[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57989-57995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23788]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. RM2010-11; Order No. 531]


Exceptions from Periodic Reporting Rules

AGENCY:  Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Postal Service has requested semi-permanent exceptions to 
certain recently-adopted service performance measurement reporting 
requirements. This order grants most of the requested exceptions. The 
Commission asks the Postal Service to explore other measurement options 
or use of proxies for reporting purposes for the exceptions not 
granted. This order also addresses the question of the need to request 
an exception or waiver prior to the use of a proxy as a substitute for 
a direct measurement.

DATES: Request for waivers from the Postal Service: October 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 
[email protected] or 202-789-6820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Regulatory History, 75 FR 38757 (July 6, 
2010).

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Statutory Provisions
III. Use of Proxies
IV. Disposition of Individual Requests for Exceptions
V. Ordering Paragraphs

I. Introduction

    The Commission issued an Order Establishing Final Rules Concerning 
Periodic Reporting of Service Performance Measurements and Customer 
Satisfaction (Order No. 465) on May 25, 2010, bringing Docket No. 
RM2009-11 to a conclusion. Within this order, the Commission 
established a two-step process to achieve full compliance with all 
reporting requirements by the filing date of the FY 2011 Annual 
Compliance Report (ACR). See Order No. 465 at 18-24.
    The first step in the process, and the subject matter of the 
instant order, consists of the Postal Service petitioning the 
Commission for semi-permanent exceptions from reporting pursuant to 
rule 3055.3. Id. at 21-22. The second step, and the subject matter of a 
future proceeding, consists of the Postal Service petitioning the 
Commission for temporary waivers of reporting until such time that 
reporting can be provided. The Commission further indicated that the 
Postal Service may seek a temporary waiver of reporting for

[[Page 57990]]

any product, or component of a product, that is denied a semi-permanent 
exception from reporting in the first step of the process. Id. at 22-
24.
    On June 25, 2010, the Postal Service filed a request for semi-
permanent exceptions from periodic reporting of service performance 
measurement for various market dominant postal services, or components 
of postal services, pursuant to Commission Order No. 465 and 39 CFR 
3055.3.\1\ It seeks semi-permanent exceptions for Standard Mail High 
Density, Saturation, and Carrier Route parcels, Inbound International 
Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates), hard-copy Address Correction 
Service, various Special Services, Within County Periodicals, and 
various negotiated service agreements. Id. at 1. The Postal Service 
supplemented its initial comments on July 9, 2010 with material on 
Within County Periodicals reporting.\2\ The Postal Service also filed 
comments in reply to the Public Representative's comments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ United States Postal Service Response to Order No. 465 and 
Request for Semi-Permanent Exceptions from Periodic Reporting of 
Service Performance Measurement, June 25, 2010 (Request).
    \2\ United States Postal Service Notice of Filing Supplemental 
Information, July 9, 2010 (Supplemental Information).
    \3\ United States Postal Service Response to Comments of the 
Public Representative, August 12, 2010 (Postal Service Reply 
Comments). A Motion for Leave to File Response to Comments of the 
Public Representative, August 12, 2010, accompanied the Postal 
Service Reply Comments. This motion is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 29, 2010, the Commission issued Order No. 481, which 
established Docket No. RM2010-11 for consideration of matters related 
to the proposed semi-permanent exceptions identified in the Postal 
Service's Request. It also appointed Emmett Rand Costich to serve as 
Public Representative, and reiterated the July 16, 2010 filing 
deadline, as previously established in Order No. 465, for interested 
persons to comment on the Postal Service's Request.
    Comments were received from the Public Representative on July 16, 
2010.\4\ The comments identify products, or components of products, 
where semi-permanent exceptions might be warranted. The comments also 
identify products, or components of products, where the Public 
Representative believes that the Postal Service fails to justify semi-
permanent exceptions. The Public Representative appropriately indicates 
that ``[i]n some instances, direct measurement of the service 
performance of a product is possible and should be undertaken, while in 
others a proxy can be identified to satisfy service performance 
measurement.'' Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Representative's Comments in Response to Order No. 
481, July 16, 2010 (Public Representative Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission grants 27 of the 31 semi-permanent exceptions 
requested by the Postal Service. The granted semi-permanent exceptions 
are listed in the Appendix following the signature page of this order. 
The Commission denies the following requests for semi-permanent 
exceptions: High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels (parcels only), 
Carrier Route (parcels only), Within County Periodicals, and Inbound 
Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates). For these services, the Commission 
requests that the Postal Service explore other measurement options, or 
the use of appropriate proxies for reporting service performance.
    The Commission previously established a September 10, 2010 deadline 
for the Postal Service to file a request for waivers where it is unable 
to comply with specific reporting requirements. Order No. 465 at 22-23. 
This deadline will be extended until October 1, 2010 to provide the 
Postal Service time to incorporate the findings of this order. A new 
date for comments will be established once the Postal Service files its 
request for waivers.
    This order also separately addresses an issue identified by the 
Postal Service concerning the need to request an exception or waiver 
prior to the use of a proxy as a substitute for direct measurement and 
reporting of that measurement. See section III.

II. Statutory Provisions

    Section 3652(a)(2) of title 39 requires the Postal Service to 
include in an annual report to the Commission an analysis of the 
quality of service ``for each market-dominant product provided in such 
year'' by providing, in part, ``(B) measures of the quality of service 
afforded by the Postal Service in connection with such product, 
including--(i) the level of service (described in terms of speed of 
delivery and reliability) provided....''
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which implement 
this requirement, acknowledge that certain products, or components of 
products, should be excluded from measurement because requiring such 
measurements would be unnecessary, impractical, or would not further 
the goals and objectives of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement 
Act (PAEA). Rule 3055.3 provides the Postal Service the opportunity to 
request that a product, or component of a product, be excluded from 
service performance measurement reporting upon demonstration that:

    (1) The cost of implementing a measurement system would be 
prohibitive in relation to the revenue generated by the product, or 
component of a product;
    (2) The product, or component of a product, defies meaningful 
measurement; or
    (3) The product, or component of a product, is in the form of a 
negotiated service agreement with substantially all components of 
the agreement included in the measurement of other products.

    No product that does not satisfy one of these conditions will be 
granted an exception from reporting. However, a product, or component 
of a product, falling into one or more of these conditions does not 
guarantee that an exception will be granted. There may be instances of 
where reporting of service performance furthers the goals and 
objectives of the PAEA, or adds necessary transparency to a particular 
product, where reporting may be required notwithstanding cost, 
inconvenience, or redundancy.
    Once granted, exceptions are semi-permanent in nature. The Postal 
Service is not required to reapply for exceptions on a regular basis, 
barring changed circumstances. However, the Postal Service is required 
to periodically identify the products, or components of a product, 
granted exceptions and certify that the rationale for originally 
granting the exception remains valid.

    The Postal Service shall identify each product or component of a 
product granted an exception in each report required under subparts 
A or B of this part, and certify that the rationale for originally 
granting the exception remains valid.

Rule 3055.3(b).

III. Use of Proxies

    In discussing its request that Inbound International Surface Parcel 
Post (at UPU Rates) be granted a semi-permanent exception, the Postal 
Service notes what it labels a semantic difference between its request 
and the Public Representative's comments which oppose the request and 
suggest the use of a proxy. The Postal Service interprets Order No. 465 
such that the use of proxies requires an exception or a waiver from the 
requirement of direct measurement and reporting. Postal Service Reply 
Comments at 3.
    The rules promulgated in Order No. 465 indicate that proxies may be 
used if justified. As part of each annual report the Postal Service is 
to provide:

    (e) A description of the measurement system for each product, 
including: ... (5) [w]here proxies are used, a description of and 
justification for the use of each proxy.

Rule 3055.2(e)(5).
    In Order No. 465, the Commission authorized a two-step process for 
the

[[Page 57991]]

Postal Service to achieve full compliance with all service performance 
measurement reporting requirements by the filing date of the FY 2011 
ACR. The first step requires the Postal Service to request semi-
permanent exceptions from reporting as allowed by rule 3055.3. The 
exceptions provision of rule 3055.3 does not apply to the use of 
proxies. If a semi-permanent exception is granted pursuant to rule 
3055.3, no service performance measurement reporting is required. Thus, 
the use of a proxy becomes irrelevant. However, if a suitable proxy 
exists, it should be used and a semi-permanent exception is not 
appropriate.
    The second step requires the Postal Service to seek a temporary 
waiver where it cannot immediately comply with specific reporting 
requirements. The Commission indicated that a request for waiver must 
be for a specified period of time, and must include an implementation 
plan for achieving compliance with the specific reporting requirement. 
Generally, the Postal Service has indicated it cannot comply with 
reporting requirements where direct measurement systems currently are 
not available. The Commission notes that there are instances where the 
use of a proxy may provide some indication of service performance 
pending development of more direct measurement systems. Therefore, 
wherever the Postal Service believes that the use of a proxy is 
appropriate and its use can be justified, the Postal Service should 
request a waiver for the use of the proxy until the direct measurement 
system becomes operational.

