Notice2026-15872
Public Inquiry
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
August 5, 2026
Issuing agencies
Postal Regulatory Commission
Abstract
The Commission is acknowledging the granting of a Postal Service motion and the extension of both comment deadlines in this proceeding.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 149 (Wednesday, August 5, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 5, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50562-50563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-15872]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. PI2020-1; Order No. 9670]
Public Inquiry
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is acknowledging the granting of a Postal
Service motion and the extension of both comment deadlines in this
proceeding.
DATES: Comments are due: September 30, 2026. Reply comments are due:
October 14, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit responses electronically via the Commission's Filing
Online system at <a href="https://www.prc.gov">https://www.prc.gov</a>. Those who cannot submit responses
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. Discussion of Motion
II. Rule 124(c) Violation
III. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Discussion of Motion
On June 26, 2026, in Order No. 9625, the Commission set the scope
of further proceedings in the instant public inquiry docket and
provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments
within the scope of these further proceedings.\1\ In doing so, the
Commission established deadlines for the submission of comments and
reply comments. See Order No. 9625 at 13. On July 30, 2026, the Postal
Service filed a motion requesting that each of these deadlines be
extended by 30 days.\2\ According to the Postal Service, ``[t]he
additional time is being requested due to the magnitude of data
requiring review . . . and to afford the Postal Service the opportunity
to adequately evaluate that information and present its comments in a
manner most helpful to all parties involved.'' Postal Service Motion
for Extension at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Order on the Scope of Further Proceedings, Notice of Filing
of Library References PRC-LR-PI2020-1-NP3 and PRC-LR-PI2020-1-1, and
Request for Comments, June 26, 2026 (Order No. 9625). The issues for
consideration in the further proceedings in the instant docket are:
(1) the use of Rural Route Evaluated Compensation System (RRECS)
data in the methodology for estimating the value of the postal
monopoly and mailbox monopoly (Estimation Methodology); and (2) the
Estimation Methodology workpapers issued together with Order No.
9625 in non-public Library Reference PRC-LR-PI2020-1-NP3 and in
public Library Reference PRC-LR-PI2020-1-1. Order No. 9625 at 8. The
``postal monopoly'' refers to the Postal Service's combined letter
and mailbox monopolies. See id. at 1.
\2\ Motion for Extension of Time to File Comments Responsive to
Order No. 9625, July 30, 2026 (Postal Service Motion for Extension).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rural Carrier Protection & Accountability Alliance (RCPAA)
filed an objection to the extension and requests that the extension be
denied or, if extraordinary circumstances are found to exist, that any
extension be limited to 7 days.\3\ RCPAA asserts that the Postal
Service had not affirmatively shown good cause and instead made a
generalized assertion regarding the magnitude of data to review. RCPAA
Objection to Extension at 1. RCPAA asserts that reviewing Postal
Service data and non-public materials does not warrant an additional 30
days. Id. at 2. RCPAA asserts that granting the requested extension
would compress the reply opportunity for other participants and
negatively affect their ability to meaningfully review and respond to
the Postal Service's filing. Id. at 3. RCPAA asserts that stakeholders
have relied on the established schedule and some have submitted early
comments. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rural Carrier Protection & Accountability Alliance Objection
to USPS Motion for Extension of Time, July 31, 2026, at 4 (RCPAA
Objection to Extension).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 162 permits any person to seek an extension by motion filed
before the applicable deadline expires. 39 CFR 3010.162(a)-(b). ``The
motion shall only be granted upon consideration of the potential
adverse impact, if any, on other participants and the overall impact on
the procedural schedule.'' 39 CFR 3010.162(c).
The Postal Service's motion is timely. Therefore, the Commission
evaluates potential adverse impacts on other participants and on the
procedural schedule, including participants' ability to provide
meaningful comment.
