[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11452-11461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5212]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3020
Docket No. MC2009-19; Order No. 391
New Postal Product
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is adding special postal services to the
product lists. This action is consistent with changes in a postal
reform law. Republication of the product lists is also consistent with
a statutory provision. The Commission also has prepared a supporting
library reference.
DATES: Effective March 11, 2010 and is applicable beginning January
13, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202-789-6824 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History, 74 FR 15784 (April 7,
2009).
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Summary
II. Procedural History
III. Commission Analysis
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction and Summary
In Docket No. MC2008-1, the Commission found that six previously
stated unclassified services were postal services.\1\ It directed the
Postal Service to make an appropriate filing to add those services to
the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) product lists. In this
proceeding, the Postal Service seeks to add seven postal services to
the product lists. Based upon a review of the record, the Commission
approves the addition of two products to the Market Dominant Product
List and five products to the Competitive Product List as follows:
Market Dominant Product List: Address Management Services (to replace
Address List Services) and Customized Postage and [to the] Competitive
Product List: Address Enhancement Service; Greeting Cards and
Stationery; Shipping and Mailing Supplies; and International Money
Transfer Service-Outbound and International Money Transfer Service-
Inbound (to replace International Money Transfer Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Docket No. MC2008-1, Review of Nonpostal Services Under the
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, December 19, 2008, at 27-
38, 63-64 and Appendix 1 (Order No. 154). Order No. 154 was issued
in proceedings instituted to fulfill the Commission's
responsibilities under 39 U.S.C. 404(e)(3) to determine which
services offered by the Postal Service were nonpostal services and
which, if any, of those nonpostal services should be continued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also confirms its finding in Order No. 154 that
Stamp Fulfillment Services is a postal product and directs the Postal
Service to make an appropriate filing within 60 days to add Stamp
Fulfillment Services to the MCS.
In addition, the Commission revises the draft MCS product
descriptions for Greeting Cards and Stationery and for Shipping and
Mailing Supplies. Product descriptions for these and other services
covered by the Postal Service's request in this proceeding are set
forth in a PRC Library Reference being filed in this docket. PRC-
MC2009-19-LR1. Subject to further possible modifications, these product
descriptions are to be incorporated into the draft MCS at the time of
its future publication. Finally, the Commission directs that the Postal
Service file draft product descriptions for eight existing items that
are to be included in Address Management Services.
II. Procedural History
Background. In Order No. 154, the Commission ruled that six
previously unclassified services were postal services. Those six
services were Address Management Services; Customized Postage; Stamp
Fulfillment Services; Greeting Cards; ReadyPost; and International
Money Transfer Service. Because the Postal Service had not complied
with the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3642(d) and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.
the Commission did not address whether these six services should be
added to the MCS product lists. Instead, the Commission classified each
of these services as either a market dominant or competitive product
pending the outcome of classification proceedings that the Commission
directed the Postal Service to institute within 60 days. Id. at 27-29,
89.
Postal Service Requests. On March 10, 2009, the Postal Service
filed a request to add seven products to the MCS product lists: Address
Management Services; Customized Postage; Address Enhancement Service;
Greeting Cards, Stationery, and Related Items; Shipping and Mailing
Supplies; International Money Transfer Service-Inbound; and
International Money Transfer Service-Outbound.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Postal
Products to the Mail Classification Schedule in Response to Order
No. 154, March 10, 2009 (Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the six products classified as a postal service by Order No.
154, Stamp Fulfillment Services, was intentionally omitted from the
March 10, 2009 filing. That omission was based upon the Postal
Service's view that Stamp Fulfillment Services was no longer a postal
service because of planned modifications to the service.
Of the remaining five services classified as postal services by
Order No. 154, two, Address Management Services (AMS) and International
Money Transfer Service, were split into narrower services. Address
Management Services was subdivided into a market dominant product
called ``Address Management Services'' and a competitive product,
``Address Enhancement Service.'' International Money Transfer Service
was separated into an inbound service, ``International Money Transfer
Service-Inbound'' and an outbound service, ``International Money
Transfer Service-Outbound.''\3\ As a result of the foregoing changes,
the March 10, 2009 filing proposed the addition of seven products to
the MCS product lists in place of the six products discussed in Order
No. 154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Supplemental information regarding International Money
Transfer Service-Inbound and International Money Transfer Service-
Outbound was subsequently provided by the Postal Service. See
Supplemental Response of the United States Postal Service to Order
No. 154, July 15, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Order No. 198 provided formal notice of the Request,
established the captioned docket to consider the Request, appointed an
officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general
public, and set April 30, 2009 as the deadline for comments.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ PRC Order No. 198, Notice and Order Concerning Request to
Add Seven Postal Services to the Mail Classification Schedule
Product Lists, March 30, 2009 (Order No. 198).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thereafter, on May 8, 2009, the Postal Service filed a notice of an
amendment to its March 10, 2009 filing.\5\ The amendment was made to
reflect the manner in which one of the components of Address Management
Services would be offered.\6\ Commission Order No. 215
[[Page 11453]]
was issued on May 12, 2009, providing formal notice of the Amended
Request and allowing additional comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Notice of the United States Postal Service of Amendment to
Its Request to Add Postal Products to the Mail Classification
Schedule in Response to Order No. 154, May 8, 2009 (Amended
Request).
\6\ More specifically, two services previously offered as stand-
alone components of Address Management Services (i.e., FASTforward
MLOCR service and FASTforward Move Update Notification) were being
combined under the name FASTforward MLOCR service. The charge for
FASTforward MLOCR service remained unchanged and there was no longer
to be a separate charge for FASTforward Move Update Notification
service.
\7\ PRC Order No. 215, Notice and Order Concerning Amendment to
Request to Add Seven Postal Services to the Mail Classification
Schedule Product Lists, May 12, 2009 (Order No. 215).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments. The following parties filed comments in response to Order
No. 198 and Order No. 215: the National Association of Retail Ship
Centers (NARSC); United Parcel Service (UPS); Associated Mail and
Parcel Centers (AMPC); and the Public Representative.\8\ The points
raised in their respective comments are addressed in section III.,
Commission Analysis, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Comments of National Association of Retail Ship Centers,
April 30, 2009 (NARSC Comments); Comments of United Parcel Service
in Response to Notice and Order Concerning Request to Add Seven
Postal Services to the Mail Classification Schedule Product Lists,
April 30, 2009 (UPS Comments); Comments of Associated Mail and
Parcel Centers, May 1, 2009 (AMPC Comments); Comments of the Public
Representative, April 30, 2009 (Public Representative Comments); and
Supplemental Comments of the Public Representative in Response to
Commission Order No. 215, May 19, 2009 (Public Representative
Supplemental Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman's information requests. On May 21, 2009, the Chairman
issued an information request to the Postal Service.\9\ The Postal
Service submitted its response on May 29, 2009.\10\ Thereafter, on
August 5, 2009, the Chairman issued a second information request,\11\
to which the Postal Service responded on August 13, 2009.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Chairman's Information Request No. 1, May 21, 2009 (CHIR No.
1).
\10\ Responses of the United States Postal Service to Chairman's
Information Request No. 1, May 29, 2009 (Response to CHIR No. 1).
\11\ Chairman's Information Request No. 2, August 5, 2009 (CHIR
No. 2).
\12\ Responses of the United States Postal Service to Chairman's
Information Request No. 2, August 13, 2009 (Response to CHIR No. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments. Following the Postal Service's filing of its
response to CHIR No. 1, a series of additional comments and responses
were filed by several parties: the Public Representative; the Greeting
Card Association (GCA); NARSC; and the Postal Service.\13\ While the
rules of practice do not provide for such filings, the Commission will
accept each of these filings in order to ensure that all arguments and
comments of the participants are considered.\14\ A discussion of the
points raised in these comments can be found in section III.,
Commission Analysis, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Comments of the Public Representative on the Postal
Service's Legal Authority to Set Fees for Postal Services Without
Commission Approval, June 9, 2009 (Public Representative Additional
Comments); Comments of the Greeting Card Association, May 29, 2009
(GCA Comments); Response of the United States Postal Service to
Intervenor and Public Representative Comments, June 11, 2009 (Postal
Service Reply Comments); and Comments of National Association of
Retail Ship Centers, June 17, 2009 (NARSC Additional Comments).
\14\ Two of the parties, GCA and the Public Representative,
sought leave to file these additional comments. See GCA Motion for
Leave to Submit Comments Out of Time, May 29, 2009; and Motion for
Leave to File Comments on the Postal Service's Legal Authority to
Set Fees for Postal Services Without Commission Approval, June 9,
2009. These motions are granted. With respect to the remaining
filings, the Commission is persuaded that the additional information
provided by these filings will clarify the record. Accordingly,
these additional submissions are accepted for filing. The parties
are, however, cautioned that failure to seek leave to file future
untimely submissions, or submissions not otherwise authorized by the
rules of practice, may result in their rejection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Commission Analysis
The Postal Service requests the addition of seven services to the
product lists specified in the MCS. For the reasons given below, the
Commission concludes that the following seven postal services should be
included in the MCS and, as appropriate, be added to the product lists:
Address Management Services; Customized Postage; Address Enhancement
Service; Greeting Cards and Stationery; Shipping and Mailing Supplies;
International Money Transfer Services-Outbound; and International Money
Transfer Services-Inbound. For the reasons given below, the Postal
Service is directed to make an appropriate filing within 60 days to add
Stamp Fulfillment Services to the Market Dominant Product List.
A. Market Dominant Products
1. Address Management Services
Address Management Services (AMS) is the new name given by the
Postal Service to the market dominant product previously called
``Address List Services''. See Request, Attachment A, at 1. Address
List Services (ALS) was added to the MCS product lists by Order No. 43
and contained only four services.\15\ As amended, the Postal Service's
Request in this proceeding would increase the number of services from 4
to 27.\16\ The AMS product consists of a number of value-added services
that enable bulk business mailers to better manage the quality of their
mailing lists. The AMS product also includes diagnostic and other
services that evaluate address management software for accuracy.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Docket No. RM2007-1, Order Establishing Ratemaking
Regulations for Market Dominant and Competitive Products, October
29, 2007 (Order No. 43). Those services were Correction of Address
Lists; Change-of-Address Information for Election Boards and
Registration Commissions; ZIP Code Sortation of Address Lists; and
Address Sequencing. See also Docket No. RM2007-1, United States
Postal Service Submission of Initial Mail Classification Schedule in
Response to Order No. 26, September 24, 2007, Appendix at 79.
\16\ Compare Request, Attachment A, at 1-12 (AMS Product
Descriptions) with Amended Request at 1-2 (incorporation of
FASTforward Move Update Notice (FFMUN) into FASTforward MLOCR).
\17\ Address Management Services differs from the competitive
product, Address Enhancement Service, discussed, infra. Whereas
Address Management Services consists of address update services and
address data files originated by the Postal Service, such as ZIPCode
+ 4 data, the competitive product, Address Enhancement Service,
consists of three address matching services that compete with
services provided by private address management software developers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No party opposes adding Address Management Services to the Market
Dominant Product List within the Special Services class. Request at 2,
n.3. However, in his initial and supplemental comments, the Public
Representative observes that the Postal Service's Request fails to
provide an adequate discussion of statutory factors and objectives.\18\
Id. The Postal Service responds by providing a more complete discussion
of the following objectives and factors: Objective No. 1 (maximization
of incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency); Objective No. 3
(maintenance of high quality service standards established under
section 3691); Factor No. 5 (the degree of mail preparation by mailers
for delivery into the postal system and its effect on cost reduction);
and Factor No. 12 (the need to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and
maintain high quality, affordable services). Response to CHIR No. 1,
Question 4. Upon consideration of the information provided in the
Request and in the subsequent response to CHIR No. 1, the Commission
concludes that the AMS product should be added to the Market Dominant
Product List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Public Representative also commented on the absence of
any financial information for the Address Management Services
product. Public Representative Comments at 5-6; and Public
Representative Supplemental Comments at 4. Historically, the Postal
Service has not been required to produce detailed cost data for AMS.
Consequently, financial information for this product does not exist.
However, by adding the Address Management Services product to the
MCS, the Postal Service will be required to develop a cost
methodology for this product. See section III.B., Reporting
Procedures for Approved Market Dominant Products, infra, or a
discussion on reporting financial information for this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Representative also questions whether the changes
proposed in the Amended Request to FASTforward MLOCR and FASTforward
Move Update Notification constitute a rate change requiring prior
notice and compliance with other applicable provisions of 39 CFR part
3010. Public Representative Supplemental Comments at 2-3.
Alternatively, the Public Representative acknowledges that the Amended
Request could be construed as a proposal to add new products to the
Market Dominant Product List and that
[[Page 11454]]
without approved rates in effect, the Amended Request would not, by
definition, produce a rate change. Id. Under the unique circumstances
presented in this case, the Commission finds the latter
characterization more persuasive and that the Amended Request does not
present a rate change proposal.
Finally, the Public Representative asserts that the Postal Service
has failed to include additional value-added services in its Request.
Public Representative Comments at 6-7. The services referred to by the
Public Representative are: Advance Notification and Tracking System;
MAC Batch System Certification; MAC Gold System Certification; MAC
System Certification; Mailpiece Quality Control Certification; PAGE
System Certification; PAVE System Certification; and Z4INFO. The Public
Representative argues that all ``postal services'' must be listed in
the MCS under a particular product, and that it appears the Postal
Service is attempting to set fees for ``postal services'' without
Commission review and approval. Public Representative Additional
Comments at 2-3.
The Postal Service argues that the omission from its Request of the
services at issue is not an attempt to take advantage of a regulatory
``no man's land'' by offering services not included in the MCS, as
alleged by the Public Representative. Response to CHIR No. 1, Question
2; and Postal Service Reply Comments at 10. The Postal Service agrees
that these value-added services are, in fact, postal services, but
explains that these services are designed to ``minimize, rather than
maximize'' revenue and thus, do not necessarily need to be added to the
MCS. Response to CHIR No.1, Question 2(b). The Postal Service further
argues that the Commission has the authority to ``forbear'' from
regulating these services as ``products'' and thereby omit these
services from the MCS.\19\ Id.; and Postal Service Reply Comments at
10-12. In lieu of adding the services to the MCS, the Postal Service
offers to provide the Commission with annual fee and revenue
information on these services with the understanding that the
Commission might, in the future, decide to regulate these services as
``products'' if the information provided by the Postal Service were to
suggest that such regulation were necessary. CHIR No.1, Question No.