IV. Disposition of Individual Requests for Exceptions

    A. Standard Mail
    The Postal Service seeks semi-permanent exceptions from service 
performance reporting for the following components of products within 
the Standard Mail class: High Density and Saturation Flats[sol]Parcels 
(parcels only) and Carrier Route (parcels only). The Postal Service 
argues that the data systems do not distinguish parcel items from other 
Standard Mail measurement categories, nor is there a reliable start-
the-clock method for parcels. Furthermore, the volume for the parcel 
components is very small (about 0.1 percent of the volume of regular 
and nonprofit Parcels[sol]Non-Flat Machinables). Based on the above, 
the Postal Service contends it would be cost prohibitive to develop a 
reporting system for these parcels. Request at 4-6.
    The Public Representative asks that a waiver not be granted for the 
parcels components of the High Density and Saturation Flats[sol]Parcels 
and Carrier Route products. The Public Representative notes that the 
Postal Service has not explained why data for parcels with Delivery 
Confirmation cannot be used, or why a proxy cannot be used, to measure 
the service performance of Standard Mail parcels.\5\ The Public 
Representative also notes that the Postal Service believes that the 
parcels customer base is expected to adopt the Intelligent Mail barcode 
in the near future. This may provide an Intelligent Mail barcode 
solution to the measurement problem. Public Representative Comments at 
4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Delivery Confirmation-based system originally was proposed 
by the Postal Service. See Service Performance Measurement, November 
2007, at 39; see also United States Postal Service Comments in 
Response to Order No. 292, November 2, 2009, at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that providing an exception from reporting for 
High Density and Saturation Flats[sol]Parcels (parcels only) and 
Carrier Route (parcels only) has not been justified. The Postal Service 
has not explained why the originally proposed Delivery Confirmation-
based system is no longer feasible, nor has it explained why it would 
be inappropriate to use another parcels item as a suitable proxy to 
measure the service performance of these Standard Mail parcels. The 
request for a semi-permanent exception for the specified Standard Mail 
parcels is denied.
    B. Periodicals
    The Commission's rules require separate service performance 
reporting for the Within County Periodicals product and the Outside 
County Periodicals product. The Postal Service informs the Commission 
of its intent to seek a temporary waiver from reporting the two 
products separately, as well as for Outside County Periodicals 
individually. It notes that upon expiration of the temporary waiver, it 
still does not expect to be able to report data for Within County 
Periodicals. Therefore, it is seeking a semi-permanent exception from 
reporting performance of Within County Periodicals at this time. 
Request at 7-10.
    The Postal Service cites two problems with being able to report 
service performance for Within County Periodicals. First, some forms of 
electronic mail documentation do not require the mailer to identify 
whether an individual mailpiece is a Within County Periodicals 
mailpiece or an Outside County Periodicals mailpiece. Thus, the 
mailpiece cannot be distinguished for individual reporting purposes. 
Second, there might not be sufficient data (volume) for reporting 
Within County Periodicals and Outside County Periodicals 
individually.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As an added complication, the Postal Service notes that most 
Within County Periodicals receive manual processing. Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Postal Service filed supplemental information regarding the 
difficulties in establishing a service performance measurement for 
Within County Periodicals. See Supplemental Information. The Postal 
Service explains that it contracted a special study to develop a 
baseline service performance estimate for community newspaper 
performance (a significant segment of Within County Periodicals).
    Among other things, the study reports that:
     The Community Newspapers national result of 72.48 percent 
was comparable to the Periodicals result of 75.44 percent for the same 
period.
     It is not practical to conduct ongoing measurement.
     It would be difficult for the newspaper mailers to 
participate based on our experience with the baseline study; and
     Ongoing costs for subscriptions and conducting the study 
may outweigh value.
     Results are similar enough that Periodicals could be 
considered as a proxy for Community Newspapers Mail.
     Consider conducting another study in a few years to verify 
that results are still similar.
Supplemental Information, Attachment, slide 24. From the undertaking of 
the study, the Postal Service concludes that it is not feasible to 
establish a measurement system for Within County Periodicals and 
implementing a measurement system cannot be accomplished without undue 
burden imposed on relevant mailers.
    Therefore, the Postal Service contends that Within County 
Periodicals is a product that ``defies meaningful measurement'' within 
the intent of the 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2), or that ``cost of implementing a 
measurement system would be prohibitive in relation to the revenue 
generated by the product....'' 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(1). The Postal Service 
concludes by suggesting that Periodicals' performance as a class may be 
considered an appropriate proxy for Within County Periodicals. Request 
at 10.
    The Commission finds that Within County Periodicals does not fall 
within the exception for a product that defies meaningful measurement. 
39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Mailpiece seeding or other

[[Page 57992]]

methodologies could be developed and successfully implemented to 
measure service performance. The costs and practicality of alternative 
approaches still may remain an issue.
    A semi-permanent exception based on the prohibitive costs of 
implementing a measurement system, 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(1), might have been 
appropriate if no measurement and reporting options were available. 
However, the Postal Service has presented sufficient information for 
the Commission to conclude that solutions may exist for Within County 
Periodicals. The Commission suggests that the Postal Service look into 
the feasibility of using all Periodicals as a proxy for reporting 
Within County Periodicals (as indicated by the Postal Service), along 
with a special study every 5 years (such as presented in Supplemental 
Information) to examine the veracity of the proxy. In the future, as 
the Intelligent Mail barcode develops and is put to new uses, the 
Postal Service may wish to examine the potential of developing a more 
appropriate direct measurement system. The request for a semi-permanent 
exception for Within County Periodicals is denied.
    C. Parcel Post
    The Postal Service explains that no measurement system exists for 
Inbound International Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates). It estimates 
the cost for developing a measurement system to be approximately $3 
million for a product with gross revenues of $12.88 million in FY 2009. 
The Postal Service instead suggests using domestic Parcel Post as a 
proxy for Inbound International Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates). Id. 
at 6-7.
    The Public Representative supports the use of domestic Parcel Post 
as a proxy for Inbound International Surface Parcel Post (at UPU 
Rates), and asks that the request for semi-permanent exception be 
denied. The Public Representative further argues that use of the proxy 
should be supplemented with information from the UNEX system (an RFID-
based system). The supplemental data could be used to analyze time in 
customs. Public Representative Comments at 5-7.
    The Postal Service does not believe it would be appropriate to use 
UNEX data to supplement the use of the proxy. First, it argues that 
UNEX measures performance of letters and flats, not Parcel Post items. 
Second, time in customs is not relevant to Postal Service performance 
because the Postal Service does not have control over this time. Third, 
UNEX does not include time in customs in its calculations of Postal 
Service performance. Postal Service Reply Comments at 2-4.
    Because of the availability of what appears to be a reasonable 
proxy, one that presumably the Postal Service can more fully explain 
and justify, the Commission denies the request for semi-permanent 
exception. The use of domestic Parcel Post as a proxy will 
significantly reduce the costs associated with directly measuring and 
reporting the service performance of Surface Parcel Post (at UPU 
Rates). The Postal Service is further encouraged to use supplemental 
data to explore the veracity of any and all proxies it uses, and 
periodically report this information to the Commission. This could 
include, in this instance, an independent mail seeding study, or use of 
applicable data from the UNEX system, or other independent analysis 
that the Postal Service may deem appropriate.
    D. Special Services
    1. Address Correction Service (Hard-Copy)
    The Postal Service explains that Address Correction Service (ACS) 
involves the transmission of corrected address information to a sender 
that subscribes to the service, when the recipient has provided a 
forwarding address to the Postal Service. The Postal Service requests 
an exception from reporting only for the hard-copy version of this 
