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.

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.

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]

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. ( printed 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. See39 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.

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 .

91 FR 50562