2(b). In total, AMS will include 36 services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Initially, the Postal Service argued that the ``postal
services'' were ``postal activities'' that were designed to
``minimize, rather than maximize'' revenue and, as such, did not
need to be added to the MCS. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Postal Service recognizes, Congress has given the Commission
jurisdiction over the postal services at issue. While the Postal
Service asserts that the Commission has the authority to ``forbear''
from exercising that jurisdiction, it cites no clear legal authority
for exercising such forbearance. Instead, the Postal Service advances
several policy arguments to support the reasonableness of
forbearance.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Response to CHIR No.1, Questions 2 and 3; and Postal
Service Reply Comments at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is not persuaded by these policy arguments. Without
clear authority to forbear from exercising jurisdiction, the Commission
will follow its jurisdictional mandate from Congress and direct that
these services be added to the Market Dominant Product List as elements
of Address Management Services. In addition, the Postal Service will be
required to file draft MCS language within 30 days of the date of this
order for those services.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Commission rejects the Public Representative's
suggestion that the Postal Service be required ``to provide a full
accounting of all 'postal services' not listed on the draft MCS.''
Public Representative Additional Comments at 2. In Order No. 154 at
35, the Commission recognized that ``it is possible for something to
be inadvertently omitted when attempting to compile a complete list
of activities ... [and that] ... any omitted activities can be
explored in the next phase of this case.'' See Docket No. MC2008-1,
Review of Nonpostal Services Under the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act, December 19, 2008 (Order No. 154). Accordingly, in
instituting Phase II of the proceedings in Docket No. MC2008-1, the
Commission directed the Postal Service to file a sworn statement
providing ``details of each retail program for which information may
have been inadvertently omitted in response to Order No. 74 and
which the Postal Service seeks to have classified as a postal
service or, alternatively, to continue to offer as a nonpostal
service.'' Docket No. MC2008-1 (Phase II), Notice and Order
Initiating Phase II Proceedings, January 9, 2009, at 4. The Postal
Service made no such filing in that proceeding. Thus, the Commission
views the record as complete in that regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Commission is legally obligated to exercise its
jurisdiction, it also possesses discretionary authority to determine
how that jurisdiction will be exercised. Given the small and
intermittent revenues produced by these services and the current lack
of reliable costing methodologies, the Commission will not subject them
to the full range of regulatory review. Instead, the Commission will
require only that the Postal Service report fee and revenue information
(if any) for those services annually as part of its Annual Compliance
Report. The information to be filed shall be in a form similar to
Appendix A to Docket No. MC2008-1, Response of the United States Postal
Service to PostCom et al. Motion to Sever From This Proceeding the
Consideration of Those Previously Unregulated Services That the Postal
Service Asserts are ``Postal Services,'' December 12, 2008.\22\ If the
need for more extensive regulatory reporting becomes apparent, the
Commission may revisit the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Postal Service has stated its willingness to provide
information in this form. Response to CHIR No. 1, Question 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Customized Postage
The Postal Service proposes to add the Customized Postage program
to the Market Dominant Product List as a stand-alone Special Services
product. The Customized Postage program authorizes vendors to provide
their customers with Postal Service authorized postage consisting of
customer-selected images. There are currently four vendors
participating in the Customized Postage program.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See www.usps.com for information on the respective vendors
(keyword search: Customized Postage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No party objects to adding Customized Postage to the Market
Dominant Product List. However, the Public Representative observes that
the Postal Service's Request provided only a minimal discussion as to
how the proposed Customized Postage product achieved the objectives of
39 U.S.C. 3622(b), while taking into account the factors of 39 U.S.C.
3622(c). Public Representative Comments at 4-5. In its response to CHIR
No. 1, the Postal Service provided a more complete discussion of the
following objectives and factors: Objective No. 2 (rate predictability
and stability) and Objective No. 5 (assurance of adequate revenues to
maintain financial stability); and Factor No. 8 (relative value to the
people of the kinds of mail matter and the desirability and
justification for special mail classifications). Response to CHIR No.
1, Question 4.
Upon review of the information submitted, the Commission concludes
that the Customized Postage program satisfies the requirements of
sections 3622(b) and (c). The Commission, therefore, approves the
addition of the Customized Postage program to the Market Dominant
Product List.
3. Stamp Fulfillment Services
Stamp Fulfillment Services (SFS) provide shipping and handling for
all orders placed with the Stamp Fulfillment Services office in Kansas
City, Missouri. Orders for postage stamps, personalized stamped
envelopes, and philatelic sales can be placed by fax, mail, online, or
telephone; orders for Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP) can be
placed
[[Page 11455]]
only online.\24\ Currently, the Postal Service imposes a $1.00 charge
for fulfilling postage stamp, philatelic, and stamped envelope orders.
Id. at 10. The Postal Service maintains that the $1.00 charge ``is more
like a handling charge intended to recover SFS costs for preparing
orders for shipment, rather than shipping costs.'' Id. at 11. For
personalized stamped envelopes, the Postal Service also imposes an
additional and higher shipping and handling charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Request at 12, n.13. The use of customized software enables
online OLRP orders to be ``shipped at [the] actual postage rates for
the zone and weight of the shipment. Such an approach would not be
workable for mail and fax orders.'' Id. Consequently, shipping
prices for OLRP orders are not at issue in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Request, the Postal Service states that it ``is not
requesting the addition of SFS to the MCS.'' Id. at 10. Instead, it
plans to eliminate the $1.00 handling charge and implement an
alternative fee structure for shipping. In doing so, the Postal Service
argues that the alternative fee structure, which would utilize existing
postage prices, eliminates the justification for adding SFS to the MCS.
Id. at 12-13.
In conceptual terms, the Postal Service's alternative fee structure
would ``recover postage for SFS shipments directly, while recovering
handling costs through the prices charged for the items.'' Id. at 11.
The Postal Service proposes this alternative pricing structure because
customers who mail or fax their SFS orders often find it difficult to
calculate the zone and weight for their orders, particularly larger
orders, using the existing fee schedules. Thus, the Postal Service
wants to ensure that customers can ``readily determine and pay the
total charge for an order, including shipping, at the time the order is
placed.'' Id. at 12.
The Postal Service offers several examples to illustrate how an
alternative fee structure might work. Id. The four examples reference
existing market dominant and competitive postage prices, i.e., First-
Class Mail and Priority Mail prices, as shipping charges for
hypothetical SFS orders. However, the Postal Service states that the
shipping charge for any particular SFS order:
would not always be the actual postage that would otherwise be
charged based on the zone and weight for the mail piece being
shipped. Instead, existing postage prices will be selected, for
application to shipments that fall within specified parameters.
Id. The Postal Service states that it is ``still working on the
specific postage prices that it will charge for shipments, but plans to
complete the process soon.'' Id. at 13.
The Postal Service's alternative pricing structure for shipping SFS
orders raises concerns. More specifically, the Public Representative
states that the four examples provided by the Postal Service ``imply
that there are situations where the Postal Service is altering the
ordinary tariff rate postage for SFS orders.'' Public Representative
Comments at 15. The Public Representative further states that if the
Postal Service's alternative pricing structure for SFS orders alters
the ordinary tariff rate then ``the Postal Service should be required
to add this product to the Market Dominant Product List and to obtain
Commission approval for these special rates for SFS services.'' Id.
Additionally, in Order No. 154, the Commission determined that
``handling and shipping fees associated with stamp purchases and
personalized stamped envelopes represent fees for postal
services.''\25\ (Order No. 154 at 63, emphasis added.) The planned
elimination of the handling charge would address only one of the bases
for requiring the addition of SFS to the MCS product list. The Postal
Service's proposed use of ``alternative'' shipping fees would still
require the Commission to classify SFS as a market dominant postal
product since, as the Public Representative points out the four pricing
examples offered by the Postal Service suggest that ``the Postal
Service will not be charging tariff rates for certain fulfillment
orders ... .'' Id. at 15. Rather, the Postal Service intends to use
rates from a tariff schedule that are weight- and distance-related and
apply those rates as shipping charges without regard to the weight of
the item or the zone to which it is actually being sent.\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ In making this determination, the Commission observed that
if fees for handling and shipping services ``were incurred solely in
connection with philatelic sales, classifying such services as
nonpostal would be reasonable.'' Id. However, the Commission found
that the Postal Service ``often can not distinguish philatelic from
regular stamp purchases ... `` citing the Initial Response of the
United States Postal Service to Order No. 74, June 9, 2008, at 14.
Id.
\26\ This selective use of rates published in a tariff schedule
does not constitute the application of tariff rates as those rates
were intended to be applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is sensitive to the Postal Service's efforts to
improve the ordering process for customers, particularly for mail and
fax customers. A simplified fee structure derived from existing tariff
rates could achieve the result the Postal Service desires. The Postal
Service can, if it desires, propose simplified SFS shipping prices. In
doing so, the Postal Service has an opportunity to develop simplified
pricing for shipping of SFS orders that improves the likelihood
customers will complete the ordering process and increase postal
revenues. Should the Postal Service propose the use of simplified
shipping fees as an alternative to tariff postage that would, of
course, itself require the Postal Service to file an appropriate
request to add SFS to the MCS product lists. Pending receipt of any
such proposal, the Commission reaffirms its findings in Order No. 154,
and the Postal Service is authorized to continue to charge a $1.00
handling fee. The continued collection of the handling fee, however,
requires the filing of a request to add SFS to the Market Dominant
Product List. That filing is due within 60 days from the date of this
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The Address Enhancement Service product is different from
the market dominant Address Management Services product. For a more
detailed discussion of Address Management Services, see section
III.A.1., Address Management Services, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reporting Procedures for Approved Market Dominant Products
With the exception of the eight Address Management Services which
the Postal Service is directed to add to the MCS as elements of Address
Management Services (section III.A.1, Address Management Services,
supra), the Commission expects the Postal Service to submit cost,
revenue, and volume data at the product level for all remaining market
dominant products. Previously, the Postal Service has not reported
detailed cost data for Address Management Services, Customized Postage,
and Stamp Fulfillment Services. Cost methodologies were not developed
for these services, and the Commission recognizes that the existing
data systems may not provide adequate cost, revenue, and volume data
for many of the separate services within certain products such as
Address Management Services. The Postal Service is currently
``reviewing all its internal reporting systems consistent with its
plans to collect and report cost, revenue, and volume data in the next
[Annual Compliance Report]....'' Response to CHIR No. 1, Question 3.
The Postal Service further states that ``cost methodologies will be
developed (and submitted to the Commission for prior review) to
generate additional information.'' Id. The Commission expects the
Postal Service to report on the status of its efforts prior to the next
Annual Compliance Report.
C. Competitive Products
1. Address Enhancement Service
The Postal Service proposes to add Address Enhancement Service
(AES) to the Competitive Product List as a stand-alone product.\27\
Address Enhancement
[[Page 11456]]
Service is the name given to several separate services: Address Element
Correction (AEC), Address Matching System Application Program Interface
(AMS API), and Topographical Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing (TIGER/ZIP + 4). Each service is designed around one or
more software packages that improve address quality and reduce
undeliverable-as-addressed mail.
In its Request, the Postal Service proposes MCS language that
contains descriptions and prices for each of the separate services
within the proposed Address Enhancement Service product. The Postal
Service's Request also provides a Statement of Justification that
includes confidential FY 2008 cost and revenue figures that were filed
under seal for the proposed product. In response to CHIR No. 1, the
Postal Service supplemented its Request with supporting financial
worksheets that were also filed under seal. Response to CHIR No. 1,
Question 1.
The Public Representative raised concerns regarding the AMS API
service, contending that it appears to be a bundle of six market
dominant Address Management Services databases that could potentially
be priced anti-competitively, i.e., at less than the sum of the prices
for each database in the bundle. Public Representative Comments at 13.
If priced in this way, the Public Representative alleges ``there would
be no meaningful competition since a competitor could not purchase the
individual unbundled market dominant products at a price that would
allow it to repackage those services and compete with the Postal
Service's competitive bundled service on price.'' ld., n.19.
In response to the Public Representative's comments, the Postal
Service further describes the features of the AMS API service and its
proposed pricing. Postal Service Reply Comments at 6. According to the
Postal Service, the AMS API service is not merely six bundled market
dominant Address Management databases. -The AMS API service provides a
``core set of compiled address-matching software instructions (computer
code), developed by the Postal Service'' that interpret data from the
six market dominant Address Management databases.\28\ Id. at 5. The AMS
API address-matching software package is offered to address management
vendors to incorporate in and thereby enhance their Address Management
software when applied to the data from the market dominant databases.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ AMS API includes the following six market dominant
databases within the Address Management Services product: City
State, Delivery Point Validation, eLot, LACS\Link\, Five-Digit ZIP,
and ZIP+4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Postal Service also explains that the price for AMS API is
greater than the sum of the prices for the six market dominant
databases combined. Address Management software vendors who want to
incorporate AMS API into their own Address Management software must pay
a reseller license fee of $16,700, as well as separate annual fees for
additional licenses in order to distribute the databases to multiple
customers along with their software. Consequently, the reseller license
fee plus the annual fees for additional database licenses are greater
than the sum of the individual price of each of the six market dominant
databases. Id. The Postal Service has submitted revised MCS language to
clarify the pricing of the AMS API service. See id. at 6.
The Commission approves the addition of Address Enhancement Service
to the Competitive Product List based upon the revised MCS language
provided by the Postal Service. The Postal Service's further
explanation of the AMS API service and the six market dominant Address
Management databases clarifies that the price relationships would not
have an anti-competitive effect.
2. Greeting Cards and Stationery
In Order No. 154, the Commission concluded that the sale of
greeting cards and stationery (Greeting Cards) was a postal service and
directed the Postal Service to file a request to add Greeting Cards to
the MCS. Order No. 154 at 89.\29\ In Attachment A to its Request, the
Postal Service proposes the following classification language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Commission's ruling in ordering paragraph 1 refers
solely to ``Greeting Cards.'' However, it is clear from the
Commission's discussion of the greeting card status issue that the
Commission used the term ``Greeting Cards'' to refer not only to
greeting cards, per se, but to other stationery items. Id. at 34-35.
One of the purposes of the instant proceeding is to determine the
appropriate scope of the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2XXX Greeting Cards, Stationery, and Related Items
2XXX.1 Description
Greeting Cards, Stationery, and Related Items include items designed to
be used to mail personal messages.
Greeting cards--Greeting cards include cards with envelopesand may be
sold individually or as sets.
Stationery--Stationery includes paper, envelopes, postcards, note
cards, and note pads and are sometimes packaged as sets[.]