RCPAA's primary objection focuses on the sufficiency of the Postal
Service's justification. The Commission's library references
accompanying Order No. 9625 contain the Commission's analysis of the FY
2024 Value of the Postal and Mailbox Monopolies as well as files used
in the application of the Estimation Methodology. These library
references are voluminous and complex. As Order No. 9625 explains, the
goal of this proceeding is to determine whether and how to enhance the
Estimation Methodology; broader RRECS concerns are relevant only
insofar as they directly bear on that goal. See Order No. 9625 at 9.
The Postal Service represents that, given the magnitude of the data
requiring review, an extension is necessary to allow adequate
evaluation and to provide helpful comments. See Motion for Extension at
1. That justification aligns with the proceeding's stated goal and Rule
162(c).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ RCPAA writes ``[u]nder 39 [CFR] 3010.162, an extension
requires an affirmative showing of good cause.'' RCPAA Objection to
Extension at 1. This language does not appear in the text of 39 CFR
3010.162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the volume of materials and the technical focus, a modest,
time-limited extension will improve the quality and completeness of the
record and aid Commission decision-making without materially disrupting
the schedule. Reviewing the Commission's library references requires
not only re-reading Postal Service information but correctly applying
it to the topics within the established scope to prepare written
comments. This is the first request to extend the deadlines established
by Order No. 9625, and a 30-day extension for both initial and reply
comments is reasonable. Granting the requested extension affords all
participants additional time to prepare both initial and reply
comments.
[[Page 50563]]
RCPAA's reliance arguments are unpersuasive. Rule 162 contemplates
that schedules may be adjusted before deadlines expire. 39 CFR
3010.162(b). Participants who have already filed will not be
disadvantaged. Additional time for reply comments maintains equity
among participants by preserving time for responsive analysis on the
issues defined in Order No. 9625. See Order No. 9625 at 8-13. Any
reliance interests are minimal and are outweighed by the benefits to
the record's completeness and usefulness. Although some participants
filed significantly before the established deadline, doing so is not
required. ``Filers are encouraged to consolidate their arguments into
concise, well-supported documents that directly address the issues
within the scope of the further proceedings in this docket.'' Order No.
9625 at 14.
RCPAA also asserts that a 30-day extension would compress reply
opportunities and impair meaningful response. The Postal Service,
however, seeks to extend both deadlines by 30 days. Extending both
deadlines proportionally preserves the reply interval. The reply period
remains 14 days under both Order No. 9625's established schedule and
the Postal Service's proposed schedule. Accordingly, the asserted
prejudice does not arise under the requested relief.
Because extending the comment deadlines as requested is unlikely to
have any adverse impact on other participants and on the procedural
schedule of this docket, the Postal Service Motion for Extension is
granted. See 39 CFR 3010.162(c).
II. Rule 124(c) Violation
Rule 124(c) of the rules of practice provides that the title of a
document filed with the Commission ``shall identify each participant on
whose behalf the filing is made . . . .'' 39 CFR 3010.124(c). In Order
No. 9625, the Commission found that the Postal Service had violated
Rule 124(c) in the instant docket because the title of Postal Service's
May 26, 2026 Notice of Errata did not identify the Postal Service.\5\
The Commission reminded all participants that they must comply with
Rule 124(c). Order No. 9625 at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Order No. 9625 at 15; see Notice of Errata, May 26, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The title of the Postal Service Motion for Extension, Motion for
Extension of Time to File Comments Responsive to Order No. 9625, also
does not identify the Postal Service. Consequently, the Commission
finds that the Postal Service violated Rule 124(c) by improperly
titling the Postal Service Motion for Extension. The Commission
reiterates that the Postal Service, and all participants, must comply
with Rule 124(c).
III. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Motion for Extension of Time to File Comments Responsive to
Order No. 9625, filed July 30, 2026, is granted.
2. Comments within the scope of the further proceedings established
in Order No. 9625 are due September 30, 2026.
3. Reply comments within the scope of the further proceedings
established in Order No. 9625 are due October 14, 2026.
4. This order, or an abstract thereof, shall be published in the
Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Ashley Demchak,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2026-15872 Filed 8-4-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 5, 2026.
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.