service. The Postal Service states that forwarding information is 
accumulated into batches, data transmission times vary, and specific 
arrangements are made with individual subscribers. Furthermore, it 
contends that implementation of a measurement system would be 
unwarranted for a product that only produced approximately $22 million 
in revenue in FY 2009. The Postal Service projects that revenue from 
this service is likely to decrease given that it is encouraging 
subscribers to move to the electronic version of the service. Request 
at 12-14.
    The Public Representative comments that given the cost of measuring 
service performance of Address Correction Service (hard-copy), and the 
stated intent of the Postal Service to switch customers to electronic 
or automated ACS, a semi-permanent exception should be granted. Public 
Representative Comments at 12.
    The Commission finds that Address Correction Service (hard-copy) is 
a product that ``defies meaningful measurement'' within the intent of 
the 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) given that service standards may be tailored to 
individual customers. It also is a product where the ``cost of 
implementing a measurement system would be prohibitive in relation to 
the revenue generated by the product,'' 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(1), given the 
historical revenue generated and the Postal Service's intent to migrate 
customers to the electronic version of the service. The reporting of 
service performance measurement shall not be required for Address 
Correction Service (hard-copy only).
    2. Alternate Postage Payment Services
    The Postal Service explains that Business Reply Mail, International 
Business Reply Mail, Merchandise Return Service, Bulk Parcel Return, 
and Shipper Paid Forwarding share the common attribute of allowing 
customers to establish accounts to pay postage without requiring the 
actual sender to affix postage. The Postal Service states that the host 
mailpiece utilizing any of the above services has the same delivery 
service standard as the applicable host mail product. In the majority 
of cases, ``weighing and rating'' is done seamlessly during automated 
processing, which results in no additional processing time. In a 
minority of cases, where ``weighing and rating'' is done manually, 
manual processing could result in an additional day of delay. 
Accordingly, the Postal Service contends that it is unable to justify 
establishing service standards for these special services independent 
of the host mailpiece, and that these services defy meaningful 
measurement. Request at 14; see also Postal Service Reply Comments at 
7-8.
    The Public Representative contends that Business Reply Mail does 
not have the same service performance as the underlying host product 
because of the weighing and rating processing that must occur with this 
service. Consequently, the Public Representative urges the Commission 
to deny a semi-permanent exception for this service. Public 
Representative Comments at 7-8.
    The Commission understands that manually processed Business Reply 
Mail (and similarly International Business Reply Mail) does not always 
receive the same delivery service as the underlying First-Class Mail or 
Priority Mail piece. The Commission listened to many comments from 
Business Reply Mail users during MTAC meetings related to service 
standards who expressed concern over the time it took from when mail 
was delivered to the receiving mail facility, to when the mail was 
actually delivered to the recipient. The time between these two events 
allegedly is due to weighing and rating activities, which lends itself 
to the development of a standard and the measurement of performance. 
However, no affected mail user offered comments in this docket to 
indicate that their concerns remain valid.