Parties' comments. NARSC objects to any and all retail sales of
greeting cards, stationery, and related items by the Postal Service on
several grounds, including the following: that these products are
nonpostal products; that the Postal Service enjoys a competitive
advantage due to its size, purchasing power, and exemption from local
sales tax laws; that the addition of 32,000 Postal Service retail
outlets to the existing 64,000 retail outlets of private firms would
overburden an already crowded marketplace; that the Postal Service has
failed to document projected expenses and revenues; and that the sale
of such items will interfere with the performance of core Postal
Service responsibilities. See NARSC Comments and NARSC Additional
Comments.
AMPC takes issue with the scope of the ``Greeting Card''
description in the Postal Service's proposed MCS language, alleging
that the sale of a full line of greeting cards would constitute a
nonpostal service and should be precluded. See AMPC Comments. Instead,
AMPC requests that the definition of ``greeting cards'' in the MCS be
limited to ``those cards which relate directly to specific stamps or
Official Licensed Retail Product programs.'' Id.
The Public Representative supports adding Greeting Cards,
Stationery, and Related Items to the MCS as a competitive product,
subject to certain limitations. Public Representative Comments at 10.
First, the Public Representative notes that the term ``Related Items''
had no definition and that it should either be defined or excluded from
the MCS. Id., n.12. Second, the Public Representative submits that the
availability of all of these items should be limited to postal retail
locations. Id. at 10-11. Third, the Public Representative takes the
position that the Postal Service should be required to provide adequate
financial data to support the addition of these products to the MCS, or
should be required to incorporate into the MCS its pricing policies
with respect to these items. Id. at 11-12.
In its June 11, 2009 response to the comments of NARSC, AMPC, and
the Public Representative, the Postal Service argues that the
Commission already found greeting cards and stationery to be postal
services in Order No. 154; these products will be a valuable addition
to the market; the sale of these products is not a ``non-core''
activity; all greeting cards, not just postal themed cards, foster use
of the mails; and the fact that the sales of these products will
compete with sales by others does not provide a basis for rejecting the
proposed addition of these products to the Competitive Product
[[Page 11457]]
List. Postal Service Reply Comments at 2-3. The Postal Service also
takes issue with the Public Representative's proposal to prohibit the
availability of greeting cards at nonpostal retail locations. Id. at 3-
4. Notwithstanding this opposition to the Public Representative, the
Postal Service suggests that the issue need not be decided at this time
since the Postal Service's current plan is to offer greeting card
products only through Postal Service retail channels. Id. at 4.
On May 29, 2009, GCA filed comments supporting the proposed
addition of greeting cards, stationery, and related items to the MCS.
GCA Comments at 2. GCA asserts that the proposal will benefit its
members, consumers, and the Postal Service by giving consumers
convenient and additional opportunities to purchase greeting cards that
will be sent through the mail. Id. at 1. GCA claims that the effect of
the Postal Service's proposal will be to increase the total use of
greeting cards, not to simply reallocate greeting card sales among
retail outlets. Id.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ NARSC responded to GCA's comments by filing additional
comments on June 17, 2009, in which it opposed Commission acceptance
of GCA's comments because of their untimeliness; challenged the
adequacy of the Postal Service's response to CHIR No.1 regarding
costs and cost coverage; and elaborated further on the points raised
in its initial comments. As stated in n.14, supra, and accompanying
text, the Commission is granting GCA's motion for leave to file out
of time and is accepting all additional comments not otherwise
authorized by the Commission's rules of practice, including the
NARSC Additional Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission analysis. While the Postal Service is correct that Order
No. 154 determined that greeting cards and stationery were postal
services, the issue of whether to add them to the Competitive Product
List was not before the Commission in that proceeding. The issue is now
pending, and section 3642(b)(3) requires the Commission to give due
consideration to ``the availability and nature of enterprises in the
private sector engaged in the delivery of the product involved' and to
``the likely impact of the proposed action on small business concerns
....''
NARSC's argument that the Postal Service enjoys certain competitive
advantages is countered, in part, by the Postal Service's response that
it has been selling greeting cards and stationery as a part of its
retail product mix for over a decade. Request, Attachment E, at 4. As
NARSC itself points out, there are already other large retail outlets
that sell greeting cards and stationery. NARSC Comments at 1. Against
this history, NARSC's general allegations of harm are not persuasive,
particularly, as discussed below, given the limitations imposed on the
sale of such items. Furthermore, the Commission can not simply assume
that sales of greeting cards and stationery by the Postal Service will
necessarily decrease sales by other retailers, large or small. See GCA
Comments at 1.
A related, but separate, aspect of NARSC's allegation of unfair
competitive advantage relates to the Postal Service's pricing of
greeting cards and stationery. NARSC suggests that in selling such
items, the Postal Service may not have been recovering its costs. NARSC
Comments at 1-2. In that connection, NARSC questions whether the Postal
Service has adequately determined the costs attributable to the sale of
these items. NARSC Additional Comments at 1. The Public Representative
raises similar concerns, arguing that the Postal Service should either
file adequate financial data to support the addition of greeting cards
and stationery to the MCS, or alternatively, file a narrative
description of its pricing policies. Public Representative Comments at
12.
The Postal Service argues that any danger that these items will not
cover their costs or will unfairly compete in the marketplace has been
eliminated because they are now subject to regulation by the
Commission. Postal Service Reply Comments at 2. In that connection, the
Postal Service states that its policy will, in general, be to price
greeting cards and stationery with ``at least a 50 percent mark-up over
the wholesale price'' and that as part of its effort to comply with the
PAEA, it has already begun to track costs of greeting cards and
stationery products.\31\ Request, Attachment E, at 2. The Postal
Service therefore believes that this product will be able to generate
revenues that cover its attributable costs and will not undermine the
contribution of competitive products to the coverage of institutional
costs. Id. at 2-3. The Postal Service's contentions are supported by
information provided under seal in response to CHIR No.1.\32\ The
information provided by the Postal Service convinces the Commission
that the proposed sale of greeting cards and stationery is likely to
cover attributable costs and should not undermine the ability of
competitive products overall to contribute to the coverage of
institutional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ This cost information must be presented in the Postal
Service's Annual Compliance Report as required by 39 U.S.C. 3652,
and is reviewed by the Commission in issuing its Annual Compliance
Determination, as required by 39 U.S.C. 3653.
\32\ See library reference USPS-MC2009-19/NP-2, Nonpublic
Supporting Materials Filed in Response to CHIR No.1, Relating to
Competitive Products. This information was on file at the time the
NARSC Additional Comments were filed. NARSC incorrectly states that
the Postal Service failed to address the Commission's request for
this information. NARSC Additional Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMPC suggests that the sale of greeting cards be limited to those
``which relate directly to specific stamps or Official Licensed Retail
Product programs.'' AMPC Comments. In Order 154, however, the
Commission expressly recognized that not all greeting cards identified
by the Postal Service in its response to Order No. 74 were directly
related to specific stamps or OLRP programs, when it stated that
``[i]ntellectual property, however, is not featured on every card.''
Order No. 154 at 34, n.72.
Nevertheless, AMPC is correct in stating that the activities
determined to be postal services were those described by the Postal
Service in its response to Order No. 74. Id. at 35. That response
included a representation that the Postal Service had no plans to offer
a full line of greeting cards. Id. at 34. By contrast, the Request in
this proceeding includes the broadly worded MCS product description
quoted above that could be read as encompassing a full line of greeting
cards.
