The Postal Service has provided a list of sixteen Local Processing Centers (LPCs) that will continue processing outgoing local mail rather than having all of their outgoing operations consolidated to a Regional Processing & Distribution Center (RPDC), as originally planned.

The list was shared with the Postal Regulatory Commission on Thursday of last week as part of the PRC’s advisory opinion review of revamping the network into RPDCs and LPCs and ending afternoon collections under Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO).

News reports have previously identified eleven of these LPCs, but five more were first announced in Thursday’s filing: Sioux Falls, SD; Chattanooga, TN; Greenville, SC; Gulfport, MS; and McAllen, TX.

Below is a list of the sixteen LPC retaining local mail processing. (Charleston, WV, appears twice because  two facilities are taking on its operations.) The tab “Mail Processing Facility Reviews” shows a list of all sixty facilities that have undergone an MPRF, along with links to the final determinations, financial data, employee impacts, etc.  Both lists are based on information in the MPFR reports, which can be found here. Note that in some cases the “gaining facility” is not always an RPDC, as shown in the latest list of RPDCs and LPCs, which can be found here.

• LPCs Retaining Local Mail
• Mail Processing Facility Reviews

This map shows the 3-Digit Zip Code areas where local processing will be retained.

 

In the MPFR final determination for each consolidation, the Postal Service states, “There will be no changes to Service Standards due to this MPFR.” For local mail, the current standard is two days, so one might expect that retaining local mail processing at the LPC would ensure that the standard would remain two days for the ZIP Code areas served by the LPC (i.e., the colored areas on the map). But that won’t be the case.

Under the Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) initiative, post offices more than 50 miles from their RPDC won’t get an afternoon collection, which will add a day to service standards and, in most cases, turn two-day local mail into three-day mail. The post offices served by LPCs retaining local mail are all more than 50 miles from the RPDC, so the service standard for their local mail, unless they are an exempted office, will also be three days, not two. In other words, even though the local mail will not be transported back and forth to the RPDC, the service standard will most likely be three days. (More on that here and here.)

[Correction and update (Dec. 4, 2024): The Postal Service told the PRC on Nov. 12, 2024, that it would continue afternoon collections at post offices served by “designated LPCs with cancellation capacity.” The Postal Service cross-referenced a list of the designated LPCs, which are the same as the first eleven LPCs retaining local collections. On Nov. 29, 2024, the Postal Service submitted a revision of the service standards list, and it shows that nearly all of the post offices served by a designated LPC will have a service standard of three days for local mail. On Dec. 3, 2024, the Postal Service informed the PRC that it had modified the plan and now some post offices served by these designated LPCs will get an evening collection, while others will  not, “depending on the volume and operating plan.” On Dec. 4, 2024, at the PRC hearing on the advisory opinion, the Postal Service clarified that the post offices served by designated LPCs retaining cancellation operations (i.e., those on the list of 16 LPCs discussed in this post, plus as many as 20 others) will retain a 2-day service standard for local mail, but this does not mean all of the post offices within 50 miles of these LPCs will become RTO offices. Rather, some will and some won’t.]

For nearly all of the sixty facilities that underwent a MPFR study, the Postal Service had decided to move all outgoing operations to another facility – in nearly every case, a P&DC becoming an RPDC. Over the past few months, however, the Postal Service has announced that outgoing local mail processing operations would remain in some LPCs.

In last week’s notice containing the list of LPCs retaining local mail, the Postal Service explained that the decision to keep some local operations “was based on the financial, operational, and other benefits of the changes being proposed in this proceeding” (on the advisory opinion).

Based on news reports, however, it appears that the decision was at least to some extent a response to pressure from elected officials. In any case, members of Congress were quick to take credit.

In April, the Postal Service announced that it had changed the plan to consolidate outgoing operations from Buffalo to Rochester and instead no operations would move. New York Senator Chuck Schumer issued a press release with the headline: “Schumer Announces Following His All-Out Push & Personal Calls to Postmaster Dejoy, USPS Will Not Move Forward on Proposed Transfer of Mail Processing Operations from Buffalo William St. Facility – Ensuring Quality Mail Service & Protecting Postal Workers’ Jobs.”

The cancellation of the Buffalo consolidation is not one of the sixteen cases where local mail processing will be retained by the LPC. Apparently that’s because all processing will be retained in Buffalo, not just local mail.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine apparently learned that the plan to move local processing out of Hampden, Maine, had been cancelled in a phone call with Postmaster General DeJoy. Collins then issued a statement with the headline “Following Continued Pressure from Senator Collins, USPS Announces Decision to Abandon Planned Consolidation of Hampden Facility.”

North Dakota Senator John Hoeven issued a statement after the Postal Service announced that the Bismarck mail processing facility would retain local processing operations. Hoeven said he had spoken with Postmaster General DeJoy earlier in the week to discuss the matter.

U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, who represents the Third District of Arkansas, was concerned about the consolidation from the Northwest Arkansas plant in Fayetteville to Oklahoma City. On learning of the news that local processing would stay in Arkansas, Womack said he was “encouraged to hear that there are no anticipated career layoffs or impacts on employees and that USPS appears to be responding to the concerns I shared with Postmaster General DeJoy.”

U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, has been questioning the consolidation of operations from Waterloo, Iowa, to Des Moines. After learning that Waterloo would retain local mail processing, Hinson issued a statement saying, “I personally advocated to the postmaster general to prevent the outsourcing of all mail processing operations in Waterloo and to ensure there would be no job losses. While their decision to retain some mail processing in Waterloo and not cut any postal jobs is a positive step, this is not the end of the conversation.”

U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee has also been advocating on behalf of keeping operations in Knoxville rather than consolidating the outgoing mail to Nashville. Last November, a few days after the required public meeting with USPS officials about the proposed consolidation, Burchett wrote a letter to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy saying the meeting was a waste of time. “Worse, the arrogance on display by the USPS and its management during this so-called meeting or listening session is unacceptable.”

In May, the Postal Service said the Knoxville consolidation would be postponed until 2025. DeJoy said that delay was in response to elected officials’ concerns. Now Knoxville will be keeping its local mail and that component of the consolidation won’t be happening at all.

Washoe County, NV, had threatened to sue the Postal Service over its plan to move outgoing local processing from Reno to Sacramento, California, in January 2025. Last August, the Postal Service announced that it no longer planned to reroute its operations to California, stating that it identified “enhanced efficiencies” in its operations that will allow processing to continue in Reno. The Postal Service declined to comment on whether the change in plans had anything to do the pending lawsuit.

While sixteen of the P&DCs-turned-LPCs will retain local processing, it’s not clear what will happen to the other 42 or so P&DCs that went through the MPFR process. Elected officials in the Congressional districts and states where these LPCs are located may be wondering why the Postal Service hasn’t called off the consolidation of their local mail. Perhaps as these consolidations are reviewed by the PRC, the Postal Service will announce additional changes to the plan and more local mail will remain local.

— Steve Hutkins

Related post: