POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

Annual Compliance 

Determination Report

Fiscal Year 2015

March 28, 2016

Postal Regulatory Commission

Submitted 3/28/2016 2:08:45 PM

Filing ID: 95462

Accepted 3/28/2016
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................1

A. Principal Findings: Market Dominant Rate and Fee Compliance ..........................1

B. Principal Findings: Market Dominant Noncompensatory Products ....................2

C. Principal Findings: Competitive Products Rate and Fee Compliance..................2

D. Principal Findings: Service Performance and Customer Access............................3

E. Principal Findings: Flats Cost and Service Issues ........................................................4

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................5

A. Statutory Context......................................................................................................................5

B. Timeline and Review of Report...........................................................................................6

C. Focus of the ACR .......................................................................................................................6

D. Other Reports.............................................................................................................................6

E. Commission Responsibilities...............................................................................................6

F. Procedural History...................................................................................................................7

G. Methodology Changes.............................................................................................................7

H. Product Analysis .......................................................................................................................8

I. Service Performance ...............................................................................................................8

J. Confidentiality ...........................................................................................................................8

K. Requests for Additional Information................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2: MARKET DOMINANT PRODUCTS: PRICING REQUIREMENTS .................................9

A. Introduction................................................................................................................................9

B. The Class-Level Price Cap......................................................................................................9

C. Workshare Discounts..............................................................................................................9

1. First-Class Mail......................................................................................................... 11

2. Periodicals.................................................................................................................. 15

3. Standard Mail............................................................................................................ 24

4. Package Services...................................................................................................... 35

D. Preferred Rate Requirements........................................................................................... 41

Chapter 3: MARKET DOMINANT PRODUCTS: OTHER RATE AND FEE COMPLIANCE

 ISSUES.............................................................................................................................................. 42

A. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 42

B. Noncompensatory Products.............................................................................................. 42

1. Periodicals.................................................................................................................. 42

2. Standard Mail Flats................................................................................................. 51

3. Standard Mail Parcels............................................................................................ 65

4. Media Mail/Library Mail ...................................................................................... 67
- ii -

5. Stamp Fulfillment Services.................................................................................. 68

6. Inbound Letter Post ............................................................................................... 69

C. Domestic Market Dominant NSAs................................................................................... 73

1. PHI NSA....................................................................................................................... 74

2. Valassis NSA.............................................................................................................. 75

D. Nonpostal Services................................................................................................................ 75

E. Other Issues ............................................................................................................................. 75

1. Metered Letter Prices ............................................................................................ 75

2. First-Class Mail Product Cost Coverage Disparity...................................... 76

3. Discount for Automation 5-Digit Letters ....................................................... 76

4. Commercial and Nonprofit Products............................................................... 77

Chapter 4: COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS ....................................................................................................... 78

A. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 78

B. Cross-Subsidy Provision: 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1)...................................................... 78

C. Product Cost Coverage Provision: 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2)..................................... 79

1. Competitive Domestic Products with Rates of General Applicability. 80

2. Competitive Domestic Products Consisting of Negotiated Service 

Agreements................................................................................................................ 80

3. Competitive International Products with Rates of General 

Applicability .............................................................................................................. 84

4. Competitive International Products Consisting of Negotiated Service 

Agreements................................................................................................................ 87

5. Competitive Nonpostal Services........................................................................ 92

D. Appropriate Contribution Provision: 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3)............................... 92

E. Other Issues Raised by Commenters ............................................................................. 93

CHAPTER 5: SERVICE PERFORMANCE ..................................................................................................... 94

A. Service Performance Results by Class........................................................................... 94

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 94

2. Measurement Systems .......................................................................................... 95

3. Analysis of 2014 Directives and Action Plan (Flats)...............................102

4. FY 2015 Service Performance Results by Class.........................................131

5. Other Issues.............................................................................................................145

B. Customer Access ..................................................................................................................147

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................147

2. Retail Facilities.......................................................................................................147

3. POStPlan ...................................................................................................................148

4. Suspensions.............................................................................................................149

5. Delivery Points.......................................................................................................150
- iii -

6. Collection Boxes.....................................................................................................151

7. Wait Time in Line..................................................................................................151

8. Alternative Access.................................................................................................153

C. Customer Satisfaction with Market Dominant Products .....................................154

1. Background .............................................................................................................154

2. Comments ................................................................................................................155

3. Commission Analysis...........................................................................................156

CHAPTER 6: FLATS COST AND SERVICE ISSUES.................................................................................160

A. Background............................................................................................................................160

1. Flats Financial Performance .............................................................................160

2. Flats Service Performance.................................................................................162

3. Data Systems...........................................................................................................163

B. Current Flats Environment: Factors Contributing to Cost and Service 

Issues........................................................................................................................................165

1. Bundle Sorting Operations/Bundle Breakage ...........................................166

2. Low Productivity on Automated Equipment..............................................167

3. Manual Processing................................................................................................171

4. Allied Operations Cost and Service Issue.....................................................173

5. Transportation.......................................................................................................176

6. Last Mile/Delivery ................................................................................................177

C. Commission Directive........................................................................................................180

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................180

2. Postal Service Report...........................................................................................181

3. Conclusion................................................................................................................182

Appendix A—Special Study of Delivery Performance in Remote Locations

Appendix B—Key Commission Findings and Directives Requiring Postal Service Action for 

Annual Compliance Reports

Appendix C—Commenters 2015 Annual Compliance Determination

Appendix D—Acronyms and Abbreviations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reviews the Postal Service’s performance in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, fulfilling the 

Commission’s responsibility to produce an annual assessment of Postal Service rates and 

service mandated by Title 39, section 3653, of the United States Code. It is based on 

information the Postal Service is required to provide within 90 days after the close of the 

fiscal year and on comments subsequently received from the public. Specific Commission 

findings and directives are identified in italics in each chapter.

Consistent with the approach adopted last year, the Annual Compliance Determination

focuses on compliance issues as defined in 39 U.S.C. §§ 3653(b)(1) and (b)(2). These 

statutory subsections require the Commission to make determinations on whether any 

rates and fees in effect during FY 2015 were not in compliance with chapter 36 of Title 

39 of the United States Code and whether any service standards in effect during FY 2015 

were not met. The Commission’s review in this year’s ACD is based on the rates approved 

in Docket No. R2015-4 combined with the exigent surcharge approved in Docket 

No. R2013-11 for Market Dominant products, and all the rates in effect during FY 2015 for 

Competitive Products.

The financial analysis that had been incorporated in past ACDs is expanded in the Financial 

Analysis of United States Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement 2015. The 

Commission will also issue a separate report on the Postal Service’s FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2016 Performance Plan to fulfill its statutory responsibilities 

under 39 U.S.C. § 3653(c).

A. Principal Findings: Market Dominant Rate 

and Fee Compliance

In Chapter 2, the Commission identifies compliance issues related to 53 workshare 

discounts, finding that 24 of the discounts did not comply with section 3622(e). Workshare 

discounts that exceed avoided costs adversely affect Postal Service finances because they

incent mailers to perform worksharing that the Postal Service could have done on a less 

costly basis.

 For four of the 24 workshare discounts that were not in compliance with section 

3622(e), the removal of the exigent surcharge in Docket No. R2013-11R aligns the 

discounts with avoided costs; therefore no further action is required.

 For the 20 workshare discounts remaining out of compliance with section 3622(e), 

the Postal Service must either align workshare discounts with avoided costs in the 

next Market Dominant price adjustment or specify an applicable statutory

exception.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 2 -

Additionally, for the Periodicals class, the Commission finds that the Postal Service failed to 

meaningfully address the FY 2014 ACD directives to report on the cost and contribution 

impact of worksharing incentives offered for 5-Digit and Carrier Route presortation and

progress in improving pricing efficiency. The Commission therefore directs the Postal 

Service within 120 days of issuance of this ACD to file a report which:

 Discusses whether the 5-Digit, Carrier Route, and FSS workshare discounts are the 

proper economic incentives and send efficient pricing signals to mailers.

 Reports the cost, contribution, and revenue impact of the pricing changes made by 

the Postal Service in FY 2015.

 Provides a detailed quantitative analysis of the progress made in leveraging the 

Postal Service’s pricing flexibility to improve the efficiency of Periodicals pricing in 

FY 2015.

 Identifies any obstacles to providing the requested analysis as well as the Postal 

Service’s strategy and timeframe for addressing those obstacles. The Postal Service 

must provide steps it has taken towards overcoming the obstacles identified.

B. Principal Findings: Market Dominant 

Noncompensatory Products

In Chapter 3, the Commission identifies seven noncompensatory Market Dominant 

products: Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside County, Standard Flats, Standard 

Parcels, Media Mail/Library Mail, Inbound Letter Post, and Stamp Fulfillment Services.

With respect to Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside County, and Standard Mail Flats, 

the Commission finds that additional information regarding costs is needed, and directs the 

Postal Service to provide a report in 120 days of issuance of this ACD as detailed in 

Chapter 6.

For Inbound Letter Post, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue to 

develop a more compensatory Universal Postal Union (UPU) terminal dues formula for the 

next rate cycle (CY 2018 through CY 2021) and pursue bilateral agreements with foreign 

postal operators that result in an improved financial position for the Postal Service.

For the remaining noncompensatory products, the Commission finds that the Postal 

Service is taking appropriate steps to improve cost coverage.

C. Principal Findings: Competitive Products 

Rate and Fee Compliance

In Chapter 4, the Commission finds that revenues for the following six products did not 

cover attributable costs and thus did not comply with section 3633(a)(2): Priority Mail 

Contract 135; Parcel Return Service Contract 8; International Money Transfer Service
Docket No. ACR2015 - 3 -

(IMTS)—Inbound; IMTS—Outbound; Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates); and Inbound Air 

Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates). The Commission orders the Postal Service to take 

corrective action, including reporting on the status of contracts, agreements, or 

negotiations, identifying obstacles to renegotiating international agreements, and 

discussing the impact of recent price changes as appropriate.

D. Principal Findings: Service Performance 

and Customer Access

In Chapter 5, the Commission finds that the majority of products failed to meet their 

service performance targets for FY 2015. The Commission also notes its ongoing concern 

with the increasing number of facilities under suspension.

 The Postal Service met its service performance targets for High Density and 

Saturation Letters, Standard Mail Parcels, Bound Printed Matter Parcels, Media 

Mail/Library Mail, and most Special Services products.

 Service performance results for all First-Class Mail products, both Periodicals 

products, most products in Standard Mail, and Bound Printed Matter Flats did not 

meet their targets despite Postal Service initiatives to improve performance.

 The number of facilities under suspension increased by 180 from the end of FY 2014 

to the end of FY 2015.

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission issued directives to the Postal Service for products 

composed of flats to improve service performance results during FY 2015 or otherwise 

provide an explanation as to why efforts to improve performance were ineffective and 

identify further planned changes to improve those results. The Commission finds that 

during FY 2015 service performance results for these products remain substantially below 

their targets, and in all but one case, the performance results declined. The Commission 

also finds that the Postal Service’s plans to improve service performance results, where 

provided for certain products pursuant to the FY 2014 ACD directives, are not adequate to 

address the service performance issues. As a result, with respect to First-Class Single-Piece 

Flats, First-Class Presort Flats, Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside County, Standard 

Mail Flats, Standard Mail Carrier Route, and Bound Printed Matter Flats, the Commission 

finds that additional information regarding service performance is needed, and directs the 

Postal Service to provide a report in 120 days of issuance of this ACD as detailed in 

Chapter 6.

The Commission is concerned with the recent dramatic decline of service performance for 

First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day service standard and 

determines that First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards does not meet its service 

performance target and, therefore, is not in compliance. The Postal Service must provide an 

explanation in the FY 2016 ACR identifying specific efforts targeted to improve service 

performance results for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in FY 2016. 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 4 -

Further, it must provide a detailed, comprehensive plan to improve service performance 

for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards within 90 days of issuance of this ACD.

The Commission also notes its concern with the growing number of postal retail facilities 

under suspension, as the number of facilities under suspension has nearly tripled from the 

end of FY 2012 to the end of FY 2015. The Commission requires, if the Postal Service does 

not reduce the number of facilities under suspension in FY 2016, that the Postal Service 

provide a detailed explanation in its FY 2016 ACR as to why it was unable to do so.

E. Principal Findings: Flats Cost and Service 

Issues

In Chapter 6, the Commission finds that the Postal Service’s efforts relating to improving 

flats products’ service and contribution (profitability) are ongoing and interrelated. The 

Commission draws from the issues examined in Chapters 4 and 5 and explores potential 

causes for those problems and calls on the Postal Service to take steps to better define the 

scope of the problems and potential solutions. Specifically, the Commission requires that 

the Postal Service provide a report on flats issues within 120 days of issuance of this ACD

that quantifies what the Commission understands to be the main drivers of these 

significant and ongoing service failures and cost shortfalls. The Commission will evaluate 

the report and may use the information provided to form the basis of a new proceeding or 

other appropriate action.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 5 -

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A. Statutory Context

Two sections of Title 39 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), as amended by the Postal 

Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA),1 require ongoing, systematic reports and 

assessments of the financial and operational performance of the Postal Service. The first 

provision, 39 U.S.C. § 3652, requires the Postal Service to file certain annual reports with 

the Commission, including an Annual Compliance Report (ACR). See 39 U.S.C. § 3652(a). 

The second provision, 39 U.S.C. § 3653, requires the Commission to review the Postal 

Service’s annual reports and issue an Annual Compliance Determination (ACD) regarding 

whether rates were not in compliance with applicable provisions of Title 39 and whether 

any service standards were not met. 39 U.S.C. § 3653(b). Together, these provisions 

establish the ACR and the ACD as integrated mechanisms for providing ongoing 

accountability, transparency, and oversight of the Postal Service.

The Commission has once again decided to report separately on the Postal Service’s 

financial condition and its performance plans and program performance.2 It issued its 

financial analysis on March 29, 2016,3 and anticipates issuing its analysis of the 

performance plans and program performance, required by 39 U.S.C. § 3653(d), during May

of 2016. This ACD focuses on the requirements of §§ 3653(b)(1) and (b)(2).4

For regulations governing rates and fees, Congress divided mail categories and services 

between Market Dominant and Competitive products. For Market Dominant products, 

§§ 3622 and 3626 of Title 39 are relevant for rates and fees; § 3633 is relevant for 

Competitive products.

In Chapter 2, the Commission evaluates the workshare discounts for Market Dominant 

products to determine compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e). Chapter 2 also includes a 

discussion about the preferred rate requirements and the price cap. Chapter 3 focuses on 

other compliance issues related to Market Dominant products’ rates and fees. Chapter 4 

covers compliance issues related to the rates and fees of Competitive products. In Chapter 

5, the Commission discusses service performance and measurement.

 

1

Pub. L. 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006).

2

See Notice and Order Regarding the Postal Service FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan, January 14, 

2016 (Order No. 3027).

3

Analysis of Postal Service Financial Results and 10-K Statement for FY 2015, March 29, 2016.

4

In this ACD, the Commission addresses only rates and fees that have been challenged by commenters, or otherwise present compliance

issues.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 6 -

Included in this year’s ACD is a new Chapter 6 in which the Commission discusses cost and 

service issues for flat-shaped mailpieces (flats).

There are four appendices to this ACD. Appendix A contains the Commission evaluation of 

the special study of delivery performance in remote locations. Appendix B provides the 

status of Commission-directed actions from past ACDs and new Commission-directed 

undertakings in this ACD. Appendix C contains a list of Commenters. Appendix D contains 

an index of acronyms and abbreviations.

B. Timeline and Review of Report

The Postal Service is required to file the ACR no later than 90 days after the end of each 

fiscal year (i.e., 90 days after September 30). The Commission is required to complete the 

ACD within 90 days of receiving the ACR. The Postal Service filed the FY 2015 ACR on 

December 29, 2015; thus, the Commission must issue this ACD no later than March 28, 

2016.

C. Focus of the ACR

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. § 3652, the ACR must provide analyses of costs, revenues, 

rates, and quality of service sufficient to demonstrate that during the reporting year all 

products complied with all applicable requirements of Title 39. Additionally, for Market 

Dominant products, the Postal Service must include product information, mail volumes, 

and measures of quality of service, including the speed of delivery, reliability, and the levels 

of customer satisfaction. For Market Dominant products with workshare discounts, the 

Postal Service must report the per-item cost it avoided through the worksharing activity 

performed by the mailer, the percentage of the per-item cost avoided that the workshare 

discount represents, and the per-item contribution to institutional costs. 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3652(b).

D. Other Reports

In conjunction with filing the ACR, the Postal Service must also file its most recent 

Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations, its Performance Plan, and program 

Performance Reports. 39 U.S.C. § 3652(g).

E. Commission Responsibilities

Upon receipt of the ACR, the Commission provides an opportunity for public comment on 

the Postal Service’s submissions. 39 U.S.C. § 3653(a). The Commission is responsible for 

making a written determination as to whether any rates or fees were not in compliance 

with applicable provisions of chapter 36 of Title 39 or related regulations, and whether any 

service standards were not met. 39 U.S.C. § 3653(b). If the Commission makes a timely 

written determination of non-compliance, it is required to take such action as it deems 

appropriate. 39 U.S.C. § 3653(c).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 7 -

F. Procedural History

On December 29, 2015, the Postal Service filed its FY 2015 ACR, covering the period from 

October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015.5 The ACR included an extensive narrative 

and a substantial amount of detailed public and non-public information contained in 

library references. The library references include the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA), the 

International Cost and Revenue Analysis (ICRA), cost models supporting workshare 

discounts, and volume information presented in billing determinants. Library Reference 

USPS-FY15-9, December 29, 2015, summarizes the other materials included in the ACR, 

and contains a list of special studies and a discussion of obsolescence6 in response to 

§ 3050.12 of Title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.).

The Postal Service concurrently filed its 2015 Annual Report and Comprehensive Statement 

on Postal Operations as part of Library Reference USPS-FY15-17, December 29, 2015, to the 

FY 2015 ACR.7 It also filed its Annual Report to the secretary of the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury regarding the Competitive Products Fund, as required by 39 U.S.C. § 2011(i), as 

part of Library Reference USPS-FY15-39, December 29, 2015.

On December 30, 2015, the Commission issued an order establishing Docket No. ACR2015 

to consider the ACR, appointing a Public Representative to represent the interests of the 

general public, and establishing February 2, 2016 and February 12, 2016, as the deadlines 

for comments and reply comments, respectively.8

G. Methodology Changes

The FY 2015 ACR generally employs the methodologies used most recently by the 

Commission.9 In this ACR proceeding, the Postal Service relies upon 17 approved 

changes.10

 

5

United States Postal Service FY 2015 Annual Compliance Report, December 29, 2015 (FY 2015 ACR). The Postal Service made five further 

filings that revise the FY 2015 ACR and selected Library References. Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of Revised Versions of 

USPS-FY15-28 and USPS-FY15-NP26—Errata, January 15, 2016; Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of Revised Annual Compliance 

Report Pages–Errata, January 21, 2016; Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of a Revised Version of USPS-FY15-33—Errata, 

February 3, 2016; Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of Further Revised Annual Compliance Report Page—Errata, February 5, 

2016; and Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of Revised Version of USPS-FY15-NP27—Errata, February 8, 2016. Unless 

otherwise noted, references to the Postal Service’s FY 2015 ACR are to its ACR, as revised.

6

Here, obsolescence refers to studies that may be outdated (e.g., a study may not reflect current operating conditions and procedures).

7

2015 Annual Report and Comprehensive Statement of Postal Operations, December 29, 2015. Included as parts of Library Reference USPSFY15-17 are the Postal Service’s 2015 Performance Report and its 2016 Performance Plan.

8 Order No. 2968, Notice of Postal Service’s Filing of Annual Compliance Report and Request for Public Comments, December 30, 2015; see also

81 FR 523-525 (January 6, 2016). On January 14, 2016, the Commission established separate comment dates for the Postal Service’s FY 2015 

Performance Report and FY 2016 Performance Plan. See Order No. 3027.

9

See FY 2015 ACR at 3-4.

10 Id. at 4-6. Four of the methodologies were approved after the Postal Service submitted its FY 2014 ACR and thirteen methodologies were

approved prior to the filing of the FY 2015 ACR. Id. See also Docket No. ACR2014, Annual Compliance Report, December 29, 2014 (FY 2014 ACR).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 8 -

In addition, the Commission posts the most current workshare cost avoidance models on 

its website.11 Those models were used in its preparation of the FY 2015 ACD.

H. Product Analysis

The Postal Service provides an analysis of each Market Dominant product, including special 

services, and domestic and international negotiated service agreements (NSAs) active 

during FY 2015. This analysis includes a discussion of workshare discounts and 

passthroughs for Market Dominant products, required by 39 U.S.C. § 3652(b). The Postal 

Service also provides data for Competitive products and discusses the data with reference 

to standards under 39 U.S.C. § 3633 and 39 C.F.R. § 3015.7. Last, the Postal Service 

discusses three Competitive market tests conducted in FY 2015, as well as, two Market 

Dominant and nine Competitive non-postal products.12

I. Service Performance

The ACR also included information regarding service performance, customer satisfaction, 

and consumer access, as required under 39 U.S.C. § 3652(a)(2) and 39 C.F.R. part 3055.

J. Confidentiality

Commission rules require the Postal Service, when it files non-public materials with the 

Commission, to simultaneously file an application for non-public treatment. 39 C.F.R. § 

3007.20. The application for non-public treatment must clearly identify all non-public 

materials and fulfill the burden of persuasion that the materials should be withheld from 

the public by showing that the information is commercially sensitive and by identifying the 

nature, extent, and likelihood of commercial harm that would result from disclosure. The 

ACR included such an application with respect to certain Competitive products.

K. Requests for Additional Information

Twenty Chairman’s Information Requests (CHIRs) were issued with respect to the ACR 

from January 6, 2016, to March 11, 2016. The Postal Service responded to the CHIRs, often 

filing supplemental information in support of the responses.13 The Commission appreciates 

the Postal Service’s responsiveness to these requests.

 

11 See directory of Commission workshare cost avoidance models at 

http://www.prc.gov/sites/default/files/FY%202014%20Workshare%20Cost%20Model%20Directory%2011.25.2015%20%282%29.pdf.

12 FY 2015 ACR at 70-71.

13 Several of the Postal Service’s CHIR responses were accompanied by motions requesting late acceptance. E.g., Motion of the United States 

Postal Service for Late Acceptance of Its Responses to Questions 1-2 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 5, February 3, 2016. Each of the 

Postal Service’s motions for late acceptance is granted.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 9 -

CHAPTER 2: MARKET DOMINANT 

PRODUCTS: PRICING REQUIREMENTS

A. Introduction

The PAEA introduced three pricing requirements for Market Dominant products: a classlevel price cap based upon changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers 

(CPI-U), 39 U.S.C. § 3622(d)(2)(A), a cap on workshare discounts, id. § 3622(e)(2), and a 

cap on preferred rates, id. § 3626 (a)(4)-(7). Chapter 2 discusses these requirements.

B. The Class-Level Price Cap

The Commission approved price adjustments that went into effect during FY 2015.14 At the 

time they were implemented, the price changes complied with the price cap provision. 

However, changes in prices generally affect the mix of volumes within classes. When 

applied to actual mail volumes, price increases may produce results that differ from the 

application of the same price increases to the historical billing determinants used by the 

Commission during its pre-implementation review of the proposed increases. In past ACDs, 

the Commission has analyzed the price changes by comparing the percentage change in 

rates for each class weighted according to two different sets of billing determinants—the 

historical, pre-implementation billing determinants and the post-implementation billing 

determinants for the first full year that the rates had been in effect.15

Because the rates in effect during FY 2015 included the exigent surcharge,16 it is not 

possible to analyze only the effect of the CPI-U price change. For this reason, this ACD does 

not contain an empirical analysis of the price cap.

C. Workshare Discounts

Workshare discounts provide reduced rates for mail that is prepared or entered to avoid 

certain activities the Postal Service would otherwise have to perform. These discounts are 

 

14 Docket No. R2015-4, Order on Price Adjustments for Special Services Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, March 10, 2015 

(Order No. 2388); Docket No. R2015-4, Order No. 2461, Order on First-Class Mail Promotions and Related Mail Classification Schedule Changes, 

April 30, 2015; Docket No. R2015-4, Order on Revised Price Adjustments for Standard Mail, Periodicals, and Package Services Products and 

Related Mail Classification Changes, May 7, 2015 (Order No. 2472).

15 See, e.g., Docket No. ACR2012, Annual Compliance Determination, May 7, 2013, Appendix A (Empirical Review of Price Cap Application) (FY 

2012 ACD).

16 See Docket No. R2013-11, Order Granting Exigent Price Increase, December 24, 2013, at 4 n.1 (Order No. 1926); Docket No. R2013-11R, 

Resolving Issues on Remand, July 29, 2015, at 1 (Order No. 2623). The Postal Service has appealed the Commission’s order on remand. United 

States Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory Commission, No. 15-1297 (D.C. Cir. filed Aug. 28, 2015). The Postal Service filed notice of its intent to 

remove the exigent surcharge on April 10, 2016. Docket No. R2013-11, Notice of the United States Postal Service of Removal of the Exigent 

Surcharge, February 25, 2016.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 10 -

based on the estimated avoided costs that result from the mailer performing the activity. 

39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2) directs the Commission to ensure that workshare discounts do not 

exceed the costs the Postal Service avoids as a result of the worksharing activity. The 

statute provides four exceptions to this requirement. See 39 U.S.C. §§ 3622(e)(2)(A) 

through (D).

The Commission analyzes discounts to determine whether they comply with applicable 

statutory provisions. Section 3653(b)(1) of U.S.C. Title 39 requires the Commission to base 

its determinations on rates and fees “in effect” during FY 2015. The prices in effect in 

FY 2015 were the prices approved in Docket No. R2015-4 and included the exigent 

surcharge.17 Discounts evaluated for compliance were based on these prices. Workshare 

discounts that were not greater than their avoided costs were in compliance for FY 2015.18

Although passthroughs below 100 percent are lawful, they send inefficient pricing signals 

to mailers. Passthroughs set as close as possible to 100 percent would promote efficiency, 

lower the total combined costs for mailers, and encourage the retention and growth of the 

Postal Service’s most profitable products.

The Public Representative suggests that the Commission direct the Postal Service to make 

adjustments to unlawful workshare discounts at the time the exigent surcharge is 

removed.19 He notes that in the past, the Commission has accepted the Postal Service’s 

proposed remedy to align discounts with avoided costs in the next Market Dominant price 

adjustment. PR Comments at 41. He asserts that “with inflation running extremely low, it is 

not possible to predict when the next upcoming price adjustment will occur.” Id. He 

contends that if the Commission allows the Postal Service to wait until the next Market 

Dominant price adjustment to align discounts with avoided costs, workshare discounts 

may be out of compliance for a long time. Id. Alternatively, he suggests that if the surcharge 

is made permanent, the Commission should require the Postal Service to promptly file a 

Market Dominant price adjustment. Id.

The Postal Service contends that the Public Representative’s suggestion “contradicts Order 

No. 2319, in which the Commission plainly states that the Postal Service should only 

address 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)’s worksharing requirements when it makes CPI-based 

adjustments.”20 The Postal Service states further that the Public Representative’s 

suggestion “is contrary to the Commission’s previous mandate and would interfere with the 

Postal Service’s pricing flexibility.” USPS Reply Comments at 17.

The Commission is sensitive to the concerns expressed by the Public Representative. 

However, directing the Postal Service to align discounts with avoided costs in the planned 

 

17 See n.14, supra, and accompanying text.

18 The difference between the workshare discount and the avoided costs is referred to as the passthrough. Passthroughs above 100 percent 

indicate discounts that are greater than avoided costs. Passthroughs below 100 percent indicate discounts that are below avoided costs.

19 Public Representative Comments, February 2, 2016, at 41 (REVISED February 17, 2016) (PR Comments). See Notice of Errata to Public 

Representative Comments Filed February 2, 2016, February 17, 2016.

20 Reply Comments of the United States Postal Service, February 12, 2016, at 17 (USPS Reply Comments).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 11 -

removal of the exigent surcharge is inconsistent with the Commission’s decision in Order 

No. 2319. In ordering paragraph 3 the Commission stated, “[t]he Postal Service is not 

required to demonstrate compliance with 39 U.S.C. [§] 3622, including workshare 

provisions, if it removes the exigent surcharge without an accompanying inflation-based 

adjustment.” Order No. 2319 at 16. Additionally, the Commission notes that there is always 

some uncertainty with regards to the timing of the “next” Market Dominant price 

adjustment. In previous ACDs, when the Commission directed the Postal Service to adjust 

discounts in the next Market Dominant price adjustment, it did not know when the Postal 

Service would file the next Market Dominant price adjustment with the Commission. The 

Postal Service’s pricing flexibility allows the Postal Service to set its schedule of price 

adjustments and make revisions to the schedule at will. The Commission will follow the 

same approach as it has in previous ACDs.

The sections below are organized by class of mail and review workshare discounts that are 

greater than the avoided costs associated with the discount.

1. First-Class Mail

Six First-Class Mail workshare discounts exceeded the avoided costs of the corresponding 

mailer worksharing activity in FY 2015. Those six workshare discounts are contained in the 

Presorted Letters/Cards and Flats products.

a. Presorted Letters/Cards

The following five workshare discounts for Presorted Letters/Cards exceeded avoided 

costs in FY 2015:

 Automation Mixed automated area distribution center (AADC) Letters

 Automation AADC Letters

 Automation Mixed AADC Cards

 Automation AADC Cards

 Automation 5-Digit Cards

Each is discussed below. All remaining discounts offered for Presorted Letters/Cards were 

less than avoided costs and were thus consistent with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e) in FY 2015. Table 

II-1 shows the discounts for the Presorted Letters/Cards product for FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 12 -

Table II-1

First-Class Presorted Letters/Cards

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

First-Class Mail Automation Letters: Barcoding & Presorting

Automation Mixed AADC Letters (Metered Letters) 4.6 3.3 139.4%

Automation AADC Letters (Automation Mixed AADC Letters) 2.3 2.0 115.0%

Automation 3-Digit Letters (Automation AADC Letters) 0.0 0.6 0.0%

Automation 5-Digit Letters (Hybrid Automation AADC/3-Digit 

Letters)

2.5 3.6 69.4%

First-Class Mail Non-automation Letters: Barcoding

Non-automation Presort Letters (Metered Letters) 1.4 4.3 32.6%

First-Class Mail Automation Cards: Barcoding & Presorting

Automation Mixed AADC Cards (Non-automation Presort Cards) 1.1 1.0 110.0%

Automation AADC Cards (Automation Mixed AADC Cards) 0.9 0.8 112.5%

Automation 3-Digit Cards (Automation AADC Cards) 0.0 0.2 0.0%

Automation 5-Digit Cards (Hybrid Automation AADC/3-Digit Cards) 1.5 1.3 115.4%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/3.

(1) Automation Mixed AADC Letters

The discount for Automation Mixed AADC Letters was 139.4 percent of avoided cost. FY 

2015 ACR at 9. The Postal Service does not provide a statutory exception to justify this 

excessive passthrough. See id. at 9-10.

The Commission finds that the discount for Automation Mixed AADC Letters was not in 

compliance in FY 2015. The Postal Service must align the discount for Automation Mixed 

AADC Letters with avoided cost in the next Market Dominant price adjustment or provide 

support for an applicable statutory exception.

(2) Automation AADC Letters

The discount for Automation AADC Letters was 115.0 percent of avoided cost. Id. at 10. The 

Postal Service contends that although the FY 2015 passthrough is out of compliance using 

the prices that include the exigent surcharge, it will be in compliance when the exigent 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 13 -

surcharge is removed. Id. However, the Postal Service has not provided a statutory reason 

to justify the excessive passthrough. See id.

The Commission finds that the discount for Automation AADC Letters was not in compliance 

in FY 2015. However, the removal of the exigent surcharge in FY 2016 aligns the Automation 

AADC Letters discount with avoided cost; therefore, no further action is required.

(3) Automation Mixed AADC Cards, Automation AADC 

Cards, and 5-Digit Automation Cards

Automation Mixed AADC Cards, Automation AADC Cards, and 5-Digit Automation Cards 

passed through 110.0 percent, 112.5 percent, and 115.4 percent of avoided costs, 

respectively. Id. at 11, 12. The Postal Service does not provide an applicable statutory 

exception to justify these excessive passthroughs. See id. at 11-12.

The Commission finds that these three Automation Cards discounts were not in compliance in 

FY 2015. For the discount for 5-Digit Automation Cards, the removal of the exigent surcharge 

in FY 2016 aligns the discount with avoided cost; therefore, no further action is required. With 

respect to the discounts for Automation Mixed AADC Cards and Automation AADC Cards, the 

Postal Service must align the discounts with avoided costs in the next Market Dominant price 

adjustment or provide support for an applicable statutory exception.

b. First-Class Mail Flats

The following workshare discount for First-Class Mail Flats exceeded avoided cost in FY 

2015:

 Automation 5-Digit Flats

All remaining discounts for Presorted Flats were less than avoided costs and were thus 

consistent with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e) in FY 2015. Table II-2 shows the discounts for the 

Presorted Flats product for FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 14 -

Table II-2

First-Class Mail Flats

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

First-Class Mail Automation Flats: Barcoding & Presorting

Automation ADC Flats (Automation Mixed ADC Flats) 8.0 9.8 81.6%

Automation 3-Digit Flats (Automation ADC Flats) 4.0 5.0 80.0%

Automation 5-Digit Flats (Automation 3-Digit Flats) 19.2 15.9 120.8%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/3.

The discount for Automation 5-Digit Flats was 120.8 percent of avoided cost. Id. at 13. The 

Postal Service contends that the above-100-percent passthrough is justified by 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3622(e)(2)(B), due to the volatility of cost avoidance estimates and the significant price 

increase for 5-Digit Automation Flats in FY 2015. Id. However, it did not explain the adverse 

effects the increase would have on users of Automation 5-Digit Flats. See id.

The Commission finds that the discount for Automation 5-Digit Flats was not in compliance in 

FY 2015. The Postal Service’s use of the rate shock exception for the Automation 5-Digit Flats 

discount was not sufficiently supported. The Postal Service must align the discount for 

Automation 5-Digit Flats with avoided cost in the next Market Dominant price adjustment or 

provide support for an applicable statutory exception.

c. Single Piece Letters/Cards

No workshare discounts for Single Piece Letters/Cards exceeded avoided costs in FY 2015. 

Table II-3 shows the discounts for the Single Piece Letters/Cards product for FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 15 -

Table II-3

First-Class Single Piece Letters/Cards

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

First-Class Mail Single Piece Letters: Qualified Business Reply Mail Barcoding

QBRM (Handwritten Reply Mail) 1.4 1.8 77.8%

First-Class Mail Single Piece Cards: Qualified Business Reply Mail Barcoding

QBRM (Handwritten Reply Cards) 1.1 1.8 61.1%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/3.

2. Periodicals

a. Fiscal Year 2015 Periodicals Workshare Discounts

(1) Passthroughs over 100 percent

In FY 2015, one In-County Periodicals passthrough and 13 Outside County Periodicals 

passthroughs exceeded 100 percent. Table II-4 identifies these passthroughs.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 16 -

Table II-4

Periodicals Workshare Discounts Exceeding Avoided Costs21

Type of Worksharing

Year End 

Discount 

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance 

(Cents)

Passthrough

Outside County

Presorting 

1. Machinable Non-automation 5-Digit Flats 10.5 8.8 119.3%

2. Saturation 2.7 0.7 385.7%

3. Machinable Automation FSS Flats 16.5 8.9 185.4%

4. Machinable Automation 5-Digit Flats 9.1 7.8 116.7%

5. Non-machinable Non-automation 3-Digit Flats 10.7 4.0 267.5%

6. Non-machinable Non-automation 5-Digit Flats 15.6 7.9 197.5%

7. Non-machinable Automation ADC Flats 10.7 9.8 109.2%

8. Non-machinable Automation 3-Digit Flats 8.9 3.8 234.2%

9. Non-machinable Automation 5-Digit Flats 14.3 8.2 174.4%

Barcoding 

10. Machinable Automation Mixed ADC Flats 3.6 3.5 102.9%

Presorting Automation Letters 

11. Automation ADC Letter 3.6 1.5 240.5%

12. Automation 3-Digit Letter 2.0 0.4 448.3%

13. Automation 5-Digit Letter 6.8 2.5 269.0%

In-County

Presorting

14. Saturation 1.5 0.7 214.3%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5.

Workshare discounts may exceed avoided costs if a statutory exception applies. See 39 

U.S.C. § 3622(d). The Postal Service justifies Periodicals workshare discounts that exceeded 

100 percent passthroughs on the basis of 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(C), which authorizes 

workshare discounts greater than avoided costs if provided in connection with a subclass 

that consists exclusively of mail matter with educational, cultural, scientific, or 

informational (ECSI) value. FY 2015 ACR at 43.

In its comments, the Association of Magazine Media (MPA) notes the wide variation in 

Outside County Periodicals passthroughs.22 MPA also points out that the passthrough for 

 

21 The Periodicals pricing structure differs from the other Market Dominant classes, in that it includes piece, pound, bundle, and container 

elements. See Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5 for a comprehensive display of all Periodicals prices and worksharing relationships for 

FY 2015.

22 Initial Comments of the Association of Magazine Media, February 2, 2016, at 3-4 (MPA Comments).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 17 -

5-Digit Automation Flats has exceeded 100 percent since FY 2010. MPA Comments at 3-4. 

In its reply comments, the Postal Service cautions that an immediate reduction in this 

passthrough to 100 percent would impose a 5-percent price increase on 5-Digit 

Automation Flats. USPS Reply Comments at 23. The Postal Service nevertheless agrees, in 

principle, with moving this passthrough toward 100 percent at a moderate pace in future 

Market Dominant price adjustments. Id.

(2) Passthroughs Under 100 Percent

MPA also comments that by keeping certain passthroughs under 100 percent, the Postal 

Service has ignored the Commission’s directive to redesign the Periodicals rate structure to 

give mailers stronger incentives to engage in cost-saving practices. See MPA Comments at 

3. For example, MPA asserts that maintaining the Carrier Route passthrough at about 60 

percent created larger disincentives for mailers to presort to the Carrier Route level in FY 

2015. Id. at 3-4. The Postal Service replies that it used its pricing flexibility to encourage 

efficient mail preparation in FY 2015. See USPS Reply Comments at 21-22. The Postal 

Service states that raising this passthrough to 100 percent of avoided cost could cause 

some mailers to migrate to lower revenue rate categories and could worsen Periodicals 

cost coverage. Id. at 22. The Postal Service also notes that adjusting passthroughs may lead 

to significant postage increases for small volume mailers who are not capable of 

responding to efficient pricing signals to the same degree as large volume mailers. Id. at 22-

23.

(3) Commission Analysis

(a) Statutory Considerations for Passthroughs

Because the Periodicals class is consistent with ECSI values, the Commission finds that the 

Periodicals workshare discounts that exceeded avoided costs in FY 2015 were consistent 

with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e). Given that the Periodicals class does not cover costs, sending 

efficient price signals is particularly important. Although § 3622(e) does not prohibit the 

Postal Service from offering workshare discounts with passthroughs that are less than 100 

percent, other statutory requirements and objectives focus on sending efficient pricing 

signals to mailers. This concept is relevant to all passthroughs, including those that qualify 

for ECSI consideration. Generally, prices must “...enable the Postal Service, under best 

practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the 

development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United 

States.” 39 U.S.C. § 404(b). Moreover, the Market Dominant ratemaking system is designed 

to achieve nine objectives, of which one is “[t]o maximize incentives to reduce costs and 

increase efficiency.” 39 U.S.C. § 3622(b)(1). Therefore, the Postal Service should, in all 

cases, consider whether such passthroughs send efficient pricing signals to mailers.

Inefficient pricing signals may contribute to Periodicals revenues not covering costs if the 

price does not signal mailers to prepare Periodicals mailings efficiently. However, as the 

Postal Service notes, for a specified discount, a sudden price change to bring passthroughs 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 18 -

to 100 percent may not be prudent.23 Continued moderate improvement of the relationship 

between discounts and avoided costs should signal to the mailer the mail preparation 

method that is most efficient for both the Postal Service and the mailer. The Commission 

emphasized in past ACDs that, as a general principle, passthroughs closer to 100 percent 

would send better pricing signals to mailers and would maximize contribution and cost 

savings to the Postal Service.24

In FY 2015, the Postal Service responded to the Commission’s recommendations to set 

price signals that better reflect costs. Specifically, the Postal Service improved the 

alignment of bundle and pallet price signals and costs.25 Moreover, in accordance with the 

Commission’s recommendation in the FY 2013 ACD, the Postal Service discontinued the 

discount for the pre-barcoding of Non-machinable Automation Mixed Area Distribution 

Center (Mixed ADC) Flats. Id. at 51. By taking this action, the Postal Service addressed the 

long-running issue with the Non-machinable Automation Mixed ADC Flats pre-barcoding 

discount detailed by the Commission in the FY 2013 ACD. FY 2013 ACD at 21-22.

(b) Sending Efficient Pricing Signals in Flats 

Sequencing System and Non-Flats Sequencing 

System Zones

For several years, the Commission highlighted the growing disparity between the Postal 

Service’s pricing signals that appear to encourage 5-Digit presortation and discourage 

Carrier Route presortation.26 Because the Postal Service implemented Flats Sequencing 

System (FSS) prices for Periodicals,27 the Postal Service no longer offers Carrier Route 

prices for mailpieces destinating in FSS zones and has an additional incentive to encourage 

mailers to presort to the Carrier Route level, rather than to the 5-Digit level, for Periodicals 

destinating in non-FSS zones.

Most Outside County Periodicals volumes in non-FSS zones is presorted to Machinable 

Automation 5-Digit or Carrier Route Basic. Figure II-1 details changes in passthroughs for 

Carrier Route Basic and Machinable Automation 5-Digit piece presorting from FY 2008 to 

FY 2015.

 

23 See Chapter 3, infra, for a discussion of how cost coverage issues and operational changes can improve the Postal Service’s cost savings for 

Periodicals. See Chapter 6, infra, for a holistic discussion of flat-shaped mail issues.

24 See Docket No. ACR2009, Annual Compliance Determination, March 29, 2010, at 76 (FY 2009 ACD); Docket No. ACR2010, Annual Compliance 

Determination, March 29, 2011, at 96-97 (FY 2010 ACD); Docket No. ACR2011, Annual Compliance Determination, March 28, 2012, at 108-110 

(FY 2011 ACD); Docket No. ACR2012, Annual Compliance Determination (Revised May 7, 2013), May 7, 2013, at 100-101(FY 2012 ACD); Docket 

No. ACR2013, Annual Compliance Determination, March 27, 2014, at 21-23 (FY 2013 ACD); Docket No. ACR2014, Annual Compliance 

Determination, March 27, 2015, at 14-16 (FY 2014 ACD).

25 Docket No. R2015-4, United States Postal Service Notice of Market-Dominant Price Adjustment, January 15, 2015, at 27-28 (Docket No. 

R2015-4 Notice).

26 See FY 2013 ACD at 21, FY 2014 ACD at 15.

27 In Order No. 2472, the Commission explains that FSS prices, instead of Carrier Route prices, are required for Periodicals destinating in zip 

codes where FSS machines process flat-shaped mailpieces (FSS zones). Order No. 2472 at 62.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 19 -

Figure II-1

Carrier Route and Automation 5-Digit Passthroughs

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5.

Between FY 2008 and FY 2015, the Machinable Automation 5-Digit passthrough increased 

considerably, whereas the Carrier Route Basic passthrough decreased considerably.28 In 

FY 2015, the passthrough for Carrier Route Basic decreased to 62.4 percent. The 

Machinable Automation 5-Digit passthrough continued to be above 100 percent in FY 2015, 

decreasing from 124.0 percent to 116.7 percent. The Postal Service should increase its 

efforts to narrow the gap between 5-Digit and Carrier Route passthroughs to promote 

Carrier Route presortation in non-FSS zones.

The passthrough for Machinable Automation FSS Flats was 185.4 percent. Because most 

Periodicals are presorted to Machinable Automation FSS Flats (in FSS zones) or Carrier 

Route Basic (in non-FSS zones) levels, the Postal Service should ensure these passthroughs 

send efficient pricing signals.

b. Postal Service Response to Fiscal Year 2014 Annual 

Compliance Determination Directives

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission directed the Postal Service to report: the cost and 

contribution impact of the worksharing incentives offered for 5-Digit and Carrier Route 

presortation; and its progress in improving Periodicals pricing efficiency. FY 2014 ACD 

at 16-17. For the reasons described below, the Commission finds the Postal Service failed to 

meaningfully address these directives and directs the Postal Service to file a report within 

120 days of issuance of this ACD.

 

28 The price difference between the Machinable Automation 5-Digit and Carrier Route Basic discounts is 9.8 cents when the exigent surcharge is 

not included, unchanged from FY 2008.

88%

72% 71% 69% 71%

78%

66%

61% 62%

97%

102%

106% 105%

122% 124%

117%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Carrier Route Basic Machinable Automation 5-Digit Flats
Docket No. ACR2015 - 20 -

(1) Detailed Analysis of Cost and Contribution Impact of

Worksharing Incentives for 5-Digit and Carrier Route 

Presortation

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission directed the Postal Service to provide a detailed 

analysis of the cost and contribution impact of the worksharing incentives offered for 5-

Digit and Carrier Route presortation. FY 2014 ACD at 16. The Postal Service has not 

provided a meaningful response. The Postal Service explains the design of the workshare 

discounts without providing any analysis of the cost and contribution impact. FY 2015 ACR 

at 46.

A CHIR was issued requesting that the Postal Service quantify the cost savings and 

contribution impact associated with the Postal Service’s “pricing strategy designed to 

encourage the entry of more Carrier Route pallets in non-FSS zones.”29 The Postal Service 

was also requested to discuss any obstacles to quantification. CHIR No. 4, question 9. In its 

response, the Postal Service does not provide any quantification of cost savings or 

contribution impact, asserting it does not know how mail would have been prepared by 

mailers under an alternative pricing scheme and stating that the strategy has not been in 

effect long enough to have more than a minimal impact on cost savings and contribution.30

An additional CHIR was issued asking the Postal Service to confirm “plans to study if the FY 

2015 pricing incentives encouraged customers to enter more Carrier Route pallets in [nonFSS] zones or to prepare Periodicals more efficiently.” CHIR No. 12, question 5. In response, 

the Postal Service does not confirm that it has plans to study those issues and reiterates the 

obstacle posed by the lack of knowledge regarding how mailers would have prepared 

mailings under an alternative pricing scheme.31 The Postal Service states that it will 

monitor the changes in billing determinants and mail preparation to see if the changes in 

mail preparation are consistent with the intent of the price incentives. February 17, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 5.

(2) Improving Periodicals Pricing Efficiency

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission directed the Postal Service to provide a “report on its 

progress in improving Periodicals pricing efficiency.” FY 2014 ACD at 17. In a related 

directive, the Commission directed the Postal Service to report on its progress in improving 

Periodicals cost coverage and to provide a detailed analysis of the “impact of leveraging the 

Postal Service’s pricing flexibility to improve the efficiency of Periodicals pricing.” Id. at 

40.32

 

29 Chairman's Information Request No. 4, January 15, 2016, question 9 (quoting FY 2015 ACR at 45) (CHIR No. 4).

30 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-23 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 4, January 22, 2016, question 9 

(Responses to CHIR No. 4).

31 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 2-5, 7, 9, 11 and 13-17 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 12, February 17, 

2016, question 5 (February 17, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12).

32 For additional information about Periodicals pricing strategies, see Chapter 7 of the Periodicals Mail Study.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 21 -

The Postal Service states that significant changes to the pricing strategy for Periodicals 

approved in Docket No. R2015-4 improved Periodicals pricing efficiency. FY 2015 ACR at 

45. The Postal Service states that the price changes implemented in Docket No. R2015-4 

“started the process of addressing the Periodicals cost coverage by sending more efficient 

pricing signals to mailers....” Id. The Postal Service bases prices for most Periodicals 

bundles and pallets on the estimated costs of handling those bundles and pallets.33 The 

Postal Service explains that certain exceptions were made such as in the prices for Mixed 

ADC pallets, to avoid “exorbitant” price increases, or to incentivize desirable mailer 

preparation, such as the prices for pure Carrier Route pallets.34 The Postal Service reports 

that it leveraged its pricing flexibility by lowering pound prices to create the price cap 

space needed to increase bundle and pallet prices for Periodicals.35

A CHIR was issued requesting that the Postal Service quantify the cost savings and 

contribution impact associated with its efforts to “set the prices for Periodicals bundles and 

pallets based on the costs of handling them.” CHIR No. 4, question 10 (quoting FY 2015 ACR 

at 45). The Postal Service was also requested to discuss any obstacles to quantification. 

CHIR No. 4, question 10. The Postal Service responded that quantification was not possible 

because the Postal Service does not know how mailers under an alternative pricing scheme 

would have prepared mailings. Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 10.

In Order No. 2472, the Commission directed the Postal Service to develop a methodology 

for determining the avoided costs of the new Periodicals Presorted FSS discounts available 

in FSS zones. Order No. 2472 at 62. The Postal Service developed a model that necessarily 

relied on volume estimates because the new Presorted FSS discounts went into effect near 

the end of FY 2015.36

The Commission also directed the Postal Service to develop a methodology for determining 

the bottom-up costs for the new Periodicals Carrier Route bundle and container entry 

options available in non-FSS zones. Order No. 2472 at 63. The Postal Service responded by 

developing a model that showed the Postal Service processes Carrier Route pallets 

identically to 5-Digit pallets.37

Finally, the Commission directed the Postal Service to consider whether the new Carrier 

Route prices changed the handling of 5-Digit pallets.38 In response, the Postal Service stated 

 

33 Id. at 45; Docket No. R2015-4 Notice at 27.

34 FY 2015 ACR at 45-46; Docket No. R2015-4 Notice at 27.

35 FY 2015 ACR at 46; Docket No. R2015-4 Notice at 27.

36 Docket No. RM2015-16, Order Approving Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal Seven), November 25, 2015, at 11 (Order 

No. 2839).

37 Docket No. RM2015-18, Order Approving Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal Nine), October 1, 2015, at 7 (Order No. 

2741).

38 Order No. 2741 at 7-8; see Chairman's Information Request No. 12, February 9, 2016, question 6.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 22 -

that no operational changes for 5-Digit pallets have resulted.39 If mail processing facilities 

alter their procedures for 5-Digit pallets in the future, the Postal Service must notify the 

Commission, as directed in Order No. 2472.

c. Commission Analysis

In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service does not provide any quantitative analysis of the 

impact of leveraging its pricing flexibility to improve the efficiency of Periodicals pricing. 

Overall, the price adjustments approved in Docket No. R2015-4 were a first step toward 

improving Periodicals pricing efficiency. Particularly, introducing the FSS pricing options 

improved pricing signals by better aligning those signals with operational reality.40

Further, by pricing bundles and pallets based on handling costs, the Postal Service 

improved its pricing signals to mailers regarding how to prepare more efficient mailings. 

However, additional steps are needed to further improve Periodicals pricing efficiency. 

Moreover, the development of more accurate costing information is needed to facilitate the 

design of prices that cover costs. Accurate information may also facilitate decreasing costs 

and increasing contribution over time. The Commission reiterates its suggestion that the 

Postal Service continue to improve the Periodicals model as better data become available. 

Order No. 2839 at 11. With time and the study of the processing of FSS pieces, the Postal 

Service must develop accurate cost information and should use that information to design 

prices that send efficient signals to mailers.41

The Postal Service’s CHIR responses did identify information that can be developed to 

determine the impact of pricing strategies designed to incentivize increased mailer 

preparation. For example, the Postal Service notes that “[b]y moving Carrier Route bundles 

from [sectional center facility (SCF)] pallets to Carrier Route pallets, the Postal Service 

would avoid a bundle sort, thus saving 55 cents per bundle.” Responses to CHIR No. 4, 

question 9.a. The Postal Service further notes that the volume of bundles entered in 5-

Digit/Carrier Route pallets increased from 3.729 million in Quarter 4 of FY 2014 to 3.879 

million in Quarter 4 of FY 2015. Id. This information demonstrates that the Postal Service 

can develop metrics quantifying the link between changes in pricing signals, changes in 

mailer behavior, and changes in Postal Service operations (including the changes in 

resulting costs). In this instance, the Postal Service has detailed how it can evaluate the cost 

of bundle sorting in light of workload changes and changes in operations.42 Developing

more accurate information concerning cost savings resulting from mailer preparation, such 

as combining billing determinants data with operational data, can aid the Postal Service in 

developing an assessment of how mailer preparation impacts the Postal Service’s 

operational costs.

 

39 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 12, February 19, 2016, 

question 6.b (February 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12).

40 See Order No. 2472 at 19, 24-25 (discussing the operational efficiencies projected to result from using FSS machines and the Postal Service’s 

FSS prices and workshare discounts applicable to Periodicals).

41 See Chapter 3, infra, for a discussion of how developing accurate costing information and measuring the impact of operational changes can 

improve the Postal Service’s cost savings for Periodicals. See Chapter 6, infra, for a holistic discussion of flat-shaped mail issues.

42 See Chapter 3, infra, for more detail regarding quantifying the cost savings resulting from operational initiatives.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 23 -

Quantification of the cost savings and contribution impact of the Postal Service’s pricing 

strategies is necessary to determine whether Periodicals pricing efficiency improved. It is 

important to link the expected cost savings from mailer worksharing to actual results to 

ensure that mail processing models accurately estimate postal operations. As provided in 

the FY 2015 Periodicals Pricing Directive, infra, and Chapter 6, infra, the Commission 

provides the Postal Service more time and specific direction to develop a comprehensive 

report on the cost savings and contribution impact and to develop the underlying metrics 

associated with the Postal Service’s efforts to leverage its pricing flexibility.

As the Commission has repeatedly stated, the Postal Service should design pricing signals 

that encourage Carrier Route presortation in non-FSS zones.43 In order to determine if the 

Postal Service is doing so, the Commission directs the Postal Service to develop a 

comprehensive report on the cost savings and contribution impact of its pricing strategy 

and to develop the underlying metrics as required by the FY 2015 Periodicals Pricing 

Directive, infra, and Chapter 6.

The Postal Service has access to actionable information regarding the costs of its flats 

operations.44 The Postal Service should use this data to develop metrics and meaningfully 

analyze the cost savings and contribution impact of its pricing strategies on Periodicals. By 

isolating processing costs, the Postal Service can compare avoided costs with the 

associated mail preparation discounts to determine whether those discounts are 

appropriate. For example, the Postal Service can determine the cost of incoming secondary 

sorting for 5-Digit presorted pieces in Non-FSS zones and can compare those avoided costs 

to the associated discount for Carrier Route preparation.

The Postal Service shall provide a comprehensive report within 120 days of issuance of this 

ACD of the cost, contribution, and revenue impact of the pricing changes made by the 

Postal Service in FY 2015. The report must include a detailed analysis of progress made in 

leveraging the Postal Service’s pricing flexibility to improve the efficiency of Periodicals 

pricing in FY 2015. Specifically, the report must discuss whether the 5-Digit, Carrier Route, 

and FSS workshare discounts are the proper economic incentives and send efficient pricing 

signals to mailers. The report must identify any obstacles to providing the requested 

analysis, as well as the Postal Service’s progress, strategy, and projected timeframe for 

addressing those obstacles. To the extent that the Postal Service provides an analysis that is 

preliminary or otherwise limited, the Postal Service should identify those limitations in 

order to enable the Commission to determine whether the Postal Service has made 

progress and has a rational plan to meaningfully analyze the cost savings and contribution 

impact of its pricing strategies on Periodicals.

FY 2015 Periodicals Pricing Directive: The Commission finds that the Postal Service failed to 

meaningfully address the FY 2014 ACD directive that it report the cost and contribution 

 

43 See FY 2013 ACD at 21, FY 2014 ACD at 15.

44 See Chapter 6, infra.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 24 -

impact of the worksharing incentives offered for 5-Digit and Carrier Route presortation and

on its progress in improving pricing efficiency. The Commission therefore directs the Postal 

Service within 120 days of issuance of this ACD to file a report which:

 Discusses whether the 5-Digit, Carrier Route, and FSS workshare discounts are the 

proper economic incentives and send efficient pricing signals to mailers.

 Reports the cost, contribution, and revenue impact of the pricing changes made by the 

Postal Service in FY 2015.

 Provides a detailed quantitative analysis of the progress made in leveraging the Postal 

Service’s pricing flexibility to improve the efficiency of Periodicals pricing in FY 2015.

 Identifies any obstacles to providing the requested analysis as well as the Postal 

Service’s strategy and timeframe for addressing those obstacles. The Postal Service 

must provide steps it has taken towards overcoming the obstacles identified.

The Commission also directs the Postal Service to include an updated version of the report in 

its FY 2016 ACR.

3. Standard Mail

In FY 2015, 24 Standard Mail workshare discounts exceeded the avoided costs of the 

corresponding mailer workshare activity. Those 24 workshare discounts are contained in 

the Letters, Flats, Parcels, Carrier Route, and High Density and Saturation Letters products.

a. Letters

The following seven workshare discounts for Letters exceeded avoided costs in FY 2015:

 Automation Mixed automated area distribution center (AADC) Letters

 Automation AADC Letters

 Non-automation AADC Machinable Letters

 Non-automation 3-Digit Non-machinable Letters

 Non-automation 5-Digit Non-machinable Letters

 Destination network distribution center (DNDC) dropship Letters

 Destination sectional center facility (DSCF) dropship Letters

Each is discussed below. All remaining Letters discounts were less than avoided costs and 

were thus consistent with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e) in FY 2015. Table II-5 shows the discounts 

for the Letters product for FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 25 -

Table II-5

Standard Mail Letters (Commercial and Nonprofit)45

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing 

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

Standard Mail Automation Letters: Barcoding (Cents/Piece)

Automation Mixed AADC Letters

(Non-automation Machinable Mixed ADC Letters) 1.3 0.4 325.0%

Standard Mail Automation Letters: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

Automation AADC Letters (Automation Mixed AADC Letters) 2.1 1.5 140.0%

Automation 3-Digit Letters (Automation AADC Letters) 0.0 0.4 0.0%

Automation 5-Digit Letters (Automation 3-Digit Letters) 1.7 2.6 65.4%

Standard Mail Non-automation Letters: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

Non-automation AADC Machinable Letters 

(Non-automation Mixed AADC Machinable Letters) 1.7 1.6 106.3%

Non-automation ADC Non-machinable Letters 

(Non-automation Mixed ADC Non-machinable Letters) 6.9 7.8 88.5%

Non-automation 3-Digit Non-machinable Letters 

(Non-automation ADC Non-machinable Letters) 2.6 2.3 113.0%

Non-automation 5-Digit Non-machinable Letters 

(Non-automation 3-Digit Non-machinable Letters) 8.9 7.2 123.6%

Standard Mail Letters: Dropship (Cents/Piece)

DNDC Letters (Origin Letters) 3.6 1.6 225.0%

DSCF Letters (Origin Letters) 4.5 2.0 225.0%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

(1) Automation Mixed AADC Letters

The passthrough for Automation Mixed AADC Letters was 325 percent in FY 2015, down 

from 800 percent in FY 2014. FY 2015 ACR at 31. This reduction was due to the unit cost 

avoidance increasing from 0.1 cent to 0.4 cent. See id. The Postal Service justifies this 

excessive passthrough pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(D), asserting that the barcoding 

discount encourages mailers to provide an Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) on their 

mailpieces, thereby improving operational efficiency. Id. at 32. The Postal Service states 

further that it intends to eliminate the portion of this discount above avoided cost as soon 

as practicable. ld.

 

45 In FY 2015, all Standard Mail Letters commercial and nonprofit discounts were equal.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 26 -

The Commission finds that the Automation Mixed AADC Letters discount was adequately 

justified pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(D) in FY 2015 because encouraging mailers to use 

IMb should improve operational efficiency.

(2) Automation AADC Letters, Non-automation AADC 

Machinable Letters, and Non-automation 3-Digit Nonmachinable Letters.

In FY 2015, Automation AADC Letters, Non-automation AADC Machinable Letters, and Nonautomation 3-Digit Non-machinable Letters had passthroughs of 140.0 percent, 106.3 

percent, and 113.0 percent, respectively. Id. at 32-33. The Postal Service does not cite a 

statutory exception to justify the excessive passthroughs for Automation AADC Letters and 

Non-automation AADC Machinable Letters. See id. The Postal Service states that it intends 

to eliminate the portion of these discounts that exceed avoided costs in future Market 

Dominant price adjustments. Id. at 32. The Postal Service also does not cite a statutory 

exception to justify the excessive Non-automation 3-Digit Non-machinable Letters 

passthrough. It states that when the exigent surcharge is removed, the discount is less than 

its avoided cost. Id. at 33.

The Commission finds that these three discounts were not in compliance in FY 2015. The 

Postal Service must either align the Automation AADC Letters and Non-automation AADC 

Machinable Letters discounts with avoided costs during the next general Market Dominant 

price adjustment, or provide support for an applicable statutory exception. The removal of the 

exigent surcharge in FY 2016 aligns the excessive Non-automation 3-Digit Non-machinable 

Letters discount with avoided cost; therefore, no further action is required.

(3) Non-automation 5-Digit Non-machinable Letters

Non-automation 5-Digit Non-machinable Letters had a passthrough of 123.6 percent in 

FY 2015, down from 143.1 percent in FY 2014. Id. at 33. The Postal Service reduced the 

discount from 9.3 cents in FY 2014 to 8.9 cents in FY 2015. The unit cost avoidance 

increased from 6.5 cents in FY 2014 to 7.2 cents in FY 2015. Id. The Postal Service justifies 

this excessive passthrough pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(B). Id. It states that aligning 

this discount with the avoided cost would result in a price increase as large as 5.2 percent, 

which could cause rate shock to mailers. Id. The Postal Service intends to continue reducing 

the discount until the passthrough reaches 100 percent. ld.

The Public Representative contends that this discount would only require a 3-percent 

increase to align with its avoided cost, which he asserts is a small enough change that it 

would not likely result in rate shock. PR Comments at 48. Therefore, he recommends that 

the discount be found out of compliance and corrective action be ordered. Id.

The Public Representative is correct that a 3 percent increase for the commercial price 

would align this discount with avoided cost. However, the resulting price increase for the 

nonprofit discount would be 5.2 percent as stated by the Postal Service. The Postal Service 

has shown that it is progressing towards a 100 percent passthrough, decreasing the 

discount from 9.3 cents to 8.9 cents in FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 27 -

The Commission finds that the Postal Service has taken adequate steps in reducing this 

excessive passthrough in FY 2015, and that this discount continued to be adequately justified 

pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(B) in FY 2015. In the next Market Dominant price 

adjustment, the Postal Service should continue to reduce this excessive discount.

(4) DNDC and DSCF Dropship Discounts

The passthroughs for DNDC dropship and DSCF dropship were both 225 percent. FY 2015 

ACR at 33. The Postal Service justifies these excessive discounts pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3622(e)(2)(B). Id. at 33-34. It states that aligning these discounts with avoided costs 

results in a price increases as large as 27.1 percent. Id. at 33. The Postal Service intends to 

continue reducing the discounts until the passthroughs reach 100 percent. ld. at 33-34.

The Commission finds that a substantial reduction in the passthrough percentages would 

likely adversely affect users. Thus, the Commission finds that these discounts were adequately 

justified pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(B) in FY 2015. However, if the discounts are not 

set at avoided costs in the next general Market Dominant price adjustment, the Commission 

expects the Postal Service to file a plan to align discounts with avoided costs.

b. Flats

Six workshare discounts for Flats exceeded avoided costs in FY 2015:

 Automation Mixed area distribution center (ADC) Flats

 Automation flats sequencing system (FSS) Non-Scheme Flats

 Automation FSS Scheme Flats

 Non-automation ADC Flats

 Non-automation 3-Digit Flats

 Non-automation FSS Non-Scheme Flats

Each is discussed below. All remaining Flats discounts were less than avoided costs and 

thus were consistent with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e). Table II-6 shows the discounts for the Flats 

product for FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 28 -

Table II-6

Standard Mail Flats (Commercial and Nonprofit)46

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

Standard Mail Automation Flats: Barcoding (Cents/Piece)

Automation Mixed ADC Flats (Non-automation Mixed AADC Flats) 4.1 1.5 273.3%

Standard Mail Automation Flats: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

Automation ADC Flats (Automation Mixed ADC Flats) 3.3 7.4 44.6%

Automation 3-Digit Flats (Automation ADC Flats) 5.7 6.8 83.8%

Automation 5-Digit Flats (Automation 3-Digit Flats) 8.7 10.8 80.6%

Automation FSS Non-scheme Flats (Automation 3-Digit Flats) 13.3 8.2 162.2%

Automation FSS Scheme Flats (Automation FSS Non-Scheme Flats) 3.3 0.9 366.7%

Standard Mail Non-automation Flats: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

Non-automation ADC Flats (Non-automation Mixed ADC Flats) 4.8 3.7 129.7%

Non-automation 3-Digit Flats (Non-automation ADC Flats) 5.5 5.4 101.9%

Non-automation 5-Digit Flats (Non-automation 3-Digit Flats) 6.3 8.1 77.8%

Non-automation FSS Non-scheme Flats (Non-automation 3-Digit 

Flats) 8.0 4.8 166.7%

Non-automation FSS Scheme Flats (Non-automation FSS Nonscheme Flats) 0.4 1.1 36.4%

Standard Mail Flats: Dropship47 (Cents/Pound)

DNDC Flats (Origin Flats) 16.6 24.4 68.0%

DSCF Flats (Origin Flats) 21.6 28.3 76.3%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

(1) Automation Mixed ADC Flats

The passthrough for Automation Mixed ADC Flats was 273.3 percent in FY 2015.48 In 

response to a CHIR, the Postal Service justifies this excessive passthrough pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(D). Responses to CHIR No. 14, question 10.e.

 

46 In FY 2015, all Standard Mail Flats commercial and nonprofit discounts were equal.

47 All Standard Mail Flats FSS Scheme and FSS Non-Scheme dropship discounts, avoided costs and passthroughs are presented in PRC–LR–

ACR2015/4.

48 See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-15 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 14, February 23, 2016, question 

10.e (Responses to CHIR No. 14).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 29 -

The Commission finds that the Automation Mixed ADC Flats discount was adequately justified 

pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(D) in FY 2015 because encouraging mailers to use IMb 

should improve operational efficiency.

(2) Automation FSS Non-Scheme Flats, Automation FSS 

Scheme Flats, and Non-automation FSS Non-Scheme 

Flats

The passthroughs for Automation FSS Non-Scheme Flats, Automation FSS Scheme Flats, 

and Non-automation FSS Non-Scheme Flats were 162.2 percent, 366.7 percent, and 166.7 

percent, respectively. FY 2015 ACR at 34, 35. These discounts were first introduced in 

Docket No. R2015-4 as part of the worksharing initiative to move FSS Flats into a distinct 

price category. Id. at 34. The Postal Service justifies these excessive passthroughs pursuant 

to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(A). Id. at 34, 35.

The Public Representative agrees that these excessive passthroughs are justified pursuant 

to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(A), but urges the Commission to require the Postal Service to 

formulate a plan to bring the passthroughs into compliance. PR Comments at 49.

The Commission finds these three discounts were adequately justified pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 

3622(e)(2)(A) in FY 2015 because the discounts were new in FY 2015. However, if the 

discounts are not set at avoided costs in the next general Market Dominant price adjustment, 

the Commission expects the Postal Service to file a plan to align discounts with avoided costs 

contemporaneously.

(3) Non-automation ADC Flats and Non-automation 3-Digit 

Flats

In FY 2015, Non-automation ADC Flats and Non-automation 3-Digit Flats had passthroughs 

of 129.7 percent and 101.9 percent, respectively. FY 2015 ACR at 35. The Postal Service 

does not cite a statutory exception to justify the excessive Non-automation ADC Flats 

passthrough because when the exigent surcharge is removed, the discount is less than its 

avoided cost. Id. Therefore, the portion of the discount that exceeds avoided cost will be 

eliminated upon removal of the exigent surcharge. The Postal Service did not provide a 

statutory exception for excessive passthroughs in Non-automation 3-Digit Flats. Id. The 

passthrough decreased from 114.9 percent in FY 2014 to 101.9 percent in FY 2015. Id. The 

Postal Service maintains that it intends to eliminate the portion of this discount that 

exceeds avoided cost in future Market Dominant price adjustments. Id.

The Commission finds that these two discounts were not in compliance in FY 2015. The 

removal of the exigent surcharge in FY 2016 aligns the Non-automation ADC Flats discount 

with avoided cost; therefore, no further action is required. The Postal Service must either 

align the Non-automation 3-Digit Flats discount with avoided cost during the next general 

Market Dominant price adjustment or provide support for an applicable statutory exception.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 30 -

c. Parcels

Seven workshare discounts for Parcels exceeded avoided costs in FY 2015:

 Nonprofit network distribution center (NDC) Irregular Parcels

 Nonprofit NDC Machinable Parcels

 NDC Marketing Parcels

 Sectional center facility (SCF) Marketing Parcels

 Nonprofit Mixed NDC Machinable Barcoded Parcels

 Nonprofit Mixed NDC Irregular Barcoded Parcels

 Mixed NDC Barcoded Marketing Parcels

Each is discussed below. All remaining Parcels discounts were less than avoided costs and 

thus were consistent with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e). Table II-7 and Table II-8 shows the discounts 

for the Parcel product for FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 31 -

Table II-7

Standard Mail Parcels (Commercial and Nonprofit)49

Presort and Barcode Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

Nonprofit Standard Mail Parcels: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

NDC Machinable Parcels (Mixed NDC Machinable Parcels) 41.1 39.6 103.8%

5-Digit Machinable Parcels (NDC Machinable Parcels) 29.5 58.4 50.5%

NDC Irregular Parcels (Mixed NDC Irregular Parcels) 32.4 20.2 160.4%

SCF Irregular Parcels (NDC Irregular Parcels) 38.1 43.8 87.0%

5-Digit Irregular Parcels (SCF Irregular Parcels) 11.5 58.0 19.8%

Nonprofit Standard Mail Parcels: Barcoding (Cents/Piece) a

Mixed NDC Machinable Barcoded Parcels

(Mixed NDC Machinable Non-barcoded Parcels) 6.4 3.8 168.4%

Mixed NDC Irregular Barcoded Parcels

(Mixed NDC Irregular Non-barcoded Parcels) 6.4 3.8 168.4%

Standard Marketing Parcels: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

NDC Marketing Parcels (Mixed NDC Marketing Parcels) 39.2 29.0 135.2%

SCF Marketing Parcels (NDC Marketing Parcels) 32.7 29.8 109.7%

5-Digit Marketing Parcels (SCF Marketing Parcels) 13.2 59.8 22.1%

Standard Marketing Parcels: Barcoding (Cents/Piece)a

Mixed NDC Barcoded Marketing Parcels

(Mixed NDC Non-barcoded Marketing Parcels) 6.4 3.8 168.4%

a The Postal Service charges a surcharge for non-barcoded pieces.

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

 

49 In FY 2015, all Standard Mail Parcels commercial and nonprofit discounts were equal. However, machinable and irregular Standard Mail 

Parcel prices are only offered to Nonprofit mailers.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 32 -

Table II-8

Standard Mail Parcels (Commercial and Nonprofit)

Dropship Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

Nonprofit Standard Mail Machinable Parcels: Dropship (Cents/Pound)

DNDC Machinable Parcels (Origin Machinable Parcels) 25.3 83.2 30.4%

DSCF Machinable Parcels (Origin Machinable Parcels) 52.5 97.5 53.8%

DDU Machinable Parcels (Origin Machinable Parcels) 72.8 113.1 64.4%

Standard Mail Marketing Parcels: Dropship (Cents/Pound)

DNDC Marketing Parcels (Origin Marketing Parcels) 25.3 83.2 30.4%

DSCF Marketing Parcels (Origin Marketing Parcels) 52.5 97.5 53.8%

DDU Marketing Parcels (Origin Marketing Parcels) 72.8 113.1 64.4%

Nonprofit Standard Mail Irregular Parcels: Dropship (Cents/Pound)

DNDC Irregular Parcels (Origin Irregular Parcels) 25.3 83.2 30.4%

DSCF Irregular Parcels (Origin Irregular Parcels) 52.5 97.5 53.8%

DDU Irregular Parcels (Origin Irregular Parcels) 72.8 113.1 64.4%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

(1) Nonprofit NDC Irregular Parcels and NDC Marketing 

Parcels

In FY 2015, Nonprofit NDC Irregular Parcels and NDC Marketing Parcels had passthroughs 

of 160.4 percent and 135.2 percent, respectively. FY 2015 ACR at 36, 37. The Postal Service 

justifies these excessive passthroughs pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(B). Id. at 37. It 

states that Standard Mail Parcels received 10-percent price increases in Docket No. R2015-

4, and further price increases to align discounts with lower cost avoidances could result in 

rate shock. Id. However, it does not explain how the price increases necessary to reduce 

both passthroughs would adversely affect users. The Postal Service states that it intends to 

continue reducing the discounts in future Market Dominant price adjustments. ld.

The Public Representative states that “[t]he magnitude of price change necessary to correct 

the excessive passthroughs...appears sufficiently large such that the rate shock exception 

would apply....” PR Comments at 48-49. He recommends that the Postal Service provide a 

plan to phase the excessive discount out over time. Id. at 49.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 33 -

The Commission concludes that a substantial reduction in the passthrough percentage would 

likely adversely affect users. Thus, the Commission finds that these discounts are adequately 

justified pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(B) in FY 2015. In the next Market Dominant price 

adjustment, the Postal Service should reduce this excessive discount.

(2) Nonprofit NDC Machinable Parcels and SCF Marketing 

Parcels

In FY 2015, the passthroughs for Nonprofit NDC Machinable Parcels and SCF Marketing 

Parcels were 103.8 percent and 109.7 percent, respectively. FY 2015 ACR at 36, 37. The 

Postal Service does not provide any statutory justifications for the excessive discounts. 

Instead, it states that it will either fix the discounts in the next market dominant price 

adjustment or cite a statutory exception. Id.

The Commission finds that these two discounts were not in compliance in FY 2015. The Postal 

Service must either align these discounts with avoided costs during the next general Market 

Dominant price adjustment, or provide support for an applicable statutory exception.

(3) Nonprofit Mixed NDC Machinable Barcoded Parcels, 

Nonprofit Mixed NDC Irregular Barcoded Parcels, and 

Mixed NDC Barcoded Marketing Parcels

Nonprofit Mixed NDC Machinable Barcoded Parcels, Nonprofit Mixed NDC Irregular 

Barcoded Parcels, and Mixed NDC Barcoded Marketing Parcels each had passthroughs of 

168.4 percent in FY 2015. Id. at 38. The Postal Service justifies these excessive 

passthroughs pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(D), stating that it has been sending a 

strong signal to mailers through the non-barcoded surcharge to develop a fully barcoded 

parcels mailstream. Id.

The Public Representative agrees that these excessive passthroughs are justified pursuant 

to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(D), but recommends the Commission require the Postal Service to 

bring the passthroughs into compliance. PR Comments at 49.

The Commission finds that these three discounts were adequately justified pursuant to 

39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(D) because having a fully barcoded mailstream would increase 

operational efficiency. However, if the discounts are not set at avoided costs in the next 

general Market Dominant price adjustment, the Commission expects the Postal Service to file 

a plan to align discounts with avoided costs contemporaneously.

d. Carrier Route

Two workshare discounts for Carrier Route letters exceeded avoided costs in FY:

 Destination network distribution center (DNDC) dropship Letters

 Destination sectional center facility (DSCF) dropship Letters
Docket No. ACR2015 - 34 -

Each is discussed below. All remaining Carrier Route discounts were less than avoided 

costs and thus were in compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e). Table II-9 shows the discounts 

for the Carrier Route product for FY 2015.

Table II-9

Standard Mail Carrier Route (Commercial and Nonprofit)

Dropship and Presort Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

Standard Mail Carrier Route Letters: Dropship (cents/piece)

DNDC Letters (Origin Letters) 3.3 1.6 206.3%

DSCF Letters (Origin Letters) 4.4 2.0 220.0%

Standard Mail Carrier Route Flats: Dropship (cents/pound)

DNDC Flats (Origin Flats) 16.8 24.4 68.9%

DSCF Flats (Origin Flats) 21.8 28.3 77.0%

DDU Flats (Origin Flats) 26.3 33.1 79.5%

Standard Mail Carrier Route Flats: Presorting (cents/piece)

Origin Flats on 5-Digit Pallets (Other Origin Flats) 0.5 3.3 15.2%

DNDC Flats on 5-Digit Pallets (Other DNDC Flats) 0.5 3.3 15.2%

DSCF Flats on 5-Digit Pallets (Other DSCF Flats) 0.5 3.3 15.2%

DDU Flats on 5-Digit Pallets (Other DDU Flats) 0.5 3.3 15.2%

Standard Mail Carrier Route Flats: Dropship (cents/pound)

DNDC Flats on 5-Digit Pallets (Origin Flats) 16.8 24.4 68.9%

DSCF Flats on 5-Digit Pallets (Origin Flats) 21.8 28.3 77.0%

DDU Flats on 5-Digit Pallets (Origin Flats) 26.3 33.1 79.5%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

In FY 2015, passthroughs for DNDC dropship Letters and DSCF dropship Letters were 

206.3 percent and 220.0 percent, respectively. FY 2015 ACR at 38, 39. The Postal Service 

explains that these excessive passthroughs are due to an unexpected decrease in the cost 

avoidances. The Postal Service does not provide a statutory exception for these excessive 

discounts, but states that it will either fix the discounts at the time of the next Market 

Dominant price adjustment or cite a statutory exception at that time. Id. at 38-39.

The Commission finds that these two discounts were not in compliance in FY 2015. The Postal 

Service must either align these discounts with avoided costs during the next general Market 

Dominant price adjustment or provide support for an applicable statutory exception.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 35 -

e. High Density and Saturation Letters

Two workshare discounts for High Density and Saturation Letters exceeded avoided costs 

in FY 2015:

 Destination network distribution center (DNDC) dropship Letters

 Destination sectional center facility (DSCF) dropship Letters

Each is discussed below. All remaining High Density and Saturation Letters discounts were 

less than avoided costs and thus were consistent with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e). Table II-10 

shows the discounts for the Parcel product for FY 2015.

Table II-10

Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Letters (Commercial and Nonprofit)50

Dropship and Presort Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrough

Standard Mail High Density Letters: Presort (cents/piece)

High Density Letters (Carrier Route) 8.5 32.0 26.6%

Standard Mail High Density Letters: Dropship (cents/piece)

DNDC Letters (Origin Letters) 3.3 1.6 206.3%

DSCF Letters (Origin Letters) 4.5 2.0 225.0%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

In FY 2015, passthroughs for DNDC dropship Letters and DSCF dropship Letters were 

206.3 percent and 225.0 percent, respectively. FY 2015 ACR at 39, 40. The Postal Service 

explains that these excessive passthroughs are due to an unexpected decrease in the cost 

avoidances. Id. The Postal Service does not provide a statutory exception for these 

excessive discounts, but states that it will either fix the discounts at the time of the next 

Market Dominant price adjustment or cite a statutory exception at that time. Id. at 38-39.

The Commission finds that these two discounts were not in compliance in FY 2015. The Postal 

Service must either align these discounts with avoided costs during the next general Market 

Dominant price adjustment or provide support for an applicable statutory exception.

4. Package Services

Three Package Services products offered workshare discounts in FY 2015: Media 

Mail/Library Mail, Bound Printed Matter (BPM) Flats, and BPM Parcels. Nine Package 

 

50 In FY 2015, all Standard Mail Flats commercial and nonprofit discounts were equal.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 36 -

Services workshare discounts exceeded the avoided costs of the corresponding mailer 

worksharing activity.

a. Media Mail/Library Mail

Four discounts were offered for Media Mail/Library Mail in FY 2015. Two workshare 

discounts for Media Mail/Library Mail exceeded avoided costs in FY 2015:

 Media Mail Basic presorting

 Library Mail Basic presorting

All remaining Media Mail/Library Mail discounts did not exceed their respective avoided 

costs, and were in compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e) in FY 2015. Table II-11 shows the 

FY 2015 discounts, avoided costs, and passthroughs for this product.

Table II-11

Media Mail/Library Mail

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(cents)

Passthrougha

Media Mail: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

Basic (Single-Piece) 27.0 21.5 125.6%

5-Digit (Basic) 57.0 125.2 45.5%

Library Mail: Presorting (Cents/Piece)

Basic (Single-Piece) 26.0 21.5 120.9%

5-Digit (Basic) 54.0 125.2 43.1%

a

The calculated passthroughs are based on rounded unit avoided costs.

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/6.

The Basic presort discount for both the Media Mail/Library Mail categories exceeded 

avoided costs in FY 2015. The passthroughs were 125.6 percent and 120.9 percent, 

respectively. FY 2015 ACR at 48. The Postal Service justifies the FY 2015 passthroughs 

pursuant to section 3622(e)(2)(C) because Media Mail/Library Mail consists of mail matter 

with ECSI value. Id. The Postal Service explains that it plans to move the discounts toward 

their avoided costs over time, while avoiding any drastic changes that could cause rate 

shock. Id.

The Commission concludes that the Media Mail/Library Mail Basic presort discounts were 

justified pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2)(C) because the product qualifies for the ECSI 

exemption.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 37 -

b. Bound Printed Matter Flats and Bound Printed Matter 

Parcels

In FY 2015, 14 discounts were offered for BPM Flats and 12 discounts were offered for 

BPM Parcels. The following seven workshare discounts for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels 

exceeded avoided costs in FY 2015:

 BPM Flats destination network distribution center (DNDC) dropship

 BPM Flats destination sectional center facility (DSCF) dropship

 BPM Flats Destination Flats Sequencing System (DFSS) dropship

 BPM Flats destination delivery unit (DDU) dropship

 BPM Parcels DNDC dropship

 BPM Parcels DSCF dropship

 BPM Parcels DDU dropship

All remaining BPM Flats and BPM Parcels discounts did not exceed their respective avoided 

costs and were in compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e) in FY 2015. Table II-12 and Table II13 show the FY 2015 discounts, avoided costs, and passthroughs for the BPM Flats and 

BPM Parcel products in FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 38 -

Table II-12

Bound Printed Matter Flats

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(cents)

Passthrougha

Presorting (Cents/Piece)b

Basic Flats (Single-Piece Flats) 45.7 See Note b N/A

FSS Flats (Single-Piece Flats) 45.9 See Note b N/A

Carrier Route Flats (Basic Flats) 13.7 14.8 92.6%

Presorting (Cents/Piece)b: Basic, Carrier Route Flats (Single-Piece Flats)

Zones 1&2 4.9 See Note b N/A

Zone 3 7.1 See Note b N/A

Zone 4 5.8 See Note b N/A

Zone 5 6.3 See Note b N/A

Zone 6 7.1 See Note b N/A

Zone 7 6.8 See Note b N/A

Zone 8 7.0 See Note b N/A

Dropship (Cents/Piece)

Basic, Carrier Route DNDC Flats (Basic Origin Flats) 11.6 10.4 111.5%

Basic, Carrier Route DSCF Flats (Basic Origin Flats) 60.8 54.9 110.7%

Basic, DFSS Flats (Basic Origin Flats) 61.6 54.9 112.2%

Basic, Carrier Route DDU Flats (Basic Origin Flats) 78.0 69.8 111.7%

a

The calculated passthroughs are based on rounded unit avoided costs.

b The BPM cost model does not estimate cost differences between Single-Piece and presorted BPM. Single-Piece BPM is a residual category with 

low volume and adequate data are not available. Previously, rate differences between Single-Piece and presorted BPM were based on an 

assumption that unit mail processing costs for Single-Piece BPM were twice that of presorted BPM. See Docket No. R2006-1, USPS-T-38, at 8.

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/6.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 39 -

Table II-13

Bound Printed Matter Parcels

Workshare Discounts and Benchmarks

Type of Worksharing

(Benchmark)

FY 2015

Year-End 

Discount

(Cents)

Unit Cost 

Avoidance

(Cents)

Passthrougha

Presorting (Cents/Piece)b

Basic Parcels (Single-Piece Parcels) 79.4 See Note b N/A

Carrier Route Parcels (Basic Parcels) 11.9 14.8 80.4%

Presorting (Cents/Pound)b: Basic, Carrier Route Parcels (Single-Piece Parcels)

Zones 1&2 6.1 See Note b N/A

Zone 3 6.4 See Note b N/A

Zone 4 5.6 See Note b N/A

Zone 5 6.1 See Note b N/A

Zone 6 6.4 See Note b N/A

Zone 7 4.0 See Note b N/A

Zone 8 4.2 See Note b N/A

Dropship (Cents/Piece)

Basic, Carrier Route DNDC Parcels (Basic Origin Parcels) 11.6 10.4 111.5%

Basic, Carrier Route DSCF Parcels (Basic Origin Parcels) 63.2 54.9 115.1%

Basic, Carrier Route DDU Parcels (Basic Origin Parcels) 80.9 69.8 115.9%

a

The calculated passthroughs are based on rounded unit avoided costs.

b The BPM cost model does not estimate cost differences between Single-Piece and presorted BPM. Single-Piece BPM is a residual category with 

low volume and adequate data are not available. Previously, rate differences between Single-Piece and presorted BPM were based on an 

assumption that unit mail processing costs for single-piece BPM were twice that of presorted BPM. See Docket No. R2006-1, USPS-T-38, August 

10, 2006, at 8.

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/6.

All seven of the dropshipping discounts for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels exceeded the 

corresponding avoided costs. Both the DNDC dropship discount for BPM Flats and the 

DNDC dropship discount for BPM Parcels had a passthrough of 111.5 percent. FY 2015 ACR 

at 48. In Docket No. R2015-4, the Postal Service set the DNDC dropship discounts for BPM 

Flats and BPM Parcels equal to their respective avoided costs.51 However, those discounts 

were set using FY 2014 avoided cost data. Since the Docket No. R2015-4 proceeding, the 

avoided costs have decreased, resulting in passthroughs greater than 100 percent for 

FY 2015.

 

51 See Docket No. R2015-4, Library Reference PRC-LR-R2015-4/11, May 7, 2015, Excel file “R2015-4 Package Services Worksharing_.xlsx,” which 

shows that the DNDC dropship discount and unit avoided costs were 11.6 cents for both BPM Flats and BPM Parcels.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 40 -

The Postal Service states it intends to align the discounts with their avoided costs in its 

next Market Dominant price adjustment. FY 2015 ACR at 49.

The DSCF dropship discounts for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels also exceeded avoided costs 

in FY 2015. The passthroughs for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels were 110.7 percent and 115.1 

percent, respectively. Id. In Docket No. R2015-4, the Postal Service set the DSCF dropship 

discounts for BPM Flats equal to its respective avoided costs and for BPM Parcels slightly 

above avoided costs.52 However, those discounts were set using FY 2014 avoided costs 

data. Since the Docket No. R2015-4 proceeding, the avoided costs decreased, resulting in 

passthroughs greater than 100 percent for FY 2015.

The Postal Service states it intends to align the discounts with their avoided costs in its 

next Market Dominant price adjustment. FY 2015 ACR at 49.

The DFSS dropship discount for BPM Flats exceeded avoided cost in FY 2015 with a 

passthrough of 112.2 percent. Id. at 50. In Docket No. R2015-4, the Postal Service set this 

discount at 101.7 percent, asserting this was necessary to maintain a consistent 

relationship between the price cells so mailers in non-FSS zones would not experience a 

further rate increase while still incentivizing mailers to “enter scheme containers of mail at 

the DFSS (which is of economic benefit to the Postal Service).”53 However, that discount 

was set using FY 2014 avoided cost data. Since the Docket No. R2015-4 proceeding, the 

avoided cost of DSCF dropship discount for BPM Flats decreased, resulting in passthroughs 

greater than 100 percent for DFSS in FY 2015.

The Postal Service states it intends to align the discount with the avoided cost in its next 

Market Dominant price adjustment. FY 2015 ACR at 50.

The DDU dropship discount for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels exceeded unit avoided costs in 

FY 2015. The passthroughs for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels were 111.7 percent and 115.9 

percent, respectively. Id. In Docket No. R2015-4, the Postal Service set the DDU dropship 

discounts for BPM Flats equal to its respective avoided costs and for BPM Parcels slightly 

above avoided costs.54 However, those discounts were set using FY 2014 avoided costs 

data. Since the Docket No. R2015-4 proceeding, the avoided costs decreased, resulting in FY 

2015 passthroughs that exceeded 100 percent.

The Postal Service states it intends to align the discounts with their avoided costs in its 

next Market Dominant price adjustment. FY 2015 ACR at 50.

 

52 See Docket No. R2015-4, PRC-LR-R2015-4/11, Excel file “R2015-4 Package Services Worksharing_.xlsx,” which shows that the DSCF dropship 

discount and avoided costs for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels were 58.3 and 60.6 cents, respectively. Avoided costs were 58.3 cents for each 

product.

53 Docket No. R2015-4, Response of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-5 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, January 30, 

2015, question 5.c.

54 See Docket No. R2015-4, PRC-LR-R2015-4/11, Excel file “R2015-4 Package Services Worksharing_.xlsx,” which shows that the DDU dropship 

discount and avoided costs for BPM Flats and BPM Parcels were 75.1 cents and 78.3, respectively. Avoided costs were 75.1 cents for each 

product.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 41 -

The Public Representative notes that the Postal Service does not offer a statutory 

exemption to justify the BPM products with passthroughs greater than 100 percent and 

suggests that the Commission find those passthroughs out of compliance. PR Comments at 

50. He recommends that the Postal Service be required to correct these deficient 

passthroughs prior to the reversal of the exigent surcharge. Id.

The Commission finds that these seven discounts are not in compliance in FY 2015. The Postal 

Service must either align these discounts with avoided costs during the next general Market 

Dominant price adjustment or provide support for an applicable statutory exception.

D. Preferred Rate Requirements

Section 3626 of Title 39 of the U.S.C. identifies preferred rate requirements applicable to 

Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Package Services prices.

Periodicals is a preferred class of mail and receives several statutory discounts in section 

3626, such as a 5-percent discount for nonprofit and classroom publications. In Docket No. 

R2015-4, prices for Periodicals were set to be consistent with statutory preferences for 

mail in that class. Order No. 2472 at 56-57.

Section 3626(a)(6) of Title 39 requires nonprofit prices in Standard Mail to be set in 

relation to their commercial counterparts regardless of nonprofits’ independent costs. In 

Docket No. R2015-4, nonprofit prices were set to yield average per-piece revenues of 60.2 

percent of commercial per-piece revenues at the class level. Id. at 44. The Commission 

calculates that the actual per-piece revenue from Standard Mail nonprofit pieces was 59.0 

percent in FY 2015. Changes in the mix of mail after price changes make it difficult to 

precisely attain the 60 percent relationship required by law.

One preferred rate requirement applies to Media Mail/Library Mail, a product in Package 

Services: Section 3626(a)(7) of Title 39 requires Library Mail prices to be set at 95 percent

of Media Mail prices. Docket No. R2015-4 set these prices accordingly. Id. at 61.

The Commission finds that prices in FY 2015 were in compliance with all of the preferred rate 

requirements identified in 39 U.S.C. § 3626.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 42 -

CHAPTER 3: MARKET DOMINANT 

PRODUCTS: OTHER RATE AND FEE

COMPLIANCE ISSUES

A. Introduction

Commenters raise other rate and fee compliance issues, most of which relate to the 

objectives and factors established by 39 U.S.C. § 3633 and to the policies of Title 39 of the 

United States Code. These issues include noncompensatory products, negotiated service 

agreements (NSAs),

55 and pricing issues related to differences in cost coverage.

This chapter begins with an analysis of noncompensatory products organized by class. It 

also includes a discussion of matters relating to NSAs, and other pricing issues. Issues 

specific to flat-shaped mailpieces (flats), which includes Standard Mail Flats and 

Periodicals, are areas of concern for several commenters and are discussed in Chapter 6.

B. Noncompensatory Products

1. Periodicals

a. FY 2015 Financial Results

The cost coverage for Periodicals decreased slightly from FY 2014 to FY 2015, from 76.2 

percent to 75.6 percent. FY 2015 ACR at 42. Since the enactment of the PAEA, Periodicals 

cost coverage has declined from 83.0 percent. As Table III-1 illustrates, this low cost 

coverage has resulted in cumulative negative contribution of almost $5 billion since 

FY 2007.

 

55 NSAs are written contracts between a mailer and the Postal Service, effective for a defined period of time, that provide for mailer-specific 

rates, fees, or terms of service according to the contract. 39 C.F.R. § 3001.5(r). The mailer often receives discounts (rebates) designed to 

encourage higher mail volumes and contributions.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 43 -

Table III-1

Periodicals Cost Coverage, FY 2007–FY 2015 ($ Millions)

Fiscal Year Volume Revenue Cost Cost Coverage Contribution

2007 8,795 $2,188 $2,636 83.01% -$448

2008 8,605 $2,295 $2,732 84.00% -$437

2009 7,953 $2,038 $2,680 76.04% -$642

2010 7,269 $1,879 $2,490 75.46% -$611

2011 7,077 $1,821 $2,430 74.94% -$609

2012 6,741 $1,732 $2,402 72.10% -$670

2013 6,359 $1,658 $2,179 76.10% -$521

2014 6,045 $1,625 $2,134 76.16% -$509

2015 5,838 $1,589 $2,101 75.64% -$512

-$4,959

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5.

Unit revenue for the Periodicals class as a whole increased from 26.9 cents in FY 2014 to 

27.2 cents in FY 2015. FY 2015 ACR at 43. However, unit cost also increased from 35.3 

cents to 36.0 cents during the same period. Id. Because the increase in unit cost outpaced 

the increase in unit revenue in FY 2015, unit contribution declined in FY 2015. Id. Table III2 details the unit cost, revenue, and contribution for Periodicals during the PAEA era.

Table III-2

Periodicals Unit Cost, Revenue, and Contribution, FY 2007–FY 2015

Fiscal Year Unit Cost Unit Revenue Unit Contribution

2007 $0.2997 $0.2488 -$0.0509

2008 $0.3175 $0.2667 -$0.0508

2009 $0.3370 $0.2563 -$0.0807

2010 $0.3425 $0.2585 -$0.0841

2011 $0.3434 $0.2573 -$0.0860

2012 $0.3562 $0.2568 -$0.0994

2013 $0.3427 $0.2608 -$0.0819

2014 $0.3531 $0.2689 -$0.0842

2015 $0.3599 $0.2722 -$0.0877

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 44 -

(1) Comments

The Public Representative highlights that Periodicals have “failed to cover attributable

costs since enactment of the PAEA.” PR Comments at 35. Moreover, he notes that in FY 

2015, “both Periodicals products (In-County and Outside County) failed to cover 

attributable costs” and had lower levels of cost coverage than in FY 2014. Id. He states that 

the Postal Service’s explanation, which attributes Periodicals’ decreased cost coverage to 

unit cost increasing faster than unit revenue, is insufficient. Id. at 35-36. Although 

Periodicals volume has declined every year since FY 2007, he notes that in the last 3 years, 

Periodicals revenue did not decrease as sharply as Periodicals volume. Id. at 35. He 

suggests that “the Postal Service ... provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors that 

negatively affect the Periodicals cost coverage.” Id. at 38.

(2) Commission Analysis of FY 2015 Financial Results

Since FY 2007, Periodicals volume declined 33.6 percent, revenue declined 27.4 percent, 

cost declined 20.3 percent, and the Periodicals class accumulated negative contribution of 

$5 billion. Increasing unit cost contributed to Periodicals’ inability to cover its cost. 

Consistent with the Public Representative’s observations, since FY 2012, Periodicals 

volume declined 13.4 percent, revenue declined 8.2 percent, and cost declined 12.5 

percent. The exigent surcharge, which went into effect on January 26, 2014,56 improved the 

revenue generated during part of FY 2014 and all of FY 2015. The increase in average unit 

cost, however, outpaced the slight increase in average unit revenue.

Decreases in both the average weight and advertising content of the mailings also affected 

FY 2015 Periodicals revenue. Because Periodicals prices are tied (in part) to the weight of 

the piece, minor weight changes have a greater effect on the price paid by the mailers than 

on the cost incurred by the Postal Service. As the Postal Service explains, minor weight 

increases do not significantly affect cost within the weight range of typical mailpieces (3 to 

16 ounces) or the productivity of mail processing equipment.57 Minor weight changes can, 

however, have significant effects on prices. Average weight for Outside County Periodicals 

decreased from 6.16 ounces per piece in FY 2014 to 6.09 ounces per piece in FY 2015. 

Furthermore, advertising pounds, which pay higher prices, decreased from 39.5 percent of 

total Outside County Periodicals pounds in FY 2014 to 39.1 percent in FY 2015.

See Chapter 2, supra, for a discussion of Periodicals worksharing incentives and for a 

discussion of the importance of sending efficient pricing signals to mailers.

(3) Commission Analysis of Outside County Periodicals Unit 

Cost

The Periodicals class is comprised of two products: In-County58 and Outside County. In 

FY 2015, Outside County constituted 90.2 percent of Periodicals total volume and 95.8 

 

56 See Order No. 1926 at 193.

57 FY 2015 ACR at 46 (identifying the following equipment: the Automated Flats Sorting Machine 100 (AFSM 100), Flats Sequencing System 

(FSS), Automation Parcel and Bundle Sorter (APBS), or Automated Package Processing System (APPS)).

58 The In-County product is typically used by smaller circulation weekly newspapers for distribution within the county of publication.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 45 -

percent of Periodicals total attributable cost. Because Outside County pieces incur most of 

the costs for the Periodicals class, operational initiatives focused on Outside County

Periodicals have greater potential for cost savings for the Periodicals class. Table III-3 

shows that Outside County Periodicals total unit costs increased by 0.68 cents from 

FY 2014 to FY 2015.

Table III-3

Change in Outside County Periodicals Unit Costs, FY 2008–FY 201559

Fiscal Year Mail Processing Delivery Transportation Other Total

2008 12.23 8.06 3.52 10.12 33.93

2009 12.94 9.29 3.18 10.89 36.30

2010 12.02 9.68 3.59 11.09 36.38

2011 12.07 9.50 3.41 11.51 36.49

2012 12.41 9.57 3.90 11.87 37.74

2013 11.69 9.38 3.89 11.39 36.35

2014 12.25 9.63 3.83 11.82 37.53

2015 11.89 10.29 4.31 11.72 38.21

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5.

In FY 2015, the increases in delivery and transportation unit costs surpassed the slight 

reductions in mail processing and other unit costs. Two changes to accepted analytical 

principles (cost methodology changes) implemented by the Postal Service in FY 2015 

following approval by the Commission, the new city carrier street time letter route cost 

model and the modified carrier vehicle cost, contributed to the increase in delivery unit 

cost.60 The trends for transportation and mail processing unit costs, however, show that the 

Postal Service has not realized cost savings from increased mailer preparation 

(worksharing), via dropshipping and presortation.

Since FY 2008, mailers have increasingly dropshipped Outside County Periodicals. 

In FY 2008, 58.6 percent of Outside County Periodicals mail was dropshipped at the 

Destination Sectional Center Facility (DSCF). In FY 2015, 72.0 percent of Outside County 

Periodicals mail was dropshipped at the DSCF or the destination FSS (DFSS) facility.61 Entry 

of Outside County Periodicals closer to the end destination should lead to an overall 

decrease in the Postal Service’s transportation unit cost. However, since FY 2008, 

transportation unit cost for Outside County Periodicals has increased. The Postal Service 

should explore why its transportation unit costs are rising despite increased dropshipping.

 

59 The unit cost figures in the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) report include piggybacks. The figures in this table do not include piggybacks. A 

majority of the other costs are piggybacked onto mail processing, delivery, and transportation.

60 February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 18.

61 With the implementation of Docket No. R2015-4 prices, some mailpieces that were previously dropshipped at a DSCF are now dropshipped at 

a DFSS. Hence, the DSCF and DFSS dropshipped pieces are totaled to demonstrate the degree to which mailers dropshipped Outside County 

Periodicals mailings in FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 46 -

Since FY 2008, mail processing unit cost has remained relatively flat even though mailer 

presortation of Outside County Periodicals has increased substantially. As Figure III-1 

illustrates, 49.0 percent of mail volume was presorted to the Carrier Route level in FY 2008, 

whereas 62.2 percent of mail volume was presorted to the Carrier Route or FSS level in 

FY 2015.62

Figure III-1

Change in Outside County Periodicals Mail Mix, FY 2008–FY 201563

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5.

Mail processing unit costs are much lower for mailpieces presorted to the Carrier Route 

level than to the 5-Digit level. The Postal Service does not separate mail processing costs 

for Carrier Route presorted Periodicals from other presorted Periodicals, such as 5-Digit 

and 3-Digit, because they are not separate products. However, Carrier Route and Standard 

Mail Flats (such as 5-Digit and 3-Digit) are separate products and therefore, the CRA 

isolates the mail processing cost for this level of presortation in Standard Mail. The 

Standard Mail information from the CRA may provide insight into the potential for cost 

differences within the Periodicals class.

 

62 With the implementation of Docket No. R2015-4 prices, some mailpieces that were previously Carrier Route are now required to be prepared 

at the FSS level. Hence, the Carrier Route and FSS pieces are totaled to demonstrate the degree to which mailers prepared Outside County 

Periodicals mailings in FY 2015.

63 Id.

62%

30% 28% 25% 24% 23% 22% 21% 20%

49%

52%

55% 57% 59% 59% 60%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Percent of Total Outside County Mail Volume

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fiscal Year

Carrier Route Basic + FSS 5-Digit Automation Machinable

Carrier Route Basic
Docket No. ACR2015 - 47 -

The piggybacked mail processing unit cost of Standard Mail Carrier Route was 5.88 cents in 

FY 2015.64 The piggybacked mail processing unit cost of Standard Mail Flats was nearly five 

times higher, 27.95 cents in FY 2015.65 For each mailpiece that moves from the 5-Digit to 

the Carrier Route presortation level, the Postal Service should avoid considerable cost. This 

would suggest that mail processing unit cost of Outside County Periodicals should have 

decreased since FY 2008.

Since FY 2008, mail processing unit costs for non-Carrier Route flats have increased.66

Declining mail processing productivity contributed considerably to this increase. Table III4 details changes in productivity for selected flats processing operations since FY 2008.

Table III-4

Change in Productivity for Selected Flats Processing Operations, FY 2008–FY 2015

Operation Productivity

Change

Automated Flats Sorting Machine 100 (AFSM 100) Incoming Secondary -18%

Small Parcel Bundle Sorter (SPBS)/Automated Parcel Bundle Sorter (APBS) Incoming -19%

Automated Package Processing System (APPS) Incoming -39%

Flats Sequencing System (FSS)67-4%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/5.

Despite projecting improved flats mail processing performance in its reports and requested 

changes to prices and services in recent years,68 the Postal Service has yet to achieve any of 

its projected productivity increases. Flats productivity has decreased since FY 2008. 

Although the changing Outside County Periodicals mail mix will likely result in less 

processing on the AFSM 100, SPBS/APBS, and APPS, Periodicals will continue to have cost 

coverage issues if the Postal Service does not address declining productivity.

b. Postal Service Response to FY 2014 ACD Directives

In FY 2014, the Commission directed the Postal Service to provide a detailed analysis of the 

progress made in improving Periodicals cost coverage. The Commission specifically 

 

64 See Library Reference USPS–FY15–26, December 29, 2015, Excel file “shp15prc.xls,” tab “Flats (4),” cell BV23.

65 See id. cell BV25.

66 The piggybacked mail processing unit cost for Standard Mail Flats has increased from 22.89 cents in FY 2008 to 27.95 cents in FY 2015. 

Compare Library Reference USPS–FY08–26, Excel file “shp08prc.xls,” tab “Flats (4),” cell BP25 with Library Reference USPS–FY15–26, Excel file 

“shp15prc.xls,” tab “Flats (4),” cell BV25.

67 The FSS machine productivity is measured from its introduction in FY 2011.

68 See, e.g., United States Postal Service Office of the Inspector General Report, Flats Sequencing System: Program Status and Projected Cash 

Flow, July 27, 2010, at 10 (Report Number DA-AR-10-007) (projecting that the lower bound or worst case scenario for the FSS would be a return 

on investment of 14.25 percent without transitional employees and 26.9 percent with transitional employees); Docket No. R2010-4, Responses 

of the United States Postal Service to Questions from the Bench at the Hearing for Mr. Neri, August 19, 2010, at 7 (“Expectations are for flats 

workhours to decline another 11 percent in FY 2010.”); Docket No. N2012-1, Direct Testimony of Frank Neri on Behalf of the United States 

Postal Service (USPS–T–4), December 5, 2011, at 29-30 (projecting an increase in AFSM 100 productivity of 15 percent).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 48 -

directed that the Postal Service include in the FY 2015 ACR “[t]he progress in developing 

metrics to assess the cost savings impact of operational strategies” and “[t]he cost savings 

from the implementation of operational strategies outlined in Chapter 7 of the Periodicals 

Mail Study69 and in the Postal Service’s Flats Operational and Pricing Strategies in Docket 

No. R2010-4.”

70

In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service describes its operational changes, and specifically 

identifies three strategies outlined in Chapter 7 of the Periodicals Mail Study that were 

implemented: full deployment of the FSS; movement of flats up the automation ladder; and 

implementation of the Automated Parcel Bundle Sorter (APBS). FY 2015 ACR at 18-28. 

However, the FY 2015 ACR contains no detailed analysis of the cost savings impact of these 

operational changes or the progress in developing metrics to assess the resulting cost 

savings. The Postal Service states that it “is unable to provide an estimate of the financial 

impacts of these operational initiatives at this time.” Id. at 19.

Several CHIRs were issued to better understand the specifics of the operational strategies, 

the cost savings impacts of the Flats operational strategies, and the obstacles to developing 

cost savings impact metrics.71 The Postal Service’s responses clarify its calculation of 

performance metrics related to the FSS.72 The Postal Service discusses the cost of manually 

sorting 10 percent of flats and discusses efforts to reduce manual sorting. Responses to 

CHIR No. 4, question 14. The Postal Service states that “[t]he lack of visibility into manual 

piece processing also impedes the ability to determine a lowest cost mail flow.”73

The Postal Service contends that it is unable to quantify the cost savings impact of 

requiring FSS Scheme pallet or FSS Scheme bundle preparation.74 The Postal Service 

provides a status update concerning its past and ongoing efforts to reduce bundle 

breakage, but does not provide any analysis of the cost of broken bundles. Responses to 

CHIR No. 4, question 18. The Postal Service states that its evaluation of potential revisions 

to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) bundle preparation requirements remains pending 

without a current timeframe for conclusion or any reported recommendations. February 

17, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 9. The Postal Service provides its Periodicals 

Value Stream Map, which it has not updated since 2010. February 19, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No. 12, question 1.

 

69 Periodicals Mail Study, Joint Report of the United States Postal Service and Postal Regulatory Commission, September 2011 (Periodicals Mail 

Study).

70 FY 2014 ACD at 40; see Docket No. R2010-4, Library Reference USPS–R2010–4/9, July 6, 2010.

71 See CHIR No. 4, questions 13-18; Chairman's Information Request No. 7, February 1, 2016, questions 7-14 (CHIR No. 7); Chairman's 

Information Request No. 12, February 9, 2016, questions 1-4, 8-14 (CHIR No. 12).

72 Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 13; Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-15, 17-29 of Chairman’s Information 

Request No. 7, February 8, 2016, question 10 (February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7).

73 February 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 8.b.

74 Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 17; February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 7; Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Filing a Revised Response to Question 11 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 12 -- ERRATA, February 18, 2016, question 11 (February 18, 

2016, Response to CHIR No. 12).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 49 -

The Postal Service represents that it is unable to update its projected return on investment 

for the FSS machines. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 8. According to 

the Postal Service, the decreasing flats processing productivity is partially attributable to 

declining flats volume, which has reduced machine-compatible mail more than manual 

mail.75 However, the Postal Service “has not determined the percentage of total volume that 

equates to the most efficient processing for FSS.” February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 

7, question 12.b.

(1) Comments

Two commenters address issues specific to whether the Postal Service’s operational 

changes reduced costs. The Association of Magazine Media (MPA) contends that although 

the Postal Service invested in the FSS machine in order to reduce flats costs, FSS machines 

increased flats costs in FY 2015. MPA Comments at 4-5. The Postal Service replies that the 

unit mail processing cost of Outside County Periodicals decreased from 19.78 cents in 

FY 2014 to 18.89 cents in FY 2015. USPS Reply Comments at 21.

PostCom states that for Outside County Periodicals, mail processing cost increased by 4.5 

percent and delivery cost increased by 7.91 percent in FY 2015.76 The Postal Service replies 

that Periodicals delivery cost in FSS zones are lower than Periodicals delivery cost in nonFSS zones, and attributes the increase of delivery cost, in part, to two cost methodology 

changes.77

MPA and the Public Representative make recommendations specific to the Postal Service’s 

efforts to improve Periodicals cost coverage through operational changes. MPA suggests 

that the Commission require the Postal Service in the FY2016 ACR to perform a detailed 

analysis of the mail processing and delivery costs for flats destinating in FSS and non-FSS 

zones and fully quantify the extent to which operational changes result in lower costs. MPA 

Comments at 6-7. The Public Representative recommends that the Postal Service report the 

effects of pending operational changes on cost coverage and expand its efforts to reduce 

costs and improve productivity as directed in the FY 2014 ACD. PR Comments at 38.

MPA asserts that the FY 2015 ACR failed to comply with the Commission’s directives 

because the FY 2015 ACR merely describes operational and pricing changes without any 

quantification of the financial impact of those changes. MPA Comments at 3. MPA urges the 

Commission to require “the Postal Service to correct this major omission.” Id.

 

75 FY 2015 ACR at 20; see also Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-14 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, 

January 15, 2016, question 8.e. (January 15, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2). The Postal Service also notes that full deployment of the FSS was 

delayed nearly one year, resulting in substantial lost savings from both the delay and the coincident decline in volumes. FY 2015 ACR at 29-30 

n.15 (noting this issue is currently a subject of litigation between the Postal Service and the supplier of the FSS machines).

76 Initial Comments of the Association for Postal Commerce, February 2, 2016, at 8 (PostCom Comments).

77 USPS Reply Comments at 13; citing February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 7.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 50 -

(2) Commission Analysis

Periodicals has persistently failed to cover its costs. The Commission has repeatedly 

encouraged the Postal Service to improve Periodicals cost coverage.78 Recognizing that 

certain obstacles to the improvement of cost coverage for Periodicals also apply to 

Standard Mail Flats, the Commission includes a holistic discussion of flats in Chapter 6.

The Postal Service represents that it has implemented many operational strategies 

designed to improve the efficiency of flats processing operations, yet it has not developed 

cost savings figures associated with any of the strategies. The Postal Service contends that 

it does not have the information needed to assess the impacts of its operational strategies 

for improving the financial performance of its flats operations because it does not know 

how mailers would have prepared their Periodicals mailings under alternative operational

schemes.79 According to the Postal Service, the inability to isolate the effects of an 

operational change from other circumstances beyond the Postal Service’s control, including 

mail volume and mail mix changes, also contributes to the difficulty in developing metrics 

to assess the cost savings impact of operational strategies for Periodicals. February 17, 

2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 4. Further, the Postal Service argues that because 

Periodicals are routinely co-processed with other classes of mail, developing a metric 

linking operational changes to cost savings specifically for Periodicals is challenging. Id.

Although the Postal Service cannot precisely predict how mailers would prepare 

Periodicals under alternative operational or pricing schemes, the Postal Service has 

actionable data on its own operations. For example, the Postal Service has past productivity

data, which can show how productivity has changed in response to changes, including 

different mail volumes, mail mixes, and mailer preparation. The Postal Service can 

determine from its past data how its operations responded to past changes in mail 

volumes, mail mix, and mailer preparation. That information can be used as a baseline to 

project how the Postal Service’s operations may react to changes in mailers’ behavior. See

Chapter 2, supra, for a discussion of how the Postal Service can combine billing 

determinant data and operational data to assess how mailer preparation can impact the 

Postal Service’s operational costs. Quantification of the cost savings and contribution 

impacts of the Postal Service operational strategies would facilitate the determination of 

whether the strategies improve Periodicals cost coverage and provide specific focus upon 

which strategies result in the greatest improvements.

In Chapter 7 of the Periodicals Mail Study, the Postal Service provided savings estimates for 

three operational strategies: implementing the FSS; moving flats up the automation ladder; 

and implementing the APBS.80 Despite implementing these three strategies since the 

release of that report, the Periodicals financial results provide no evidence of cost savings

 

78 See FY 2009 ACD at 75; FY 2010 ACD at 94; FY 2011 ACD at 105-106; FY 2012 ACD at 95-97; FY 2013 ACD at 44-45; FY 2014 ACD at 40-41.

79 See, e.g., Responses to CHIR No. 4, questions 17; February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 7.b.

80 Periodicals Mail Study at 95-96 (projecting savings of up to $83 million by implementing Phase 1 of the FSS, $49.5 million for moving Outside 

County Periodicals up the automation ladder, $14 million annually by implementing the APBS).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 51 -

from operational improvements. Moreover, the Postal Service has not quantified any 

resulting cost savings. As further discussed in Chapter 6, the Postal Service must use 

available data to develop metrics that will enable meaningful analysis of the cost savings 

and contribution impact of its operational strategies on Periodicals.

The Postal Service did not comply with the FY 2014 ACD requirements set forth by the 

Commission.

Chapter 6 of this Report discusses the noncompensatory cost coverage for flat-shaped mail 

products. In that chapter, the Commission further expresses its concerns with the Postal 

Service’s inability to quantify the cost savings of its initiatives to reduce costs for flats. In 

Chapter 6, the Commission recommends the Postal Service take further action by preparing a 

plan for flats. All of the recommendations pertaining to reducing flats’ costs apply to 

Periodicals.

2. Standard Mail Flats

a. Introduction

In FY 2015, Standard Mail Flats had a cost coverage of 80.3 percent.81 As shown in Table III5, cost coverage for Standard Flats declined substantially between FY 2008 and FY 2011, 

when it reached a low of 79.5 percent. In FY 2012 and FY 2013 the cost coverage improved 

but it began to decline again in FY 2014. The cost coverage continued to decline in FY 2015, 

and was the lowest cost coverage since FY 2011.

Table III-5

Standard Mail Flats Cost Coverage and Contribution, FY 2008–FY 2015

Fiscal Year Cost Coverage Contribution

(millions)

FY 2008 94.4% -$217.8

FY 2009 82.1% -$615.6

FY 2010 81.8% -$577.0

FY 2011 79.5% -$643.2

FY 2012 80.9% -$527.9

FY 2013 85.1% -$375.9

FY 2014 83.2% -$411.0

FY 2015 80.3% -$518.9

Total $3,887.3

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

 

81 The Commission’s cost coverage calculation differs from the Postal Service’s because the Commission includes fees in the revenue for each 

product and the Postal Service does not.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 52 -

The Postal Service states that the decrease in cost coverage was the result of three cost 

methodology changes that, together, increased unit cost by 0.99 cents, or 2.1 percent. FY 

2015 ACR at 29-30.

The aggregate negative contribution in FY 2015 was also significantly greater than 

FY 2014. The Postal Service notes that the volume of Standard Mail Flats increased, which 

resulted in an increase in the aggregate contribution shortfall. Id. at 30-31.

In its review of the financial performance of Standard Mail Flats for FY 2015, the 

Commission must consider the Postal Service’s compliance with its earlier FY 2010 ACD 

directive regarding Standard Mail Flats. Below, the Commission discusses this directive, the 

Postal Service’s FY 2015 ACR response, and comments concerning financial performance of 

Standard Mail Flats for FY 2015. In Chapter 6 of this report, the Commission discusses 

further action regarding Standard Mail Flats.

b. FY 2010 ACD Directive for Standard Mail Flats

In the FY 2010 ACD, the Commission determined that Standard Mail Flats prices in effect in 

FY 2010 did not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 101(d) and directed the Postal Service to increase 

the product’s cost coverage through a combination of above-average price adjustments, 

consistent with the price cap requirements, and cost reductions, until such time that 

revenue exceeds attributable cost. FY 2010 ACD at 106. In addition, the Commission 

directed the Postal Service to provide the following information in each of its subsequent 

ACRs:

 A description of operational changes designed to reduce Flats costs in the previous 

fiscal year and an estimation of the financial effect of such changes.

 A description of all costing methodology or measurement improvements made in 

the previous fiscal year and the estimated financial effects of such changes.

 A statement summarizing the historical and current fiscal year subsidy of the Flats 

product, and the estimated timeline for phasing out this subsidy.

Id. at 107.

The Postal Service appealed the Commission’s FY 2010 ACD findings and directive to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In USPS v. Postal 

Regulatory Comm’n, 676 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2012), issued April 17, 2012, the court 

rejected the Postal Service’s contention that the Commission acted outside of the scope of 

its statutory authority by considering the general standards of 39 U.S.C. § 101(d) in an ACD 

“at least in extreme circumstances.” Id. at 1108. The court remanded the case to the 

Commission “for a definition of the circumstances that trigger [section] 101(d)’s failsafe 

protection, and for an explanation of why the particular remedy imposed here is 

appropriate to ameliorate that extremity ....” Id. at 1109. In response, the Commission 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 53 -

issued Order No. 1427, clarifying that its analysis of the circumstances that would trigger 

39 U.S.C. § 101(d) depended on the totality of circumstances.82

In its FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014 ACDs, the Commission found that the Postal Service 

had made progress towards addressing the issues raised in the FY 2010 ACD, and 

concluded that no additional remedial actions beyond those prescribed in the FY 2010 

directive were required. See FY 2012 ACD at 116; FY 2013 ACD at 54; FY 2014 ACD at 47.

c. Response to FY 2010 ACD Directive

In its FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service reports that it plans to increase Standard Mail Flats 

prices by CPI multiplied by 1.05 in the next general market dominant price change. FY 2015 

ACR at 18.

The Postal Service provides some of the information required by the Commission’s FY 2010 

ACD directive: a description of operational changes designed to reduce Standard Mail Flats 

costs, a description of all costing methodology changes made in FY 2015 that affect 

Standard Mail Flats costs, and the historical and current fiscal year subsidy of the Standard 

Mail Flats product. Id. at 18-31. However, the Postal Service did not fully comply with the 

FY 2010 directive in FY 2015. The Commission requires further necessary action by the 

Postal Service to quantify its efforts in Chapter 6 of this Report. Those items provided by 

the Postal Service are discussed below.

(1) Operational Changes Designed to Reduce Flats Cost

The Postal Service describes 10 new and ongoing operational steps taken during FY 2015 

designed to make processing Standard Mail Flats more efficient: 

● FSS Scorecard

● Move Mail Up the Ladder

● Bundle Operation

● Service Performance Diagnostics Tool

● High Speed Flats Feeder

● Lean Mail Processing

● FSS Mail Preparation

● Reduce Bundle Breakage

● Newspaper Kaizens

● Standard Mail Outgoing Mixed States

Id. at 18-28.

The Postal Service maintains that these initiatives are expected to improve efficiencies and 

productivities, as well as reduce overall Standard Mail Flats cost. ld. at 18. The Commission 

 

82 Docket No. ACR2010-R, Order on Remand, August 9, 2012, at 4 (Order No. 1427).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 54 -

issued several CHIRs to obtain a better understanding of these operational initiatives.83

Each initiative is discussed below.

(a) FSS Scorecard

The Postal Service uses the FSS Scorecard to measure critical aspects of FSS performance at 

each processing location. FY 2015 ACR at 19. It asserts that the FSS Scorecard measures 

FSS performance at each processing location and allows the Postal Service to identify sites 

where performance can be improved. Id. In its discussion of the FSS Scorecard, the Postal 

Service explains that Mail Pieces At-Risk are those pieces that did not follow the prescribed 

path of sortation on the FSS and required additional handling.84 The Postal Service 

estimates that these pieces could incur additional costs, ranging from 2.609 cents to 21.899 

cents.85 Table III-6 presents the FSS Scorecard data from FY 2012 through FY 2015. The 

table shows that since FY 2012, the throughput per hour86 has decreased, while the 

Delivery Point Sequencing percentage87 and Mail Pieces At-Risk percentages have shown 

some improvement. The Postal Service has neither provided costs savings associated with 

the FSS Scorecard, nor explained its failure to quantify such savings.

Table III-6

FSS Scorecard, FY 2012–FY 2015

Performance Metric FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Throughput per hour (PPH) 8,860 8,985 8,746 8,840

Delivery Point Sequence (DPS) 56.40% 57.90% 58.57% 59.99%

Mail Pieces At-Risk 6.01% 5.84% 6.15% 5.34%

Source: FY ACR2015 at 19; Docket No. ACR2013, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-11 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 2, January 23, 2014, question 1 (Docket No. ACR2013, Responses to CHIR No. 2).

(b) Move Mail Up the Ladder

Since FY 2011, the Postal Service has identified Move Mail Up the Ladder as an operational 

initiative intended to reduce Standard Mail Flats cost. This initiative aims to decrease 

manual processing by increasing automation processing.88 Table III-7 shows that, despite 

this initiative, the percentage of flats that are manually processed has increased each year 

since FY 2012.

 

83 See e.g., Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, January 8, 2016, questions 21-25 (CHIR No. 2); CHIR No. 4, questions 1, 3, 13-18; CHIR No. 7, 

questions 7-14; Chairman’s Information Request No. 11, February 8, 2016, questions 1-10 (CHIR No. 11); CHIR No. 12, questions 1-14.

84 See Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 13.

85 February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 10.

86 The productivity of automated processing operations is measured in throughput per hour (PPH), which measures the average volume 

processed per hour or machine run-time. This differs from the measure of processing productivity used in the cost avoidance model, Total 

Pieces Handled per workhour compares the processed volume with the employee workhours required for said processing.

87 Delivery Point Sequencing is the term used by the Postal Service for a processing operation wherein volume is sequenced in the order that it 

will be delivered by carriers on their routes.

88 See Docket No. ACR2012, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-9 and 12-15 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, 

January 14, 2013, question 1 (Docket No. ACR2012, Responses to CHIR No. 1).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 55 -

Table III-7

Move Mail Up the Ladder, FY 2012–FY 2015

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Flats Manually Processed 8.5% 9.4% 9.8% 10.0%

Source: FY ACR2015 at 20-21; Docket No. ACR2013, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 1.

The Postal Service estimates the cost of manual processing for these pieces is $158 million. 

See Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 14. In order to reduce manual sortation, the Postal 

Service plans to develop technology to bypass bundle sortation, redeploy flats sorting 

equipment to replace manual processing, and ensure proper mail flow compliance. Id. The 

Postal Service explains that some of the increase is due to decreasing flats volume, which 

reduces machine-compatible mail more than manual mail. FY 2015 ACR at 20. The Postal 

Service has neither quantified any cost savings associated with Move Mail Up the Ladder, 

nor explained its failure to quantify such savings. However, cost savings appear unlikely 

due to the increase in more costly manual processing.

(c) Bundle Operation

In FY 2014, the Postal Service began adding bins to the Automated Parcel and Bundle 

Sorter (APBS), which reduces the need for a secondary sortation. The Postal Service added 

1,264 bins in FY 2014, and 3,520 bins in FY 2015. FY 2015 ACR at 21. The Postal Service 

invested $12.9 million in FY 2015 for the 3,520 bins. See Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 

15. The Postal Service asserts that it has focused on reducing manual handling of flats 

bundles rather than studying the associated cost savings. Therefore, the Postal Service did 

not quantify any cost savings associated with this operational initiative. Id.

(d) Service Performance Diagnostics Tool

Since FY 2012, the Postal Service has identified Service Performance Diagnostics (SPD) 

Tool as an operational initiative designed to reduce Standard Mail Flats costs. See Docket 

No. ACR2012, Responses to CHIR No. 1, question 1. This tool is used to track and improve 

the flow of Standard Mail through the network using scan data. FY 2015 ACR at 21. As part 

of the SPD platform, the Postal Service uses IMb scans to measure processing time. This 

aspect of the SPD platform is called the Work In Process (WIP) cycle time. The WIP cycle 

time measures the time between a mailpiece’s arrival at the plant and bundle-to-piece 

distribution.89 Table III-8 shows that the WIP cycle time increased for Standard Mail Flats 

in FY 2015.

 

89 The term WIP cycle time is also used by the Postal Service, on occasion, to refer to intermediate steps within the entire mail processing 

operation. See January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 22.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 56 -

Table III-8

Service Performance Diagnostics Tool 

Median 5-Day Work In Process

Standard Mail Flats, FY 2012–FY 2015

Time Period from Service Performance Diagnostics Median 

Hours

FY 2012 (Week ending 3/02/12-9/28/12) 52.4

FY 2013 (Week ending 10/19/12-9/27/13) 50.5

FY 2014 (Week ending 10/01/13-9/30/14) 49

FY 2015 (Week ending 10/01/14-9/30/15) 52

Source: FY ACR2015 at 22; Docket No. ACR2013, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 1.

The Postal Service plans to reduce the WIP cycle time by decreasing the time between 

bundle and next process handling. See Library Reference USPS–FY15–29, December 29, 

2015, at 14. The Postal Service has neither quantified any cost savings from this initiative, 

nor explained its failure to quantify such savings.

(e) High Speed Flats Feeder

The Postal Service asserts that High Speed Flats Feeder (HSFF) enables the FSS to process 

more delivery points in the same operating window, while decreasing the error rate. 

FY 2015 ACR at 23. The Postal Service introduced the HSFF in FY 2012. See Docket No. 

ACR2012, Responses to CHIR No. 1, question 1. The Postal Service explains that this 

initiative will lead to improved machine accept rates, improved machine throughput, and

increased capacity of the FSS to sequence more mail. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR 

No. 7, question 11. In three tests of the HSFF, the Postal Service observed consistent 

productivity improvements over current feeder technology.90 The Postal Service estimates 

that it will take it at least another year to develop reliable cost savings estimates for the 

initiative. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 11.

(f) Lean Mail Processing

Lean Mail Processing (LMP) is an operational initiative which the Postal Service began 

implementing in FY 2013.91 The LMP program is a standardized, statistical program for 

improving mail processing. FY 2015 ACR at 24. In FY 2015 the Postal Service deployed 

phases three and four of LMP. Id.

92 Phase three focuses on Automated Package Processing 

System (APPS) and APBS operations. Id. Phase four of LMP focuses on proactively problem 

 

90 See FY 2015 ACR at 23; Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 16.

91 See Docket No. ACR2013, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 1.Prior to FY 2013, the Postal Service sought to rely upon Lean Six Sigma (LSS)

Improvements. See Docket No. ACR2011, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1, 3-6, 8-27, 29-37, and 39-42 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, January 27, 2012, question 9 (Docket No. ACR2011, Responses to CHIR No. 1); Docket No. ACR2012, 

Response to CHIR No. 1, question 1.

92 “[P]hase one and two focused on foundational efforts affecting all mail processing operations, including flats.” Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 57 -

solving when discrepancies are first detected.93 Id. The Postal has neither quantified any 

cost savings from the LMP initiative, nor explained its failure to quantify such savings.

(g) FSS Mail Preparation

The FSS Mail Preparation operational initiative has been cited by the Postal Service since 

FY 2011. See Docket No. ACR2011, Responses to CHIR No. 1, question 9. In FY 2015, the 

Postal Service explains that FSS Scheme bundle preparation requirements result in more 

uniform bundles, which enable more efficient FSS processing for the Postal Service. FY 

2015 ACR at 25. In addition, FSS Scheme pallet requirements allow pallets to bypass bundle 

distribution on the APPS/APBS, which reduces bundle breakage. Id. at 26. The Postal 

Service asserts that FSS Scheme pallets reduce transportation expenses and improve 

service. Id. However, the Postal Service has been unable to measure the cost impact of FSS 

Scheme pallets and FSS Scheme bundles.94 The Postal Service asserts that it cannot quantify 

the cost savings of FSS Scheme pallet preparation because it would require “knowledge of 

the preparation of the mail in the absence of the FSS Scheme pallet preparation 

requirement.” See Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 17.

(h) Reduce Bundle Breakage

In FY 2015, the Postal Service continued to study the causes and impact of bundle 

breakage. FY 2015 ACR at 27. The Postal Service asserts that bundle breakage results in 

higher mail processing cost. Id. The Postal Service is working with the Mailers Technical 

Advisory Committee (MTAC), Mail Service Providers (MSPs) to find solutions to reduce 

bundle breakage. In FY 2015, the Postal Service completed a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) project 

to determine the best method to minimize bundle breakage.95 The Postal Service now 

identifies broken bundles when three or more Intelligent Mail barcodes (IMbs) for pieces in 

a bundle are scanned on Postal Service bundle sorting equipment. See Responses to CHIR 

No. 4, question 18. In addition, the Postal Service is evaluating DMM requirements to 

determine if revisions to bundle preparation are required to mitigate bundle breakage. Id. 

The Postal Service has neither quantified any cost savings associated with its bundle 

breakage operational initiative, nor explained its failure to quantify such savings.

(i) Newspaper Kaizens and Standard Mail Outgoing 

Mixed States

In FY 2015, the Postal Service added Newspaper Kaizens and Standard Mail Outgoing 

Mixed States as new steps to make processing Standard Mail Flats more efficient. FY 2015 

ACR at 27-28. The Postal Service explains that Newspaper Kaizens are being used to 

identify root causes of bottlenecks and determine the lead time of the process. Id. at 28. One 

primary outcome of the Kaizen events is the development of a standard workflow for 

Periodicals. See February 17, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 2. The Postal 

Service has not yet finalized the standard workflow, but will release it at a later date to 

replace the current standard operating procedure. Id.

 

93 Personnel visually track real-time performance and take appropriate actions to ensure operational goals are met. Id.

94 See February 18, 2016, Response to CHIR No. 12, question 11; February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 7.

95 The Postal Service completed the LSS project in June 2015. See Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 18.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 58 -

The Postal Service also identifies Standard Mail Outgoing Mixed States as an initiative 

meant to ensure that the mixed states processing facilities are aligned with NDC network 

facilities. This initiative has led the Postal Service to correct labeling lists to ensure that 

processing facilities are aligned with NDC networks. See February 17, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No. 12, question 7. The Postal Service has not quantified any projected cost savings 

from these operational initiatives.

(j) Flat Recognition Improvement Program

The FY 2015 ACR no longer lists the Flat Recognition Improvement Program (FRIP), which 

was an operational initiative described by the Postal Service in its FY 2014 ACR that was 

intended to reduce flats cost.96 The goal of the FRIP was to increase address recognition 

and reduce error rates thereby improving customer service and reducing hours spent on 

keying. Id. The Postal Service claims the FRIP initiative decreased annual workhours by 

350,000 through improved Optical Character Reader (OCR) finalization and depth-of-sort 

rates. See February 17, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 13. Improved recognition 

and reduced error rates saved the Postal Service 34,000 annual workhours.97 Id.

Each of the operational initiatives discussed above was intended to reduce Standard Mail 

Flats costs. Although the FY 2010 ACD directive requires the Postal Service to provide an 

estimate of the financial effect of its operational initiatives, the Postal Service has not done 

so. While the Postal Service developed a projected cost savings before implementation of 

the program, it did not verify its projections or compare to actual results. Instead, it states 

that it “is unable to provide an estimate of the financial impacts of these operational 

initiatives at this time.” FY 2015 ACR at 19.

(2) Costing Methodology Changes in FY 2015

The Postal Service identifies three costing methodology changes that affected Standard 

Mail Flats costs in FY 2015: Docket No. RM2015-7, Proposal Thirteen (Updating City 

Carrier Street Time Cost Model); Docket No. RM2015-19, Proposal Ten (merging cost 

Segment 4 with Cost Segment 3); and Docket No. RM206-3, Proposal Twelve (change in 

methodology for City Carrier Letter Route Vehicle Use Costs). ld. at 29. It asserts that these 

methodology changes accounted for a 0.99 cent increase, or 2.1 percent increase, in the 

unit attributable cost for Standard Mail Flats in FY 2015. ld.

(3) Historical and Current Fiscal Year Subsidies

The Postal Service provides the historical and current fiscal year subsidy of the Standard 

Mail Flats product. ld. at 30. However, it does not provide a timeline for phasing out the 

subsidy, and asserts that it is difficult to predict when the shortfall for the product will be 

phased out. ld. It also states that it is unlikely that the shortfall will be eliminated by the end 

 

96 See Docket No. ACR2014, Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing Partial Supplemental Information in Response to Order No. 2313, 

January 15, 2015, Attachment A at 8-9.

97 The Postal Service tested “150,000 flat mail images collected from machines nationwide to represent the nation’s flat mail base” to estimate 

FRIP performance. See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 16, February 29, 

2016 (Responses to CHIR No. 16, question 1).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 59 -

of 2016, when the Commission commences its review of the rate system, and that “[t]he 

prospects for eliminating the shortfall thereafter will depend not only on pricing and cost 

saving initiatives, but also on any changes made to applicable regulations by the 

Commission.” Id. The Postal Service notes that the FY 2015 Standard Mail Flats shortfall is 

less than what it was when the shortfall peaked in FY 2011. Id.

d. Comments on Standard Mail Flats

The Commission received comments from the American Catalog Mailer Association 

(ACMA),98 Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. 

(Valpak),99 Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom),100 and the Public Representative 

regarding the financial performance of Standard Mail Flats in FY 2015. The Postal Service, 

ACMA, Valpak, and PostCom filed Reply Comments.101 The comments generally address 

Standard Mail pricing, Standard Mail Flats cost, and compliance with the Commission’s 

Standard Mail Flats FY 2010 ACD directive.

(1) Standard Mail Pricing

PostCom states that FSS-related price structure changes made in Docket No. R2015-4 have 

caused the migration of Carrier Route flats to Standard Mail Flats and the increase in total 

negative contribution for FY 2015. PostCom asserts that the price structure changes 

introduced in FY 2015 were established in a vacuum without regard to achieving the 

lowest combined cost for the Postal Service and mailers. PostCom Comments at 8. 

Similarly, Valpak asserts that FSS pricing has failed to improve cost coverages. Valpak 

Comments at 13-14.

In response to these claims, the Postal Service contends that its pricing strategy is an 

efficient one because any cost advantages of Carrier Route Flats disappear for pieces 

destined for FSS Zones and there is limited value in having mail sorted to Carrier Route in 

FSS zones. USPS Reply Comments at 8.

Valpak highlights that the exigent surcharge will likely be removed in FY 2016, which will 

reduce unit revenues and cause the Standard Mail Flats cost coverage to decline further. 

Valpak Comments at 11. Valpak estimates that the Standard Mail Flats cost coverage would 

have dropped to 77.0 percent if exigent surcharge revenue was eliminated from the FY 

2015 Standard Mail Flats cost coverage calculation. Id. at 13.

ACMA critiques Valpak’s analysis by noting that Valpak did not take into account the fact 

that the FY 2015 price adjustment was only in effect for 4 months, and that there will likely 

 

98 Initial Comments of the American Catalog Mailers Association, February 2, 2016 (ACMA Comments).

99 Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. Initial Comments on the United States Postal Service FY 2015 

Annual Compliance Report, February 2, 2016 (Valpak Comments).

100 Initial Comments of the Association for Postal Commerce, February 2, 2016 (PostCom Comments).

101 Reply Comments of the American Catalog Mailers Association, February 12, 2016 (ACMA Reply Comments); Valpak Direct Marketing 

Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. Reply Comments on the United States Postal Service FY 2015 Annual Compliance Report, 

February 12, 2016 (Valpak Reply Comments); Reply Comments of the Association for Postal Commerce, February 12, 2016 (PostCom Reply 

Comments).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 60 -

be an increase in volume if the exigent surcharge is removed. ACMA Reply Comments at 5. 

ACMA also estimates that if the commercial portions of Carrier Route and Standard Mail 

Flats were combined, the resulting cost coverage would have been 108.9 percent. ACMA 

Initial Comments at 3.

Valpak urges the Postal Service to improve its cost accuracy in order to develop 

economically efficient price signals. Valpak Comments at 24. Valpak asserts that pricing 

should not be detached from costing and encourages the Commission to ensure that the 

Postal Service does not ignore costs when setting prices. Id. at 25. Valpak contends that at 

present, the Postal Service is sending inefficient pricing signals. It also claims that Standard 

Mail pricing violates 39 U.S.C. § 101(d), which requires postal rates “apportion the costs of 

all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.” It highlights that 

the contribution gap between Standard Mail Flats and all other profitable Standard Mail 

products has widened since FY 2013. Valpak Comments at 17-19.

Valpak argues further that the Postal Service should be directed to adopt elasticity based 

marginal cost pricing for all Standard Mail products, which would result in contribution 

losing products receiving substantial price increases, while products with high elasticities 

and high contribution would receive minimal price adjustments. Id. at 35-36. It urges the 

Commission to reconsider evaluating Postal Service’s pricing based on the model it initially 

proposed in Docket No. ACR2013. ld. at 37. It asserts that the model can develop many 

contribution increasing alternatives, including the maximum contribution obtainable with 

a given price cap. Id.

The Postal Service criticizes the Valpak model because it does not assume autonomous 

decline of Standard Mail Flats volume. USPS Reply Comments at 5. The Postal Service 

believes the Christensen Contribution Model is a more reasonable contribution maximizing 

model because it does take into account the autonomous decline of Standard Mail Flats 

volume.102 Id.

The Postal Service states that it has considered the effects of its pricing policies on total 

contribution, in both the long run and the short run. USPS Reply Comments at 2-4. The 

Postal Service states that in a price cap environment, there are many tradeoffs that it must 

consider when pricing its products. Id. It maintains that Valpak’s suggested remedy of a 

dramatic increase for Standard Mail Flats risks harmful long run contribution impacts and 

rate shock for Flats mailers. Id. at 6.

(2) Standard Mail Flats Cost

Valpak notes that Standard Mail Flats unit cost increased in FY 2015 and suggests that 

another unit cost increase in FY 2016 is a distinct possibility. Valpak Comments at 6. In 

their reply comments, both the Postal Service and ACMA argue that the main drivers of the 

 

102 In Docket No. ACR2012 the Postal Service provided Christensen Associates Scenario Analysis for Standard Mail Contribution, Library 

Reference USPS-FY12-43, December 12, 2012. The Postal Service asserts this model shows that there are pricing paths which may be 

contribution-maximizing in the short run that may not be contribution-maximizing in the long run in a price cap environment. USPS Reply 

Comments at 3.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 61 -

cost increases in FY 2015 were cost methodology changes. USPS Reply Comments at 12-13; 

ACMA Reply Comments at 3.

Valpak expresses concern over the transfer of profitable Carrier Route pieces to Standard 

Mail Flats and the introduction of FSS discounts, which were initially touted as cost saving 

measures but have not improved Standard Mail Flats' cost coverage. Valpak Comments at 

13-14. ACMA contends that before the rates for Standard Mail Flats are increased, a better 

understanding is needed of why the transfer of Carrier Route pieces to Standard Mail Flats 

has worsened cost coverage and whether the FSS will reach its true potential. ACMA 

Comments at 9.

In addressing claims that the FSS does not reduce delivery cost, the Postal Service asserts 

that delivery cost is lower in FSS zones, compared to non-FSS Zones. USPS Reply Comments 

at 13. In its February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No.7, question 7, the Postal Service 

estimates that the City In-Office unit cost for Standard Mail Flats in FSS zones is 4.4 cents, 

while the City In-Office unit cost for Standard Mail Flats in non-FSS zones is 11.8 cents. The 

Postal Service does not provide a cost savings estimate for the FSS that encompasses both 

delivery and mail processing cost.

PostCom also raises several concerns related to costs. PostCom Comments at 2-11. First, it 

asserts that bundle breakage is increasing flat-shaped mail processing costs, because 

bundles are being handled on parcel sorting equipment. Id. at 3. Second, it reiterates that 

the Postal Service’s cost reduction strategies do not reduce overall cost.103 Id. at 4-7. Third, 

it expresses concern over the volatility of unit attributable costs of multiple products 

across multiple cost segments. Id. at 7-9. Fourth, it is troubled by large changes in avoided 

cost estimates that impact workshare discounts. Id. at 9-11. Fifth, PostCom requests “the 

PRC [to] commence a dialogue to ensure that incumbent costing methodologies are not 

being used solely to prop up and support an infrastructure and costs that may no longer be 

justified.” Id. at 11.

104

The Postal Service responds to PostCom’s concerns by asserting that cost volatility is 

primarily a result of cost methodology changes and statistical variation due to relatively 

small unit costs. USPS Reply Comments at 11-13. The Postal Service also explains that 

pricing incentives have been instituted to encourage mail to bypass bundle operations in an 

effort to reduce bundle cost. Id. at 10. PostCom argues that the Postal Service should 

develop tools to replace In-Office Cost System (IOCS) sampling data with IMb data, which 

would likely reduce year-to-year variability in costs. PostCom Reply Comments at 8.

PostCom also asserts that FSS Scheme pallets, which have a minimum 250 pound weight 

requirement, create inefficiencies. PostCom Comments at 3. It claims that pallets are mosteffective when fully utilized. Id. The Postal Service replies that increased pallet weight 

 

103 See Docket No. ACR2014, Initial Comments of the Association of Postal Commerce, February 2, 2015, at 2.

104 Should PostCom wish to pursue this suggestion, it may petition the Commission to consider such issues in an appropriate proceeding, such 

as a rulemaking docket.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 62 -

would cause an increase in bundle sortations, which would further increase cost. USPS 

Reply Comments at 9-10. The Postal Service also notes that FSS Scheme pallets provide 

mailers with multiple benefits, including the opportunity to dropship to a DFSS site and to 

take advantage of later critical entry times (CET). Id.

(3) Compliance with the Commission’s Standard Mail Flats 

FY 2010 ACD Directive

Valpak argues that the same factors used in FY 2010 to find Standard Mail Flats out of 

compliance still exist today. Valpak Comments at 3. It asserts that because improvements in 

costs have not been made, the Commission should consider issuing an order requiring a 

dramatic price increase for Standard Mail Flats. Id. at 23.

The Public Representative also states that he cannot conclude that the Postal Service 

followed the Commission’s FY 2010 directive, because it has not been able to quantify the 

financial impact of its cost savings initiatives. PR Comments at 33. Similarly, PostCom 

contends that the Postal Service’s cost reduction strategies need additional reporting and 

oversight. PostCom Comments at 4.

(4) Other Issues

ACMA contends that, with the possible exception of Saturation Flats, Standard Mail 

commercial flats are already overpriced because they are already at, or above, the “standalone constraint.”105 ACMA asserts that, but for the mailbox rule and what ACMA 

characterizes as the limited constraint of the Private Express Statutes, a private delivery 

company would deliver commercial flat pieces because Postal Service’s prices are already 

above stand-alone cost. Id. at 6. In response to ACMA’s analysis, Valpak asserts that the 

scenario where the mailbox rule is relaxed is not based in reality. Valpak Reply Comments 

at 4-5.

e. Commission Analysis

The cost coverage for Standard Mail Flats was 80.3 percent in FY 2015, down from 83.2 

percent in FY 2014. The FY 2015 cost coverage is only 0.8 percentage points higher than 

the lowest recorded cost coverage for Standard Mail Flats (79.5 percent in FY 2011). As 

shown in Table III-9, the rise of unit cost and the decline in unit revenue reduced unit 

contribution to an all-time low of -9.9 cents in FY 2015.

 

105 “Stand-alone constraint” is a term used by ACMA to refer to the constraint that the stand-alone costs of a competitor’s service would 

arguably place on Postal Service prices thereby protecting mailers from overpricing and the subsidization of other mail products. See ACMA 

Initial Comments at 5-6. To support its position, ACMA cites the testimony of Mr. William J. Baumol on behalf of the Postal Service in Docket 

No. R87-1. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 63 -

Table III-9

Standard Mail Flats Unit Contribution, FY 2008–FY 2015

Fiscal Year

Unit Revenue 

(cents)

Unit Cost 

(cents)

Unit 

Contribution (cents)

FY 2008 36.7 38.9 -2.2

FY 2009 36.9 44.8 -7.9

FY 2010 36.6 44.8 -8.2

FY 2011 36.8 46.3 -9.5

FY 2012 37.6 46.5 -8.9

FY 2013 38.4 45.2 -6.8

FY 2014 40.4 48.5 -8.1

FY 2015 40.2 50.1 -9.9

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

The Commission recognizes that a portion of the unit cost increases between FY 2014 and 

FY 2015 are a result of recent cost methodology changes. Had these methodology changes 

been in effect in prior years, unit cost for Standard Mail Flats would have been higher in 

those years and cost coverages would have been lower than reported. This would have, in 

turn, raised further questions regarding the adequacy of the cost reduction strategies 

employed by the Postal Service since FY 2011. Looking forward, it appears that unless the 

Postal Service aggressively cuts costs in FY 2016, sizeable contribution shortfalls are likely 

to continue.

During FY 2015, the Postal Service took several steps to address this continuing and 

growing cost coverage shortfall. Those steps included above-CPI price increases in the most 

recent Market Dominant price adjustment proceeding and operational initiatives to reduce 

costs. Nevertheless, the cumulative shortfall in contribution from FY 2008 through FY 2015 

has grown to $3.9 billion.106

In FY 2015, the Commission approved a 2.549 percent price adjustment for Standard Mail 

Flats, which was 0.623 percentage points higher than the 1.926 percent price cap. This 

price adjustment exceeded the minimum of CPI x 1.05 that the Postal Service proposed in 

response to the FY 2010 ACD directive. As part of this price adjustment, the Postal Service 

implemented a new FSS price structure for Standard Mail Flats to encourage the 

preparation of more Flats mail for FSS processing.107 Unlike FY 2015, this new price 

structure will be in effect for all of FY 2016, which should allow the Postal Service and the 

Commission to assess the Postal Service’s ability to reduce mail processing cost with the 

 

106 In FY 2015, unit revenues decreased less than 1 percent, despite an influx of lower priced FSS pieces. Unit revenues remain above FY 2013 

levels partially due to the exigent surcharge. However, in FY 2015 unit cost increased despite operational initiatives designed to reduce costs, 

and a greater percentage of lower cost FSS mail volume.

107 Docket No. R2015-4, United States Postal Service Notice of Market-Dominant Price Adjustment, January 15, 2015, at 14-15, 22-23 (Docket 

No. R2015-4 Notice).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 64 -

new pricing structure. However, it is important to note that in FY 2016 the exigent 

surcharge will likely be removed, reducing revenue for the Standard Mail Flats product, 

and likely reducing the overall cost coverage.

The Commission finds that minimal progress is being made toward addressing the issues it 

raised in the FY 2010 ACD. The Postal Service did not fully comply with the FY 2010 directive 

in FY 2015. The Commission requires further necessary action by the Postal Service to 

quantify its efforts in Chapter 6 of this Report. However, the Postal Service must continue 

responding to the requirements of the FY 2010 ACD directive by proposing above average 

price increases for Standard Mail Flats, striving to reduce Standard Mail Flats cost, and 

providing the required documentation of those efforts in future Annual Compliance Reports.

Furthermore, although the Postal Service described new and ongoing operational 

initiatives employed during FY 2015 to make processing Standard Mail Flats more efficient, 

it was not able to quantify the financial effects of these initiatives. Cost savings programs or 

initiatives generally target one or more specific activities to produce cost savings. As the 

Commission has stated in previous ACDs, the Postal Service’s cost saving initiatives should 

have specific and measurable targets by which the benefits of the program can be 

evaluated. See FY 2012 ACD at 116, FY 2013 ACD at 54, and FY 2014 ACD at 48. The 

Commission remains concerned that the Postal Service has not quantified the cost savings 

from operational changes designed to reduce Standard Mail Flats cost.