To obtain a more current statement of the Postal Service's
intentions, CHIR No. 2 requested that the Postal Service provide
information regarding its future plans to sell greeting cards. CHIR No.
2, Question 2(d).\33\ In its response, the Postal Service describes the
range of greeting card formats that it anticipates offering. Response
to CHIR No. 2, Questions 2(a).\34\ In addition, the Postal Service,
once again, states that it does not intend to offer a full line of
greeting cards. Id. This commitment confirms the Postal Service's
previous position in Docket No. MC2008-1 and appears to be responsive
to AMPC's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ CHIR No. 2 was prompted, in part, by a Postal Service
solicitation issued as part of an investigation of the possibility
of offering an expanded line of greeting cards. Federal Business
Opportunities (FedBizOpps.com), Solicitation Number 2B-09-A-0018,
posted May 21, 2009 (Solicitation).
\34\ For example, the Postal Service states that it ``does not
intend to offer a 'full line' of greeting cards'' and that a ``full
line'' at standard greeting card stores `` is ``displayed on well
over 200 linear feet of fixtures with additional space allocated for
Stationery and Related items,'' whereas the Postal Service intends
to provide ``an average of 4-8 feet of display space'' and that a
``full line'' of greeting cards ``includes all seasonal cards and
various specialty lines to target ethnic and geographic patterns,''
whereas the Postal Service could offer only ``a very limited holiday
selection'' of cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Representative suggests that the sale of greeting cards
and stationery be limited to retail postal locations. The Public
Representative
[[Page 11458]]
states that the availability of these products at such retail locations
was understood to be the basis on which Order No. 154 was issued.
Public Representative Comments at 10-11. The Postal Service opposes the
suggestion, but indicates that the issue need not be addressed because
it has no plans to offer these items through any other retail channels
and does not object to the limitation requested by the Public
Representative. Postal Service Reply Comments at 4.
The Postal Service's proposed MCS language includes the term
``Related Items.'' The term is not defined. The Public Representative
objects to its inclusion in the MCS. Public Representative Comments at
10, n.12. In its response to CHIR No. 2, the Postal Service offers a
possible definition of ``Related Items,'' \35\ but notes that it was
``in the process of discontinuing all 'related items' in both retail
channels [i.e., retail lobbies and usps.com].'' Id., Question 1(b). The
Postal Service also states that it ``might offer boxed stationery or
note cards to promote the use of First-Class Mail, but has not
developed plans to do so at this time.'' Id., Question 1(c). (Emphasis
added.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Related items could include boxed note cards, stationery
sets, and boxed greeting cards for everyday occasions or holidays.''
Response to CHIR No. 2, Question 1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission approves adding sales of Greeting Cards and
Stationery to the Competitive Product List. However, the proposed draft
MCS language will be revised to limit the availability of this product
to retail postal locations and the Postal Service's Web site. In view
of the uncertain status of, and future for, Related Items, it will not
be included in the MCS at this time. If the Postal Service wishes to
offer Related Items, it must make an appropriate filing with the
Commission.
3. Shipping and Mailing Supplies
The Postal Service proposes to add Shipping and Mailing Supplies to
the Competitive Product List as a stand-alone product. Shipping and
Mailing Supplies consist of packaging materials that are used to
package, seal, protect, and label items for mailing, including mailing
cartons, specialty boxes, mailing tubes, mailing envelopes, a variety
of packaging tapes, and other shipping accessories. Request, Attachment
F, at 1. The Postal Service offers these packaging supplies through its
retail channels. See id. at 1 and 4.
In Docket No. MC2008-1, the Commission reviewed the Postal
Service's request to classify ReadyPost-a Postal Service-branded line
of packaging supplies, as a postal service. Order No. 154 at 27. Based
upon that review, the Commission found ReadyPost to be a postal
service. Id. at 34. In this proceeding, however, the Postal Service
combines ReadyPost with other packaging supplies to form Shipping and
Mailing Supplies. Request, Attachment F, at 1.
With its Request in this proceeding, the Postal Service proposes
MCS language that contains descriptions and prices for Shipping and
Mailing Supplies. The Postal Service also provides a Statement of
Justification that includes confidential FY 2008 cost and revenue
figures that were filed under seal for the proposed product.
The Public Representative argues that the Request fails to include
any financial information or spreadsheets to determine whether the new
product complies with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1), or 39
CFR 3015.7. Public Representative Comments at 10-11. The Commission
concludes, upon review, that the financial information concerning
Shipping and Mailing Supplies, provided under seal in Response to CHIR
No. 1, Question 1, satisfies the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements.
The Public Representative supports the addition of Shipping and
Mailing Supplies to the Competitive Product List ``with appropriate
constraints.'' Id. at 10. In this regard, the Public Representative
asserts that the Postal Service's proposed MCS language appears to
permit the sale of Shipping and Mailing Supplies at retail locations
other than postal retail locations, such as department stores and mass
merchandisers. Id. The sale of Shipping and Mailing Supplies at other
retail locations ``does not foster the use of the mails and is not a
`function ancillary' '' to the delivery of mailable matter. Id. at 10-
11. Accordingly, the Public Representative argues that availability of
Shipping and Mailing Supplies should be limited to postal retail
locations and the Postal Service's Web sites. Id. at 11.
The Postal Service opposes this limitation, but suggests that this
issue does not need to be decided in this docket. The Postal Service's
``current plans with regard to the Shipping and Mailing Supplies
product (as well as, incidentally, the Greeting Cards product), is to
sell such materials through Postal Service retail channels.'' Postal
Service Reply Comments at 4.
The Commission approves the addition of Shipping and Mailing
Supplies to the Competitive Product List. However, the proposed MCS
language does not accurately describe what the Postal Service is
selling as Shipping and Mailing Supplies or in what retail channels. In
this regard, ``related material'' offered for sale as shipping supplies
and the sales channels in which Shipping and Mailing Supplies may be
offered must be clarified. Accordingly, in recognition of the positions
of both the Public Representative and the Postal Service, the draft MCS
language will be revised to limit the sale of Shipping and Mailing
Supplies to postal retail locations and the Postal Service's Web site.
The draft MCS language will also be revised to change ``related
material'' to ``related packaging materials used to prepare items for
entry into the mailstream'' to clarify the limited nature of the
related materials.
4. International Money Transfer Services
In Docket No. MC2008-1, the Postal Service sought to have
International Money Transfer Service (IMTS) classified as a postal
service. In this proceeding, the Postal Service proposes to bifurcate
IMTS into an outbound product (IMTS-Outbound) and an inbound product
(IMTS-Inbound). Request at 6-10; Attachment A at 12; and Attachment G.
The IMTS-Outbound product features prices of ``general applicability''
for postal money orders and the electronic transfer of money that can
be cashed or accessed, respectively, in a number of foreign countries.
The separate IMTS-Inbound product consists of 10 agreements with
foreign postal administrations that govern Postal Service payment of
foreign money orders presented to post offices in the United States.
Request at 6. The Postal Service states that the agreements are
``functionally equivalent'' having many similar cost and market
characteristics. Id. at 9. As part of its Request, the Postal Service
proposes MCS text consisting of descriptive information concerning the
IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound products. Request, Attachment A, at 13-
15.
The Public Representative raises two concerns with respect to the
addition of IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound to the Competitive Product
List. First, the Postal Service failed to provide any financial
information in support of its Request, thereby precluding any
determination as to whether IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound comply with
various provisions of the PAEA. Public Representative Comments at 7.
