customers
planning to present significant mail volume--50 or more mailpieces--for
(local) postmarks should contact the postmaster or other manager in
advance to ensure that adequate resources are available.
Because a manual (local) postmark is applied upon acceptance at the
retail counter, the date on that postmark aligns with the date on which
the Postal Service first accepted possession of the mailpiece.
Similarly, the date on PVI labels, which are applied by Postal Service
employees at the retail counter at any Post Office, station, or branch
to a mailpiece for which a customer is simultaneously paying for
postage and tendering the mailpiece for mailing, also aligns with the
date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a
mailpiece.
Please note that pre-printed labels applied by the customer prior
to mailing--e.g., postage printed from Self-Service Kiosks (SSK),
Click-N-Ship online postage, and meter strips--show merely that a
customer has purchased postage and the date on which the postage was
printed; they do not in themselves demonstrate that the Postal Service
accepted the mailpiece, or the date on which any such acceptance
occurred.
11.5 Services Proving the Date of Postal Acceptance
Customers who wish to retain a record or proof of the date on which
the Postal Service first accepted possession of their mailpiece(s) may
purchase a Certificate of Mailing. As described more fully in Section
500.5, a Certificate of Mailing is a service designed to provide
evidence that individual mailpieces have been presented for mailing. As
described more fully in Sections 500.2 and 500.3 respectively,
Registered Mail and Certified Mail services also provide mailing
receipts for individual mailpieces.
11.6 Auxiliary Markings and Data
During the course of postal operations, the Postal Service may
inscribe markings on mailpieces and/or
[[Page 52892]]
generate scan data. Such auxiliary markings and data indicate
possession of a mailpiece; however, they do not constitute evidence of
the date when the Postal Service first accepted possession of a
mailpiece. Furthermore, the absence of these auxiliary markings or data
does not imply that the Postal Service did not accept possession of a
mailpiece.
A non-exhaustive list of such auxiliary markings and data include:
<bullet> Identification Tags. Mailpieces processed on automated
machines (i.e., mailpieces that are not deposited through bulk or
commercial methods) are typically imprinted with a fluorescent
identification tag. This tag encodes a variety of information,
including the date on which the tag itself was applied.
<bullet> Scans of an Intelligent Mail[supreg] Barcode (IMb). As
more fully described in Section 204.1, IMbs are applied by customers to
mailpieces--primarily to letters, flats, and cards (as well as to
certain competitive product mailings, such as USPS Priority
Mail[supreg])--and encode a variety of data, including the identity of
the mailer, the services requested, a serial number, and a routing
code. The IMb itself does not verify Postal Service possession, as it
is applied by a customer before a mailpiece is tendered to the Postal
Service. Rather, IMbs are typically scanned at various points in a
mailpiece's trajectory, and each scan event reflects the time and place
of the scan. Where the mailer includes unique serial numbers on each
mailpiece containing an IMb, IMb scan data can be used to track the
processing of specific mailpieces. Commercial mailers can access IMb
scan data via the Informed Visibility interface. Please note that for
information generated by IMb scans to be accurate, IMbs must be
properly prepared as specified in Section 204.1. Duplicate and/or
illegible barcodes will compromise the availability and reliability of
scan event data.
* * * * *
Kevin Rayburn,
Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2025-20740 Filed 11-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 24, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.