[[Page 57993]]

    Hence, based on the Postal Service's representation that the 
majority of weighing and rating functions now are performed seamlessly, 
the Commission concludes that the Business Reply Mail services more 
aptly may be considered merely accounting services that defy meaningful 
measurement. 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). The Commission grants the Postal 
Service request for a semi-permanent reporting exception for Business 
Reply Mail and International Business Reply Mail until such time that a 
problem with service performance is identified that warrants 
monitoring.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If it becomes necessary, development of a proxy for 
reporting International Business Reply Mail may be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the remaining services, Merchandise Return Service, Bulk Parcel 
Return, and Shipper Paid Forwarding, the Commission finds that the 
services are basically accounting services. In the cases of Merchandise 
Return Service and Bulk Parcel Return, the services are somewhat 
customizable to the individual recipient, and in the case of Shipper 
Paid Forwarding, the Postal Service has no control over when a 
mailpiece will be forwarded. The Commission finds that these services 
``def[y] meaningful measurement'' within the intent of the 39 CFR 
3055.3(a)(2) exception. The reporting of service performance 
measurement shall not be required for Merchandise Return Service, Bulk 
Parcel Return, and Shipper Paid Forwarding, each of which is a 
component of Ancillary Services.
    3. Caller Service
    The Postal Service explains that Caller Service provides a means 
for typically higher volume mail recipients to receive mail at a postal 
retail window or loading dock. The mail that is received is subject to 
the standards for each class. Pickup times are individually arranged 
between the delivery office and the mail recipient. The Postal Service 
contends that this service is not susceptible to any meaningful 
measurement because of the nature of the service itself. Request at 15-
16.
    The Public Representative comments that Caller Service is a 
flexible arrangement between the delivery office and the recipient 
service which defies meaningful measurement within the meaning of 39 
CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative Comments at 11.
    The Commission finds that because Caller Service is customized to 
individual mail recipients, it is a product that ``defies meaningful 
measurement'' within the intent of the 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) exception. 
The reporting of service performance measurement shall not be required 
for this product.
    4. Change of Address Credit Card Authentication
    The Postal Service explains that Change of Address Credit Card 
Authentication provides a means of verifying a customer's identity by 
reference to a credit card number. The customer is paying for the 
identification and not the subsequent processing of the change of 
address. The transaction is complete upon authorization and the 
debiting of the fee. The Postal Service contends that it is not 
feasible to establish a standard for the timely completion of the 
authorization. Request at 16.
    The Public Representative concurs that Change of Address Credit 
Card Authentication is a transaction-based service which defies 
meaningful measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). 
Public Representative Comments at 11.
    The Commission finds that this service defies meaningful 
measurement and falls within the parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for 
an exception from performance measurement reporting. Change of Address 
Credit Card Authentication is a transaction-based service which 
involves an identity verification and the collection of a fee. The 
request for a semi-permanent exception from reporting is granted.
    5. Certificate of Mailing and International Certificate of Mailing
    The Postal Service explains that Certificate of Mailing and 
International Certificate of Mailing are part of the acceptance of a 
mailpiece which includes the purchase of a certificate. The services 
are complete upon purchase and provision of the certificate. The Postal 
Service argues that it sees no means or need for a standard to measure 
the timely completion of these services. Request at 16-17.
    The Public Representative comments that Certificate of Mailing and 
International Certificate of Mailing are transaction-based services 
which defy meaningful measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 
3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative Comments at 11.
    The Commission finds that these services defy meaningful 
measurement and fall within the parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for 
an exception from performance measurement reporting. Certificate of 
Mailing and International Certificate of Mailing each only involve a 
window transaction. The request for a semi-permanent exception from 
reporting is granted.
    6. Money Orders
    The Postal Service explains that once a Money Order is purchased, 
there is nothing further for the Postal Service to do. Thus, it argues 
that it is difficult to conceive of a practical way to measure Money 
Order performance. However, the Postal Service states that it has 
established standards and will report the performance of Money Order 
``inquiries'' as part of the Special Service reporting. Request at 17.
    The Public Representative comments that the purchase of Money 
Orders is a transaction-based service which defies meaningful 
measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 
Representative Comments at 11.
    The Commission finds that the sales aspect of this service defies 
meaningful measurement and falls within the parameters of 39 CFR 
3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance measurement reporting. 
The sale of Money Orders only involves a window transaction. The 
request for a semi-nt exception from reporting is granted. The 
Commission expects the Postal Service to continue to measure and report 
the service inquiry aspect of Money Orders.
    7. Parcel Airlift and Special Handling
    Parcel Airlift provides air transportation of Standard Mail parcels 
on a space available basis to or from military post offices outside the 
contiguous 48 United States. Special Handling provides preferential 
handling to the extent practicable in dispatch and transportation of 
First-ail and Package Services. The Postal Service explains that each 
product is purchased subject to the understanding that the requested 
service is subject to availability, i.e., it cannot be known whether 
the processing or transportation upgrade can be accommodated. Thus, 
service standards or service performance measurement is unwarranted. 
Request at 17-18.
    The Public Representative comments that Parcel Airlift and Special 
Handling are provided on a space available or to the extent practical 
basis which defies meaningful measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 
3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative Comments at 11-12.
    Because Parcel Airlift and Special Handling are provided on a space 
available or to the extent practical basis, the Commission finds these 
services defy meaningful measurement and fall within the parameters of 
39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance measurement 
reporting. The request for a semi-nt exception from reporting is 
granted.
    8. Restricted Delivery and International Restricted Delivery
    The Postal Service explains that Restricted Delivery and 
International

[[Page 57994]]