Second, the Public Representative reports the Commission's finding, in
its FY 2008 Annual Compliance Determination (ACD) that IMTS-Outbound
and IMTS-Inbound combined
[[Page 11459]]
did not cover its attributable costs.\36\ Id. at 8. The Public
Representative suggests that until accurate cost and revenue data are
provided, the Commission should defer action on these products or,
alternatively, add them as experimental products. Id. at 9. If,
however, the Commission decides to add IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound
to the Competitive Product List, the Public Representative recommends
that the Commission require a greater commitment from the Postal
Service to produce reliable cost estimates with sufficient time to
review any new methodologies. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ In this regard, the Postal Service's FY 2008 Annual
Compliance Report (ACR) stated that IMTS as a whole did not cover
its attributable costs. In addition, the Postal Service was unable
to report the financial results of IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound
separately. FY 2008 International Cost and Revenue Analysis (ICRA)
Report (Non-Public), A Pages (c), at page A-2, n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Representative's concerns are well founded. At the time
of its Request in this proceeding, the Postal Service stated ``it is
not possible to say with confidence that either IMTS-Outbound or IMTS-
Inbound is or is not covering its attributable costs.'' Request,
Attachment G, at 3. Moreover, the Postal Service further acknowledged
it was without ``sufficiently reliable information upon which [to] draw
conclusions concerning the corrections that would be required properly
to address the shortfall in cost coverage.'' Id. at 2. Consequently,
during FY 2009, the Postal Service proposed to further study the
``basic information needed to analyze the cost coverage of both IMTS
products and to report again to the Commission by July 15, 2009--.''
Id. at 3. The Postal Service's subsequent report detailed recent
efforts and difficulties associated with obtaining data to estimate
IMTS costs and stated that the Postal Service was returning to the
``task of accumulating enough observations of IMTS transactions to
determine more reliably the costs attributable to them.''\37\ However,
the July 15, 2009 report does not indicate when the Postal Service
intends to complete its ``further study.''
The Postal Service's request to add IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound
as separate products to the Competitive Product List is approved.
However, it is imperative that the Postal Service continue its work to
develop reliable cost estimates for both products.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Supplemental Response of the United States Postal Service
to Order No. 154, July 15, 2009, Attachment A, Statement of
Supporting Justification, at 6.
\38\ In Docket No. RM2010-4, filed during the pendency of the
instant proceeding, the Postal Service proposed to change the volume
variability of window service costs for IMTS. This change only
applies to the combined inbound and outbound services and does not
address the development of separate costs for the IMTS-Inbound and
IMTS-Outbound products requested by the Postal Service in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Miscellaneous Issues
UPS states that the Commission should consider the impact of adding
products to the Competitive Product List on the overall contribution of
competitive products to the Postal Service's institutional costs. UPS
Comments at 2. UPS does not oppose the addition of any product to the
Competitive Product List, but urges the impact of adding new
competitive products to the list be evaluated, particularly as regards
their contribution to institutional costs.
The Commission agrees with UPS that the cumulative impact of adding
products to the Competitive Product List must be evaluated. The next
opportunity for that evaluation will be in the 2010 ACD proceedings.
In conclusion, the Commission approves the Postal Service's Request
to add products to the Market Dominant Product List and Competitive
Product List as discussed in this order.\39\ The revisions to the
Market Dominant and Competitive Product Lists are shown below the
signature on this order and are effective upon issuance of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Bracketed text in previous Product Lists, which has been
used to reserve entries for class, product and group descriptions,
is being eliminated to improve readability, foster consistency of
presentation, conform the Lists more closely to long-term
expectations about format, and to reduce costs associated with
publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Postal Service's request to add postal products to the
Market Dominant Product List and Competitive Product List is approved
as set forth in the body of this order.
2. Address Management Services and Customized Postage are added to
the Market Dominant Product List as products under Special Services.
Address List Services is replaced by Address Management Services.
3. Address Management Services shall contain the following
elements: Address Sequencing; Advance Notification and Tracking System;
AEC II (Address Element Correction II) Service; AIS (Address
Information Service) Viewer; Barcode Certification; CRIS (Carrier Route
Information Service); CASS (Coding Accuracy Support System)
Certification; Change-of-Address Information for Election Boards and
Registration Commissions; City State; CDS (Computerized Delivery
Sequence); Correction of Address Lists; Delivery Statistics; Delivery
Type; DMM (Domestic Mail Manual) Labeling Lists; DPV (Domestic Point
Validation) System; DSF2 (Delivery Sequence File-2\nd\ Generation)
Service; eLOT (enhanced Line of Travel) Service; FASTforward MLOCR
(Multi-line Optical Character Reader); Five-Digit ZIP; LACS\Link\
(Locatable Address Conversion Service); Mailpiece Quality Control
Certification; MAC (Manifest Analysis and Certification) Batch System
Certification; MAC Gold System Certification; MAC System Certification;
MASS (Multiline Accuracy Support System) Certification; NCOA\LINK\
(National Change of Address) Service; NCOA\LINK\ (National Change of
Address) Service-ANK\Link\ (Addressee Not Known) Service Option;
Official National Zone Charts; PAGE (Presort Accuracy, Grading, and
Evaluation) System Certification; PAVE (Presort Accuracy, Validation,
and Evaluation) System Certification; RDI (Residential Delivery
Indicator) Service; Z4CHANGE; Z4INFO; ZIP+4 Service; ZIPMove; and ZIP
Code Sortation of Address Lists.
4. The Postal Service shall within 30 days of the date of this
order file appropriate draft product descriptions for the following:
Address Management Services: Advance Notification and Tracking System;
Mailpiece Quality Control Certification; MAC\TM\ Batch System
Certification; MAC\TM\ Gold System Certification; MAC\TM\ System
Certification; PAGE System Certification; PAVE\TM\ System
Certification; and Z4INFO.
5. The Postal Service shall file an appropriate request to add
Stamp Fulfillment Services to the Mail Classification Schedule Market
Dominant Product List within 60 days of the date of this order, as
discussed in the body of this order.
6. Address Enhancement Service is added to the Competitive Product
List. Address Enhancement Service shall contain the following elements:
AEC (Address Element Correction); AMS API (Address Matching System
Application Program Interface); TIGER/ZIP + 4 (topological Integrated
Geographic Encoding and Referencing).
7. Greeting Cards and Stationery and Shipping and Mailing Supplies
are added to the Competitive Product List.
8. International Money Transfer Service is replaced by
International Money Transfer Service-Outbound and International Money
Transfer Service-Inbound as products on the Competitive Product List.
9. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Federal Register.
