Postal Issues: The Department of State's Implementation of Its
International Postal Responsibilities (Letter Report, 01/31/2000,
GAO/GGD-00-40).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed how the Department of
State has implemented its new responsibilities for U.S. policy regarding
U.S. participation in the Universal Postal Union (UPU).

GAO noted that: (1) State faced difficult challenges in assuming its new
UPU-related responsibilities less than a year before the UPU Congress
met in August and September 1999 to update binding agreements governing
international postal service; (2) State's performance in implementing
these new responsibilities was uneven in that GAO found strengths in
some areas and opportunities for improvement in other areas; (3) State
made progress in its first year in providing stakeholders and the
general public with relevant information on UPU matters and giving them
an opportunity to offer input into U.S. policy concerning the UPU; (4)
State coordinated with the United States Postal Service, other federal
agencies, and other nongovernmental stakeholders that were involved in
UPU matters and included some of these stakeholders in the U.S.
delegation to the UPU Congress; (5) stakeholders said that State was
receptive to input and evenhanded in its consideration of views; (6) in
addition, State clearly signaled changes to U.S. policy on issues
related to UPU reform; (7) State officials said that the United States
presented a different view and approach to the UPU with respect to
raising issues of UPU reform that gave impetus to the UPU's decision to
establish a process to consider reform issues; (8) several options exist
for State to develop a more structured and open process for obtaining
stakeholder input including ensuring better and more advance
notification of public meetings and more advance distribution of
materials prior to these meetings; (9) some stakeholders have raised
concerns about the potential burden on State of using a formalized
process to handle UPU-related responsibilities as well as whether such a
process would be beneficial; (10) in this regard, 10 of 19 federal
agencies that accounted for 90 percent of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) committees have reported that FACA requirements are more
useful than burdensome; (11) representatives of federal and nonfederal
organizations in the U.S. delegation to the UPU Congress said that staff
turnover, combined with the limited time available before the UPU
Congress, affected State's ability to fully understand the implications
associated with various complex UPU policy issues; and (12) providing
sufficient institutional continuity and expertise will be essential if
State intends to play a leadership role in handling complex UPU issues
and dealing with domestic and international stakeholders.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-40
     TITLE:  Postal Issues: The Department of State's Implementation of
	     Its International Postal Responsibilities
      DATE:  01/31/2000
   SUBJECT:  International agreements
	     Postal law
	     Mail transportation operations
	     Foreign policies
	     Performance measures
	     Human resources utilization
	     International cooperation
IDENTIFIER:  Universal Postal Union

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2000

GAO/GGD-00-40

POSTAL ISSUES
The Department of State's Implementation of Its

International Postal Responsibilities

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:

[email protected]

or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(240318)

Contents
Page 281GAO/GGD-00-40 State's International Postal Responsibilities
Letter                                                                      1
                                                                             
Appendix I                                                                 30
Comments From the
Department of State
                                                                             
Tables                     Table1: Chronology of UPU-Related                7
                           Events After the Department of State
                           Assumed its Expanded Responsibilities
                           Table 2: Timing of Federal Register             14
                           Notices of Public Meetings on UPU
                           Matters
                                                                             

Abbreviations

ACCA      Air Courier Conference of America
CA        Council of Administration (UPU)
DMA       Direct Marketing Association
FACA      Federal Advisory Committee Act
FedEx     Federal Express Corporation
GSA       General Services Administration
POC       Postal Operations Council (UPU)
PRC       Postal Rate Commission
UPS       United Parcel Service
UPU       Universal Postal Union
USPS      U.S. Postal Service
USTR      U.S. Trade Representative
WTO       World Trade Organization

 B-281875

Page 5GAO/GGD-00-40 State's International Postal R
esponsibilities
B-281875

     January 31, 2000

The Honorable John M. McHugh
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Postal Service
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman
Chairman, Committee on International Relations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Jim Kolbe
Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
 Service, and General Government
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

 This letter responds to your request to review
how the Department of State has implemented its
new responsibilities for U.S. policy regarding
U.S. participation in the Universal Postal Union
(UPU), a specialized agency of the United
Nations that governs international postal
service.  Specifically, we identified key
strengths of State's performance to date and
opportunities for improvement.  The objective of
our review was to assess State's implementation
of its new responsibilities for U.S. policy
formulation, coordination, and oversight
regarding U.S. participation in the UPU.
Legislation enacted on October 21, 1998,
transferred primary responsibility for U.S.
policy concerning the UPU from the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS) to the Department of State.1

Results in Brief
he Department of State faced difficult challenges
in assuming its new UPU-related responsibilities
less than a year before the UPU Congress met in
August and September 1999 to update binding
agreements governing international postal service.2
State's performance in implementing these new
responsibilities was uneven in that we found
strengths in some areas and opportunities for
improvement in other areas.   We are making
recommendations to State that address key areas
where it has opportunities for improvement.

The Department of State made progress in its first
year in providing stakeholders and the general
public with relevant information on UPU matters
and giving them an opportunity to offer input into
U.S. policy concerning the UPU.  State took steps
to consult with interested parties and the general
public.  Further, State coordinated with USPS,
other federal agencies, and other nongovernmental
stakeholders that were involved in UPU matters and
included some of these stakeholders in the U.S.
delegation to the UPU Congress.  Stakeholders said
that State was receptive to input and evenhanded
in its consideration of views.  State also took
steps to increase stakeholder access to UPU
documents and UPU meetings.  In addition, State
clearly signaled changes to U.S. policy on issues
related to UPU reform.  State officials said that
the United States presented a different view and
approach to the UPU with respect to raising issues
of UPU reform that gave impetus to the UPU's
decision to establish a process to consider reform
issues.

We also identified opportunities for improvement
in the Department of State's implementation of its
responsibilities in several key areas.  The lack
of a more structured and open policy development
process and the lack of continuity and expertise
contributed to uneven implementation of State's
UPU-related responsibilities.  In particular:

ï¿½    The Department of State gave 9 to 17 days of
advance notice of the public meetings and
conducted limited outreach shortly in advance of
some meetings to notify interested parties.  In
addition, State did not distribute some materials
discussed at the public meetings in advance, and
distributed two important proposals at the public
meetings after they had been submitted to the UPU.
Further, the first two public meetings were timed
to occur shortly before UPU deadlines for
submitting proposals for consideration by the UPU
Congress.  For these reasons, stakeholders may
have had limited opportunities to provide
meaningful input.

ï¿½    The Department of State did not maintain
minutes that documented the proceedings of public
meetings on UPU matters. The limited public record
of agency or stakeholder positions on U.S. policy
concerning UPU issues may make it difficult for
Congress and other interested parties to fully
understand the basis for U.S. policy positions.
ï¿½    Turnover among involved Department of State
staff in the period leading up to the UPU Congress
made it more difficult for State to develop the
institutional continuity and expertise needed to
fulfill its leadership responsibilities.
     Several options exist for the Department of
State to develop a more structured and open
process for obtaining stakeholder input including
ensuring better and more advance notification of
public meetings and more advance distribution of
materials prior to these meetings.  For example,
one option would be for State to use the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA)3 process to form an
advisory committee that would be governed by
requirements intended to ensure that such
committees are fully balanced in terms of the
points of view represented, that committee
proceedings are as open as possible to the public,
and that Congress is kept informed of committee
activities.  Some stakeholders have raised
concerns about the potential burden on the
Department of State of using a formalized process,
such as FACA, to handle UPU-related
responsibilities, as well as whether such a
process would be beneficial.  In this regard, 10
of 19 federal agencies that accounted for 90
percent of FACA committees have reported that FACA
requirements are more useful than burdensome.

     Staff turnover has also been a significant
challenge for the Department of State in carrying
out its UPU-related responsibilities.
Representatives of federal and nonfederal
organizations in the U.S. delegation to the UPU
Congress said that staff turnover, combined with
the limited time available before the UPU
Congress, affected State's ability to fully
understand the implications associated with
various complex UPU policy issues, as well as to
fully understand how to build support for U.S.
policies in the UPU. In our view, providing
sufficient institutional continuity and expertise
will be essential if State intends to play a
leadership role in handling complex UPU issues and
dealing with domestic and international
stakeholders. We discuss several options available
to State to improve in this area.

Background
     he major changes resulting from the 1998 Act4
that related to the UPU included (1) transferring
primary responsibility for U.S. policy regarding
the UPU from USPS to the Department of State and
(2) requiring the Department of State and USPS to
consult with private providers and users of
international postal services, the general public,
and such federal agencies and other persons that
each considers appropriate in carrying out its
respective international postal responsibilities.
These requirements for consultation are new in
that USPS was not subject to similar requirements
prior to enactment of the law.

Under the new law, the Department of State may,
with the consent of the president, negotiate and
conclude postal treaties, conventions, and
amendments within the framework of UPU agreements
that are binding on the United States and other
UPU member countries.  USPS can also, with the
consent of the president, negotiate and conclude
certain postal treaties and conventions, subject
to the requirements of the new law, which
specifies that USPS actions shall be consistent
with the policies of the Department of State.5
Further, under the new law, USPS continues to have
authority to set international postal rates with
the consent of the President.

     In addition, the new law specified that,
starting in fiscal year 1999, USPS would allocate
to State such sums as may be reasonable,
documented, and auditable for State to carry out
its UPU-related responsibilities under 39 U.S.C.
407.  To fulfill this requirement, the Department
of State and USPS signed an interagency agreement
that specified that USPS would provide $160,000 to
the Department of State as reimbursement for its
UPU-related activities in fiscal year 1999.

     The congressional intent behind the new law
was to ensure that the development of U.S.
policies for UPU-related matters was fair,
evenhanded, and open to all interested parties.  A
"Sense of Congress" resolution included in the
legislation stated that: "It is the sense of
Congress that any treaty, convention, or amendment
entered into under the authority of section 407 of
title 39 of the United States Code, as amended by
this section, should not grant any undue or
unreasonable preference to the Postal Service, a
private provider of postal services, or any other
person."6  In 1998, we reported7 that private
delivery companies had made allegations that USPS
had gained unfair competitive advantages through
its past role as the U.S. representative in the
UPU.  These concerns involved USPS' dual role as
the U.S. negotiator in international agreements
that set the rules for the exchange of
international mail and parcels by national postal
administrations as well as competitor for the
delivery of outbound international items,
including documents and parcels.  Shortly after
enactment of the new law, the Chairman of the
House Subcommittee on the Postal Service called on
the Department of State to develop a U.S. policy
position toward the 1999 UPU Congress that would
".serve the interests of all American participants
in the postal and delivery sector, whether public
or private."8

Scope and Methodology
     To accomplish our objective, we reviewed
applicable laws and the legislative history and
obtained documentation from the Department of
State regarding its activities concerning the UPU.
We also obtained correspondence and documentation
from USPS and other federal agencies and
stakeholders involved in State consultations
regarding U.S. policy on UPU matters.  Further, we
attended public meetings held by State to brief
interested persons on UPU issues and U.S.
participation in the UPU, as well as a 1-day
conference convened by State to discuss UPU issues
and developments in the international postal
sector.  In addition, we interviewed officials
from organizations in the U.S. delegation to the
1999 UPU Congress to obtain their views on the
strengths of State's performance to date and
opportunities for improvement.  Specifically, we
interviewed officials of the Department of State,
USPS, the Department of Commerce, and the Postal
Rate Commission (PRC), who represented their
agencies at meetings on UPU matters, as well as
representatives of the Air Courier Conference of
America (ACCA) and the Direct Marketing
Association (DMA).9  We also interviewed the
officials who represented the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of
Justice at meetings on UPU matters.  We conducted
our review from November 1998 through January 2000
in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

Department of State Progress in Implementing UPU
Responsibilities
The Department of State made progress in
implementing its UPU responsibilities by taking
steps to consult with private providers of
international postal services, postal users, other
federal agencies, and the general public.  In
addition, State clearly signaled changes in U.S.
policy on issues related to UPU reform.  However,
State has the opportunity to improve its
implementation in several respects, as described
in the next section of this report.

The Department of State Consulted and Coordinated
With Interested Parties
     The Department of State took steps to consult
with interested parties and to coordinate with
USPS, other federal agencies, and nongovernmental
stakeholders that were involved in UPU matters
through their inclusion in the U.S. delegation to
the UPU Congress.  Specifically, State held public
meetings where interested parties could offer
input, interagency meetings to discuss U.S. policy
on UPU issues, and meetings and communications
with individual stakeholders that included
coordination meetings with USPS and other
stakeholders in the U.S. delegation to the UPU
Congress.

     The Department of State also took steps to
increase access to UPU documents and to UPU
meetings by making U.S. proposals to the UPU
Congress accessible on a new Internet home page
devoted to UPU matters and by giving access to UPU
documents upon request.   Further, State included
representatives of the Department of Commerce and
PRC and private sector organizations in the U.S.
delegation to the 1999 UPU Congress.  This was
reportedly the first time that representatives of
private-sector organizations had been included in
the U.S. delegation to a UPU Congress.

     These actions represented progress in
providing stakeholders and the public with
relevant information and giving them an
opportunity to offer input.  Several stakeholders
recognized the Department of State's progress in
this area.  For example, USPS officials said that
they considered State's consultations with
stakeholders and the public were handled in an
evenhanded way and gave all participants an
opportunity to become informed and to have their
interests considered.  A Federal Express
Corporation (FedEx) representative said that the
State official who headed the U.S. delegation to
the UPU Congress tried to be fair and open in
obtaining input.  A USTR official said that State
used an evenhanded approach in dealing with the
conflicting interests of USPS and its competitors
on UPU matters.  Further, PRC officials said that
State was open and receptive to all views.

The Department of State Gave Interested Parties an
Opportunity to Offer Input
The Department of State gave interested parties an
opportunity to offer input at three public
meetings and held several interagency meetings to
discuss U.S. policy on UPU matters (see table 1).
State reported that it was "committed to a fair
and open process" and that "as an initial step in
this open, transparent process, State held its
first formal public meeting on U.S. policies in
the UPU" on January 26, 1999.10  State held two
subsequent public meetings on April 15 and July 9,
1999.  Each public meeting was advertised in the
Federal Register and featured briefings on UPU
matters and State's UPU-related actions.
Attendees were given an opportunity to ask
questions and offer input.  State officials said
after the UPU Congress that they were satisfied
with the outcome of their efforts to reach out to
stakeholders, raise and discuss issues, and
develop policies.

Table1: Chronology of UPU-Related Events After the
Department of State Assumed its Expanded
Responsibilities
_______________________________
1 Pub.L. 105-277, Div. A, 101(h) [Title VI,
633(a)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-___.
2 The UPU Congress is composed of delegates
representing all 189 member countries and
generally convenes every 5 years to reevaluate and
revise the UPU Constitution, the Universal Postal
Convention that sets binding rules for
international postal service, and other
agreements.  The 1999 UPU Congress was held from
August 23 to September 15, 1999.
3 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
4 Public Law 105-277, enacted October 21, 1998,
amended 39 U.S.C. 407 to give the Department of
State primary responsibility for the formulation,
coordination, and oversight of policy regarding
U.S. participation in the UPU.
5 USPS' authority to negotiate and conclude postal
treaties and conventions is subject to provisions
that (1) give the Department of State primary
responsibility for the formulation, coordination,
and oversight of policy with respect to U.S.
participation in the UPU, (2) specify that USPS
shall not conclude any postal treaty or convention
or any other arrangement related to the delivery
of international postal services that is
inconsistent with any U.S. policy with respect to
U.S. participation in the UPU, and (3) require
USPS to consult with various parties in carrying
out its responsibilities.
6 Pub.L. 105-277, Div. A, 101(h) [Title VI,
633(b)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-___.
7 U.S. Postal Service: Postal and
Telecommunications Sector Representation in
International Organizations (GAO/GGD-99-6BR, Oct.
29, 1998).
8 November 6, 1998, letter to the Secretary of
State.
9 ACCA is a trade association whose members are
domestic and international air courier and air
express companies operating in the United States.
DMA is a trade association for users and suppliers
in the direct, database, interactive, and online
marketing field, with member organizations from
the United States and foreign nations.  Some DMA
members employ catalogs and other direct mail
pieces in marketing efforts.
10 February 11, 1999, Department of State Statement
to the House Subcommittee on the Postal Service,
Committee on Government Reform.

Appendix I
Comments From the Department of State
Page 33GAO/GGD-00-40 State's International Postal
Responsibilities

*** End of Document ***