Restricted Delivery are services that permit the sender to direct that 
a mailpiece be delivered to a particular person (or person's agent) at 
a delivery address. The Postal Service states that the delivery choice 
is either the mailpiece is delivered to the named addressee, or the 
mailpiece is delivered to someone else. It contends that it is not 
feasible to develop a standard for measurement (without tracking the 
identity of all of the mail recipients). It further contends that the 
international version of the service has the additional complications 
of acceptance of the request (inbound) or fulfillment of the service 
(outbound) not being entirely within the Postal Service's control. 
Request at 18-19, see also Postal Service Reply Comments at 9-10.
    The Public Representative contends that reporting may be based on 
whether or not the mailpieces were delivered to the correct recipient. 
Thus, the Public Representative contends that a semi-nt exception from 
reporting should not be granted. Public Representative Comments at 9-
10.
    The Commission agrees with the Postal Service that it may be 
impractical to develop a measurement system for either the domestic or 
the international versions of Restricted Delivery. The Postal Service 
would in effect be obliged to design a measurement system to measure 
whether a mailpiece was or was not delivered to a correct person. The 
Commission finds that International Restricted Delivery has the added 
difficulty of being partly dependent upon foreign postal operators, 
which in itself makes it difficult to design a meaningful performance 
measurement and reporting system. For the above reasons, Restricted 
Delivery and International Restricted Delivery fall within the 
parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance 
measurement reporting. The request for a semi-nt exception from 
reporting is granted.
    9. Stamped Envelopes, Cards, and Stationery
    The Postal Service contends that Stamped Envelopes, Cards, and 
Stationery are incompatible with meaningful service performance 
measurements. Request at 19.
    The Public Representative comments that Stamped Envelopes, Cards, 
and Stationery are transaction services which defy meaningful 
measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 
Representative Comments at 11.
    Stamped Envelopes, Cards, and Stationery only involve a window 
transaction. Thus, the Commission finds that these components of 
Special Services defy meaningful measurement and fall within the 
parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance 
measurement reporting. The request for a semi-permanent exception from 
reporting is granted.
    10. Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee
    The Postal Service explains that Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee 
involves the collection of a fee from the recipient of each inbound 
package on which customs duty or Internal Revenue Service tax is 
assessed. Request at 19-20. This is done at the direction of Customs 
and Border Protection and the Internal Revenue Service. The Postal 
Service contends that there is no customer interaction that warrants 
performance measurement.
    The Public Representative comments that Customs Clearance and 
Delivery Fee is a transaction-based service which defies meaningful 
measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 
Representative Comments at 11.
    Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee is a transaction-based service 
which involves the collection of a fee. The Commission finds that this 
service defies meaningful measurement and fall within the parameters of 
39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance measurement 
reporting. The request for a semi-permanent exception from reporting is 
granted.
    11. International Insurance with Inbound International Surface 
Parcel Post
    The Postal Service explains that International Insurance is 
available with Inbound International Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates) 
tendered by foreign postal operators. The Universal Postal Union 
establishes time limits for inquiry and claims processing. The Postal 
Service contends that there is a relatively small number of insured 
mailpieces given the small volume of International Surface Parcel Post 
(at UPU Rates). For insurance inquiries filed with foreign posts, the 
Postal Service does not have control of the claims processing and 
information exchange response times of those foreign posts. For 
insurance claims filed with the Postal Service (only applicable to 
parcels where the foreign sender has waived the right of recovery), the 
Postal Service does not consider it feasible or practicable to 
establish an independent service standard. Request at 20-22, see also 
Postal Service Reply Comments at 4-7.
    The Public Representative argues that an exception should not be 
granted. He contends that the processing times for claims submitted by 
United States recipients, or processing times for requests submitted by 
foreign posts, could be reported. Public Representative Comments at 8-
9.
    Given the small volume of insured Inbound International Surface 
Parcel Post (at UPU Rates), and the even smaller volume that might have 
claims filed by United States recipients, the Commission finds it 
impracticable to require the Postal Service to report service 
performance for the International Insurance component of the 
International Ancillary Services product. See 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). The 
request for a semi--permanent exception from reporting is granted.
    12. Outbound International Registered Mail
    The Postal Service explains that Outbound International Registered 
Mail provides added security for a mailpiece from acceptance to 
delivery, and indemnity in case of loss or damage. Request at 22. The 
Postal Service asserts that the service does not affect the in-transit 
service standard of the host mailpiece. Because final delivery scan 
information depends upon the foreign postal operator responsible for 
delivery, and not the Postal Service, the Postal Service contends that 
it is infeasible to require performance measurements comparable to that 
for the domestic Registered Mail or Inbound International Registered 
Mail.
    The Public Representative concurs that Outbound International 
Registered Mail is dependent upon foreign postal operators and thus, 
defies meaningful measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 
3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative Comments at 12.
    The Commission finds that Outbound International Registered Mail is 
partly dependent upon foreign postal operators, which makes it 
difficult to design a meaningful performance measurement and reporting 
system. Because of this, it falls within the parameters of 39 CFR 
3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance measurement reporting. 
The request for a semi-permanent exception from reporting is granted.
    13. International Return Receipts
    The Postal Service explains that all International Return Receipts 
(inbound and outbound) are provided in hard-copy form. Request at 22-
24. It notes that the physical return cards have the same delivery 
service standards as Single-Piece First-Class Mail International, which 
could be used as a proxy for this portion of the service. However, 
because part of the International Return Receipts service is provided 
by foreign postal operators, it is difficult to design a meaningful 
system to measure the pertinent features