[[Page 11460]]
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020
Administrative practice and procedure; Postal Service.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory
Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 3020--PRODUCT LISTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 3020 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
0
2. Revise Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020-Mail Classification
Schedule to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020--Mail Classification Schedule
Part A--Market Dominant Products
1000 Market Dominant Product List
First-Class Mail
Single-Piece Letters/Postcards
Bulk Letters/Postcards
Flats
Parcels
Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit)
High Density and Saturation Letters
High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels
Carrier Route
Letters
Flats
Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels
Periodicals
Within County Periodicals
Outside County Periodicals
Package Services
Single-Piece Parcel Post
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU rates)
Bound Printed Matter Flats
Bound Printed Matter Parcels
Media Mail/Library Mail
Special Services
Ancillary Services
International Ancillary Services
Address Management Services
Caller Service
Change-of-Address Credit Card Authentication
Confirm
Customized Postage
International Reply Coupon Service
International Business Reply Mail Service
Money Orders
Post Office Box Service
Negotiated Service Agreements
HSBC North America Holdings Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement
Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement
Bank of America Corporation Negotiated Service Agreement
The Bradford Group Negotiated Service Agreement
Inbound International
Canada Post--United States Postal Service Contractual Bilateral
Agreement for Inbound Market Dominant Services (MC2010-12 and
R2010-2)
Market Dominant Product Descriptions
First-Class Mail
Single-Piece Letters/Postcards
Bulk Letters/Postcards
Flats
Parcels
Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit)
High Density and Saturation Letters
High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels
Carrier Route
Letters
Flats
Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels
Periodicals
Within County Periodicals
Outside County Periodicals
Package Services
Single-Piece Parcel Post
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU rates)
Bound Printed Matter Flats
Bound Printed Matter Parcels
Media Mail/Library Mail
Special Services
Ancillary Services
Address Correction Service
Applications and Mailing Permits
Business Reply Mail
Bulk Parcel Return Service
Certified Mail
Certificate of Mailing
Collect on Delivery
Delivery Confirmation
Insurance
Merchandise Return Service
Parcel Airlift (PAL)
Registered Mail
Return Receipt
Return Receipt for Merchandise
Restricted Delivery
Shipper-Paid Forward
Signature Confirmation
Special Handling
Stamped Envelopes
Stamped Cards
Premium Stamped Stationery
Premium Stamped Cards
International Ancillary Services
International Certificate of Mailing
International Registered Mail
International Return Receipt
International Restricted Delivery
Address List Services
Caller Service
Change-of-Address Credit Card Authentication
Confirm
International Reply Coupon Service
International Business Reply Mail Service
Money Orders
Post Office Box Service
Negotiated Service Agreements
HSBC North America Holdings Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement
Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement
Bank of America Corporation Negotiated Service Agreement
The Bradford Group Negotiated Service Agreement
Part B--Competitive Products
2000 Competitive Product List
Express Mail
Express Mail
Outbound International Expedited Services
Inbound International Expedited Services
Inbound International Expedited Services 1 (CP2008-7)
Inbound International Expedited Services 2 (MC2009-10 and CP2009-
12)
Inbound International Expedited Services 3 (MC2010-13 and CP2010-
12)
Priority Mail
Priority Mail
Outbound Priority Mail International
Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates)
Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post Agreement
Inbound Air Parcel Post (at UPU rates)
Parcel Select
Parcel Return Service
International
International Priority Airlift (IPA)
International Surface Airlift (ISAL)
International Direct Sacks--M--Bags
Global Customized Shipping Services
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates)
Canada Post--United States Postal Service Contractual Bilateral
Agreement for Inbound Competitive Services (MC2010-14 and
CP2010-13--Inbound Surface Parcel post at Non-UPU Rates and
Xpresspost-USA)
International Money Transfer Service--Outbound
International Money Transfer Service--Inbound
International Ancillary Services
Special Services
Address Enhancement Service
Greeting Cards and Stationery
Premium Forwarding Service
Shipping and Mailing Services
Negotiated Service Agreements
Domestic
Express Mail Contract 1 (MC2008-5)
Express Mail Contract 2 (MC2009-3 and CP2009-4)
Express Mail Contract 3 (MC2009-15 and CP2009-21)
Express Mail Contract 4 (MC2009-34 and CP2009-45)
Express Mail Contract 5 (MC2010-5 and CP2010-5)
Express Mail Contract 6 (MC2010--6 and CP2010-6)
Express Mail Contract 7 (MC2010--7 and CP2010-7)
[[Page 11461]]
Express Mail Contract 8 (MC2010--16 and CP2010-16)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2009-6 and CP2009-7)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009-12 and CP2009-
14)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009-13 and CP2009-
17)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009-17 and CP2009-
24)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009-18 and CP2009-
25)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009-31 and CP2009-
42)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009-32 and CP2009-
43)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009-33 and CP2009-
44)
Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 1 (MC2009-11 and
CP2009-13)
Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 2 (MC2009-40 and
CP2009-61)
Parcel Return Service Contract 1 (MC2009-1 and CP2009-2)
Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2008-8 and CP2008-26)
Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009-2 and CP2009-3)
Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009-4 and CP2009-5)
Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009-5 and CP2009-6)
Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009-21 and CP2009-26)
Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-30)
Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-31)
Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-32)
Priority Mail Contract 9 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-33)
Priority Mail Contract 10 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-34)
Priority Mail Contract 11 (MC2009-27 and CP2009-37)
Priority Mail Contract 12 (MC2009-28 and CP2009-38)
Priority Mail Contract 13 (MC2009-29 and CP2009-39)
Priority Mail Contract 14 (MC2009-30 and CP2009-40)
Priority Mail Contract 15 (MC2009-35 and CP2009-54)
Priority Mail Contract 16 (MC2009-36 and CP2009-55)
Priority Mail Contract 17 (MC2009-37 and CP2009-56)
Priority Mail Contract 18 (MC2009-42 and CP2009-63)
Priority Mail Contract 19 (MC2010-1 and CP2010-1)
Priority Mail Contract 20 (MC2010-2 and CP2010-2)
Priority Mail Contract 21 (MC2010-3 and CP2010-3)
Priority Mail Contract 22 (MC2010-4 and CP2010-4)
Priority Mail Contract 23 (MC2010-9 and CP2010-9)
Priority Mail Contract 24 (MC2010-15 and CP2010-15)
Outbound International
Direct Entry Parcels Contracts
Direct Entry Parcels 1 (MC2009-26 and CP2009-36)
Global Direct Contracts (MC2009-9, CP2009-10, and CP2009-11)
Global Direct Contracts 1 (MC2010-17 and CP2010-18)
Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) Contracts
GEPS 1 (CP2008-5, CP2008-11, CP2008-12, CP2008-13, CP2008-
18, CP2008-19, CP2008-20, CP2008-21, CP2008-22, CP2008-23,
and CP2008-24)
Global Expedited Package Services 2 (CP2009-50)
Global Plus Contracts
Global Plus 1 (CP2008-8, CP2008-46 and CP2009-47)
Global Plus 2 (MC2008-7, CP2008-48 and CP2008-49)
Inbound International
Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal
Administrations
Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal
Administrations (MC2008-6, CP2008-14 and MC2008-15)
Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal
Administrations 1 (MC2008-6 and CP2009-62)
International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 1
(MC2009-14 and CP2009-20)
Competitive Product Descriptions
Express Mail
Express Mail
Outbound International Expedited Services
Inbound International Expedited Services
Priority
Priority Mail
Outbound Priority Mail International
Inbound Air Parcel Post
Parcel Select
Parcel Return Service
International
International Priority Airlift (IPA)
International Surface Airlift (ISAL)
International Direct Sacks--M-Bags
Global Customized Shipping Services
International Money Transfer Service
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates)
International Ancillary Services
International Certificate of Mailing
International Registered Mail
International Return Receipt
International Restricted Delivery
International Insurance
Negotiated Service Agreements
Domestic
Outbound International
Part C--Glossary of Terms and Conditions [Reserved]
Part D--Country Price Lists for International Mail [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2010-5212 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-S