[[Page 57995]]

of International Return Receipts similar to what is being proposed for 
domestic Return Receipts.
    The Public Representative concurs that International Return 
Receipts (inbound and outbound) is dependent upon foreign postal 
operators and thus, defies meaningful measurement within the meaning of 
39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative Comments at 12.
    The Commission finds that International Return Receipts (inbound 
and outbound) is partly dependent upon foreign postal operators, which 
makes it difficult to design a meaningful performance measurement and 
reporting system. Because of this, it falls within the parameters of 39 
CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance measurement 
reporting. The request for a semi-permanent exception from reporting is 
granted.
    14. International Reply Coupons
    The Postal Service explains that International Reply Coupon 
(inbound and outbound) service allows a sender to prepay a reply 
mailpiece by purchasing reply coupons that are exchangeable for local 
postage stamps by postal administrators in member countries of the 
Universal Postal Union. Request at 24-25. It contends that because the 
transaction is complete at the time of purchase, and because no 
additional service is required, it is difficult to conceive of a 
meaningful system to define or measure service performance for this 
product. Id. at 24.
    The Public Representative concurs that International Reply Coupons 
(outbound and inbound) is a transaction-based service which defies 
meaningful measurement within the meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). 
Public Representative Comments at 11.
    The Commission finds that International Reply Coupon (inbound and 
outbound) service is a transaction-based service which falls within the 
parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from performance 
measurement reporting. The request for a semi-permanent exception from 
reporting is granted.
    E. Market Dominant Negotiated Service Agreements
    Three market dominant negotiated service agreement products are 
currently active:
     The Bradford Group Negotiated Service Agreement;
     Life Line Screening Negotiated Service Agreement; and
     Canada Post-United States Postal Service Contractual 
Bilateral Agreement for Inbound Market Dominant Services.
    The Postal Service asserts that the mail tendered under each 
negotiated service agreement already is included in the measurement of 
other products: Standard Mail Letters for The Bradford Group; Standard 
Mail Letters and Flats for Life Line Screening; and Inbound Single-
Piece First-Class Mail International for Canada Post. It requests that 
all three agreements be excluded from reporting based upon the 
parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(3), ``[t]he product, or component of a 
product, is in the form of a negotiated service agreement with 
substantially all components of the agreement included in the 
measurement of other products.'' Request at 25.
    The Public Representative concurs that the semi-permanent 
exceptions for the three negotiated service agreements are justified 
under 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(3). Public Representative Comments at 10-11.
    The Commission finds that the listed negotiated service agreements 
fall within the parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(3) for exceptions from 
performance measurement reporting. The requests for semi-permanent 
exceptions from reporting are granted.

V. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:
    1. The Postal Service products, or components of products, listed 
following the signature page of this order are granted an exception 
from annual and periodic reporting of service performance achievements 
under 39 CFR part 3055, subparts A and B, pursuant to 39 CFR 3055.3. 
All other requests for exceptions are hereby denied.
    2. The deadline for the Postal Service to file a request for 
waivers, originally established in Order No. 465, shall be extended 
until October 1, 2010.
    3. The Motion for Leave to File Response to Comments of the Public 
Representative, filed August 12, 2010, is granted.
    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the 
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.

Appendix

The following products, or components of products, are granted an 
exception from annual and periodic reporting of service performance 
achievements under 39 CFR part 3055, subparts A and B, pursuant to 39 
CFR 3055.3.

Special Services (the following listed products only)
Ancillary Services (the following listed components of the product
 only):
  Address Correction Service (hard-copy)
  Business Reply Mail
  Bulk Parcel Return
  Certificate of Mailing
  Merchandise Return
  Parcel Airlift (PAL)
  Restricted Delivery
  Shipper Paid Forwarding
  Special Handling
  Stamped Envelopes
  Stamped Cards
  Premium Stamped Stationary
  Premium Stamped Cards
International Ancillary Services (the following listed components of the
 product only)
  Internatonal Certificate of Mailing
  International Registered Mail (outbound only)
  International Return Receipt
  International Restricted Delivery
  International Insurance (with Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU
   Rates))
  Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee
Caller Service
Change of Address Credit Card Authentication
International Reply Coupon Service
International Business Reply Mail Service
Money Orders (sales aspect of this service only)
Negotiated Service Agreements (the following listed products only):
  The Bradford Group Negotiated Service Agreement
  Life Line Screening Negotiated Service Agreement
  Canada Post-United States Postal Service Contractual Bilateral
   Agreement for Inbound Market Dominant Services
 

[FR Doc. 2010-23788 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-S