Through issuance of several CHIRs, the Commission sought details on the operational 

initiatives implemented by the Postal Service to reduce flats’ cost. The Commission also 

explored available data that could better identify, and potentially solve, costing issues 

related to flats.108 The Postal Service has responded with some data that could provide 

increased transparency into issues surrounding flats. For example, in its February 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 12, the Postal Service explains that it has the capability 

to track flat-shaped mailpieces with the Intelligent Mail Accuracy and Performance System 

(IMAPS). It also stated that the Mail History Tracking System (MHTS) can be used to 

validate that the cost avoidance model reflects the predominant flows for flats. The Postal 

Service is considering replacing mail flow data in the cost avoidance models with data from 

IMAPS and MHTS. However, the Postal Service is concerned about the accuracy and 

completeness of IMAPS and MHTS data, along with other potential limitations of the data. 

Id. Leveraging this data to ensure cost avoidance models are accurate could lead to more 

accurate costing information for setting workshare discounts, which could lead to 

improved cost coverage for the product.

Chapter 6 of this Report discusses the noncompensatory cost coverage for flats products. In 

that chapter, the Commission further explains its concerns with the Postal Service’s inability 

to quantify the cost savings of its initiatives to reduce cost for flats. In Chapter 6, the 

Commission recommends the Postal Service take further action by preparing a report on flats. 

 

108 See e.g., CHIR No. 2, questions 21-25; CHIR No. 4, questions 1, 3, and 13-18; CHIR No. 7, questions 7-14; CHIR No. 11, questions 1-10; and 

CHIR No. 12, questions 1-14.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 65 -

All the recommendations pertaining to reducing flats cost in Chapter 6 apply to Standard Mail 

Flats.

3. Standard Mail Parcels

In FY 2015, Standard Mail Parcels had a cost coverage of 73.4 percent, up 3.2 percentage 

points from FY 2014.109 In FY 2015, volumes for Standard Mail Parcels decreased by 8.2 

percent. Additionally, unit revenue decreased by 0.7 percent and unit attributable cost 

decreased by 5.0 percent compared with FY 2014. This resulted in a 7.0 cent increase in 

unit contribution in FY 2015 compared with FY 2014.

The Postal Service explains that it has proposed above-average price increases for 

Standard Mail Parcels in recent Market Dominant price adjustments. FY 2015 ACR at 16. 

However, it states that the realignment and reclassification of Parcels in the Standard Mail 

class since FY 2012 has resulted in the remaining Standard Mail Parcels product retaining a 

significantly higher proportion of nonprofit Parcels, thereby driving down the product’s 

cost coverage.110 ld.

Table III-10 displays the unit revenue, unit attributable cost, unit contribution, cost 

coverage, and volume for Standard Mail Parcels from FY 2012 to FY 2015. It shows that 

while unit revenue and unit attributable cost decreased from FY 2014 to FY 2015, there 

have been overall large increases since FY 2012.

Table III-10

Standard Mail Parcels Financial Comparison, FY 2012–FY 2015

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

FY 2012 to 

FY 2015

Change

FY 2014 to 

FY 2015

Change

Unit Revenue $0.952 $1.034 $1.094 $1.086 14.2% -0.7%

Unit Attributable Cost $1.113 $1.524 $1.557 $1.480 32.9% -5.0%

Unit Contribution -$0.161 -$0.489 -$0.464 -$0.393 -143.9% 15.2%

Cost Coverage 85.5% 67.9% 70.2% 73.4% -14.1% 4.5%

Volume 303,558,642 71,966,232 65,845,949 60,420,263 -80.1% -8.2%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

 

109 The Commission’s calculated cost coverage differs from the Postal Service’s because the Commission includes fees in the revenue for each 

product and the Postal Service does not.

110 On January 22, 2012, a large portion of the Standard Mail Parcels product was transferred to the competitive product list. See Docket No. 

MC2010-36, Order Conditionally Granting Request to Transfer Commercial Standard Mail Parcels to the Competitive Product List, March 2, 

2011 (Order No. 689); Docket No. CP2012-2, Order Approving Changes in Rates of General Applicability for Competitive Products, December 21, 

2011 (Order No. 1062). Simultaneously, a portion of the remaining Parcels product became Marketing Parcels with different mailing standards. 

See Docket No. R2012-3, United States Postal Service Notice of Market-Dominant Price Adjustment, October 18, 2011, at 19-22.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 66 -

Table III-11 displays the distribution of commercial and nonprofit volume for Standard 

Mail Parcels from FY 2012 and FY 2015. The proportion of nonprofit mail is 4.5 times 

greater in FY 2015 than FY 2012.

Table III-11

Standard Mail Parcels Commercial to Nonprofit Volume Distributions, FY 2012 and FY 2015

FY 2012 FY 2012

Distribution FY 2015 FY 2015Distribution

Commercial Volume 285,925,057 94.2% 44,660,805 73.9%

Nonprofit Volume 17,633,585 5.8% 15,759,458 26.1%

Total Volume 303,558,642 100.0% 60,420,263 100.0%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

Table III-12 demonstrates the unit costs for commercial and nonprofit Standard Mail 

Parcels. It shows unit costs of nonprofit mail are much higher than commercial ($2.11 

compared to $1.26). Therefore, a higher proportion of nonprofit pieces leads to higher

costs and lower revenue for the Standard Mail Parcels product.

Table III-12

Standard Mail Parcels Commercial to Nonprofit FY 2015 Unit Cost Estimates

FY 2015 Volume FY 2015 Cost FY 2015 Unit Cost

Commercial Parcels 44,660,805 56,128,392 $1.26

Nonprofit Parcels 15,759,458 33,274,091 $2.11

Parcels 60,240,263 89,402,483 $1.48

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/4.

Together, these tables illustrate the effect of Parcels realignment and reclassification on the 

financial performance of Standard Mail Parcels since FY 2012.

To improve Standard Mail Parcels’ cost coverage, the Postal Service states that it will 

continue proposing above-average price increases. FY 2015 ACR at 17. Most recently, in 

Docket No. R2015-4, the Commission approved a price increase for Standard Mail Parcels 

of 9.3 percent, more than 7 percentage points higher than the average price increase for 

Standard Mail. See Order No. 2472 at 33.

The Public Representative affirms that the Postal Service has proposed above average price 

increases for Standard Mail Parcels in an effort to improve the product’s cost coverage. PR 

Comments at 30. However, he suggests that the Commission require the Postal Service to 

improve the productivity of Standard Mail Parcels as well. ld.

The Commission finds that FY 2015 revenue for Standard Mail Parcels was not sufficient to 

cover attributable cost. However, the Postal Service’s approach to improve cost coverage 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 67 -

through above-average price increases in future Market Dominant price adjustments is 

appropriate. The Commission also encourages the Postal Service to explore opportunities to 

further reduce the unit cost of Standard Mail Parcels.

4. Media Mail/Library Mail

In FY 2015, Media Mail/Library Mail had a cost coverage of 76.23 percent, a 17.77

percentage point decrease compared with FY 2014.111 Unit contribution decreased 90.4 

cents per piece from FY 2014 to FY 2015. Id. FY 2015 was the ninth consecutive year that 

Media Mail/Library Mail did not generate sufficient revenues to cover attributable costs. 

The Postal Service pursued a policy of above-average price increases for Media 

Mail/Library Mail and stated its intent to continue that policy. FY 2015 ACR at 47. Table III13 shows the history of price increases for Media Mail/Library Mail under the PAEA.

Table III-13

Media Mail/Library Mail

Price Adjustment vs. Price Adjustment Authority

Docket No. Price Adjustment Price Adjustment Authority 

(Price Cap)

R2008-1 4.538% 2.900%

R2009-2 7.468% 3.800%

R2011-2 1.964% 1.741%

R2012-3 2.581% 2.133%

R2013-1 3.469% 2.570%

R2013-10 2.061% 1.696%

R2015-4 2.197% 1.966%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/6.

The Public Representative notes that Media Mail/Library Mail has not covered its 

attributable cost for nine consecutive years, and notes the substantial decrease in the 

product’s cost coverage in FY 2015 compared with FY 2014. PR Comments at 39. 

Furthermore, he points out that the Postal Service credited the increase in unit cost to a 

large change in certain cost factors. He believes that the Postal Service should provide a 

comprehensive costing analysis of Media Mail/Library Mail and develop a plan to minimize 

impact on cost coverage. Id. at 39-40. He supports the Postal Service’s intent to continue 

improving the cost coverage over time through above average price increases. ld. at 40.

Media Mail/Library Mail did not cover its attributable cost or make a contribution to 

institutional cost in FY 2015. While these results are not consistent with cost coverage 

requirements in 39 U.S.C. § 3622(c)(2), the Commission must also consider the 9 objectives 

and 14 factors in their totality, such as the pricing factor outlined in 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3622(c)(11). This factor, which is especially relevant to Media Mail/Library Mail, requires 

the Commission to consider the ECSI value to the recipient of the mail matter.

 

111 See Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/1, Excel file “Summary_LR1_FSS Adj.”
Docket No. ACR2015 - 68 -

Moreover, the Postal Service used its pricing flexibility, including in the most recent Market 

Dominant price adjustment, to implement above-inflation price increases for Media 

Mail/Library Mail for the purpose of bringing its revenues closer to 100 percent cost 

coverage. Docket No. R2015-4 Notice at 29.

The Commission finds that FY 2015 revenue for Media Mail/Library Mail was not sufficient to 

cover attributable cost. However, the Postal Service’s approach to improve cost coverage 

through above-average price increases in future Market Dominant price adjustments is 

appropriate. The Commission also encourages the Postal Service to explore opportunities to 

further reduce the unit cost of Media Mail/Library Mail.

5. Stamp Fulfillment Services

The Stamp Fulfillment Services (SFS) product provides for the fulfillment of stamp orders 

placed by mail, phone, fax, or online to the Stamp Fulfillment Services Center in Kansas 

City, Missouri. It was added to the Mail Classification Schedule as a Market Dominant 

product in FY 2010. Cost has exceeded revenue and cost coverage has been below 100 

percent each year since its introduction. However, cost coverage improved substantially 

since FY 2012, showing increases each year. See Table III-14.

Table III-14

Stamp Fulfillment Services Cost Coverage, FY 2010–FY 2015

Fiscal Year Revenue Attributable Cost

Cost 

Coverage

FY 2010 $3,069,349 $5,778,908 53.1%

FY 2011 $3,126,445 $5,238,523 59.7%

FY 2012 $3,298,493 $5,566,808 59.3%

FY 2013 $4,088,070 $5,059,104 80.8%

FY 2014 $3,501,067 $4,253,758 82.3%

FY 2015 $3,910,286 $4,595,697 85.1%

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/7.

The cost coverage for FY 2015 was the highest cost coverage for SFS since its 

introduction.112 The Postal Service states that it continues to agree with the FY 2012 ACD 

which stated that SFS “promotes the objectives of reducing costs and increasing efficiency.”

FY 2015 ACR at 53.

The Commission finds that FY 2015 revenue for SFS were not sufficient to cover attributable 

cost. However, the financial performance of SFS does not entirely capture the value that the 

Services Center adds to the Postal Service and to other Postal Service products. Although SFS 

 

112 Although the Postal Service originally stated that cost coverage was 59.1 percent in 2015, it corrected this figure to 85 percent in its January 

15, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 1.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 69 -

does not cover its attributable cost, the Services Center promotes the objectives of reducing 

cost and increasing efficiency. See 39 U.S.C. §§ 3622(b)(1) and (c)(12).

6. Inbound Letter Post

The Inbound Letter Post product consists of international mail that originates in foreign 

countries and is delivered in the United States.113 Foreign postal operators reimburse the 

Postal Service for delivering Inbound Letter Post items at prices, called terminal dues, 

which are set by the Universal Postal Union (UPU).114 Id. at § 1130.6. The Postal Service also 

enters into bilateral and multilateral agreements with foreign postal operators for the 

entry of Letter Post at negotiated rates.

a. Inbound Letter Post

In FY 2015, revenue for the Inbound Letter Post product improved, but still did not cover 

attributable cost. In FY 2015, cost coverage was 71.9 percent, whereas cost coverage in FY 

2014 was 70 percent. Notwithstanding this improvement in cost coverage, the negative 

contribution from this product increased from $74.8 million in FY 2014 to $97.9 million in 

FY 2015. FY 2015 ACR at 8.

The changes in cost coverage and contribution from FY 2014 through FY 2015 reflected a 

9.1 percent increase in total unit revenue and a 6.2 percent increase in total unit cost. The 

Postal Service states that although inbound revenue from target system countries115 at UPU 

rates increased 12 percent, unit cost increased 7 percent.116 Response to CHIR No. 4, 

question 19.

The Postal Service explains that the “failure of Inbound Letter Post to cover its attributable 

costs stems from the product’s unique pricing regime.” FY 2015 ACR at 9. Prices are set 

according to a UPU terminal dues formula, which is based upon a percentage of the 1-ounce 

retail Single-Piece First-Class Mail price for most mail. Id. For the remainder of the mail, 

prices are based on a set rate per kilogram instead of actual Postal Service costs.117 Id.

Thus, the Postal Service maintains that it does not “independently determine the prices 

[paid by foreign postal operators] for delivering foreign origin mail” in the United States. Id. 

The Postal Service further observes that a decline in the exchange rate is the source of the 

majority of the additional loss year-over-year. The U.S. Dollar – Special Drawing Right 

(SDR) exchange rate declined 7.5 percent in FY 2015. Response to CHIR No. 4, question 19.

 

113 Mail Classification Schedule, Section 1130.1a. “Letter Post” refers to international mail that is not classified as Parcel Post or Express Mail. It 

consists of mail items similar to domestic First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, BPM, and Media Mail/Library Mail, weighing up to 4.4 

pounds (2 kilograms).

114 The UPU is a United Nations technical agency comprising 192 member countries, including the United States. Member countries negotiate 

international agreements governing the exchange of international mail, including applicable rates for the delivery of international mail. 

Terminal dues are also referred to as default UPU rates, because they apply in the absence of an agreement between or among postal 

operators establishing other rates.

115 Target system countries are mainly industrialized countries.

116 Factors such as exchange rate fluctuations, increases in inbound volume, and the growth of small package volume from transition system 

countries may also increase cost.

117 The formula is renegotiated at a UPU Congress every 4 years.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 70 -

The Commission recognizes that the pricing regime for the Inbound Letter Post product, 

based upon the current UPU formula, resulted in noncompensatory terminal dues. As a 

result, domestic mailers continue to subsidize the entry of Inbound Letter Post by foreign 

mailers who use the same postal infrastructure but bear none of the burden of contributing 

to its institutional cost. Because UPU terminal dues rates are not equivalent to domestic 

postage rates in the destination country, the Commission considers them discriminatory. 

Copenhagen Economics recently quantified the impact of noncompensatory terminal dues 

in a report in 2015.118

The United States has played an active role in UPU terminal dues negotiations to address 

the issue of noncompensatory terminal dues. In 2012, this led to the adoption of a more 

compensatory terminal dues formula which established an annual 13 percent increase in 

the Postal Service’s terminal dues revenue from target system countries. This formula was 

effective January 1, 2014, and will continue through calendar year (CY) 2017. Continued 

terminal dues increases, if accompanied by cost control, should have a positive effect on 

Inbound Letter Post revenue and cost coverage during this period.

The Commission finds that FY 2015 revenue for Inbound Letter Post was not sufficient to 

cover attributable cost. Under current circumstances, the Commission does not recommend 

any remedial action. However, it does recommend continued efforts to develop a more 

compensatory UPU terminal dues formula for the next rate cycle (CY 2018 through CY 2021). 

The Commission also recommends that the Postal Service continue to pursue bilateral 

agreements that result in an improved financial position for the Postal Service relative to 

default UPU rates.

b. Quality of Service Link to UPU Terminal Dues

Despite improved cost coverage for Inbound Letter Post in FY 2015, the Postal Service did 

not maximize the product’s revenue. This is because under the UPU’s Quality Link 

Measurement System, terminal dues can be adjusted downward if service performance 

does not achieve the UPU-established annual quality-of-service performance target. In FY 

2015, the Postal Service did not achieve the quality-of-service performance target. 

February 8, 2016, Response to CHIR No. 7, question 25.

Preliminary on-time service performance monthly scores from January through September 

FY 2015 declined compared with the final monthly scores for the same period in FY 2014. 

Id. Consequently, the Postal Service had to forego revenue in FY 2015, resulting in a larger 

loss in Inbound Letter Post revenue for FY 2015 than there otherwise would have been.

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission directed the Postal Service to report on its plans to 

improve service performance for Inbound Letter Post. FY 2014 ACD at 55. In its Response 

to the Commission’s Request for Additional Information, the Postal Service identified 

systemic problems preventing it from achieving the UPU quality-of-service target and its 

 

118 See The Economics of Terminal Dues, Final Report, September 30, 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 71 -

plans to address these problems.119 The Postal Service identified four systemic problems: 

insufficient time to process sacked letters, increasing percentages of test mail arriving in 

sacks, ground handler backlog, and timing issues related to transporting mail between the 

Morgan Processing & Distribution Center, and the JFK International Service Center due to 

traffic. Id.

The Postal Service noted that mail arriving in sacks is far more difficult to process than mail 

arriving in trays, and is therefore unable to meet the current Critical Entry Time (CET) of 

1700. Id. It also noted that the percentage of letters and flats arriving in sacks has grown 

over time. Id. at 2-3. The Postal Service stated that it plans to work with the UPU to propose 

changes to CETs to account for operational practice. Id. at 3. It also intended to propose 

amendments to the Letter Post Regulations to require posts to use proper receptacles 

when sending mail and to adjust service standards for sacked mail. Id. In addition, the 

Postal Service represented that it plans to change its transportation schedules from JFK 

International Service Center to better account for traffic and to work with ground handlers 

to improve handling performance at the JFK International Service Center. Id.

In response to a CHIR in this ACR proceeding, the Postal Service states that it has initiated a 

Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Black Belt project to improve service performance scores. Responses 

to CHIR No. 14, question 9. It also states that it has taken steps to improve mail processing 

at the JFK International Service Center, such as hourly sweeps of letter post mail, 

installation of additional Radio Frequency Identification Devices, and enhanced process 

and dispatch communication between the JFK International Service Center and the Morgan 

Processing and Distribution Center. Id. In addition, it states that it has worked with the UPU 

to change the CET, which was approved in October 2015. Id.

The Commission understands that significant growth in mail arriving in sacks can affect 

service performance. If effectively implemented, the operational improvements discussed 

should yield improved service performance, and therefore additional revenue, for Inbound 

Letter Post.

However, it is clear that the progress the Postal Service made with these plans to date has 

not significantly improved service performance results. The results continue to suggest 

that the Postal Service has not yet successfully resolved the systemic factors that prevent it 

from achieving the UPU quality-of-service target on a monthly or calendar year basis. This 

conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that the Postal Service’s final service 

performance scores have met the UPU quality-of-service target in only one calendar year 

since enactment of the PAEA.

The Commission concludes that the 2015 preliminary on-time service performance scores 

indicate that systemic problems continue to prevent the Postal Service from receiving the 

maximum revenue possible under the UPU terminal dues system. The Postal Service’s 

 

119 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Commission Requests for Additional Information in the FY 2014 

Annual Compliance Determination, June 25, 2015, at 2.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 72 -

inability to meet service performance standards exacerbates the poor financial 

performance of this product.

The Commission directs the Postal Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on 

further progress in its plans to improve on-time service performance scores for Inbound Letter 

Post. The Postal Service shall specifically address its progress in improving sacks processing, 

in negotiating at the UPU for adjustments to the sacked mail service performance standard, 

and the Lean Six Sigma Black Belt project.

c. Market Dominant International Products Consisting of 

NSAs

As an alternative to default UPU rates, the Postal Service may enter into bilateral NSAs with 

foreign postal operators that include negotiated rates for some or all of their Inbound 

Letter Post items. These negotiated rates are designed to improve the overall cost coverage 

for Letter Post items compared with the cost coverage at default UPU rates.

The Postal Service reports financial results for two inbound international products that 

consist of NSAs: Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal 

Operators 1 and Inbound Market Dominant Exprès Service Agreement 1. Both are included 

on the Market Dominant product list. In addition, the Postal Service reports financial 

results for Global Direct Entry with Foreign Postal Administrations (Global Direct Entry). 

The two inbound international products and Global Direct Entry govern the entry of 

Inbound Letter Post pursuant to negotiated agreements with foreign postal operators.

The Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 

product comprises eight bilateral agreements with seven foreign postal operators: the 

Australian Postal Corporation, Canada Post Corporation, the China Post Group, Hongkong 

Post, Korea Post, Royal PostNL,120 and Singapore Post. For FY 2015, the Postal Service 

reports that these NSAs, collectively, generated sufficient revenue to cover attributable 

cost. Response to CHIR No. 4, question 20.b.

Although revenue exceeded attributable cost for the Inbound Market Dominant MultiService Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 product as a whole, the Postal Service 

reports that revenue for three NSAs in the product did not cover attributable cost.

The statutory test for compliance of Market Dominant NSAs is found in 39 U.S.C. §§ 

3622(c)(10)(A)(i) and (ii), and requires that the Commission determine whether such 

NSAs improve the net financial position of the Postal Service or enhance operational 

performance. The Commission compares the cost coverage for each NSA at negotiated rates 

with the cost coverage at UPU terminal dues to make the determination of net financial 

benefit.

 

120 This agreement is with the postal operator for the Netherlands.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 73 -

In response to a CHIR, the Postal Service provided financial results for each NSA based 

upon default UPU rates. Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 20. For the three NSAs that did 

not cover cost, cost coverage at the negotiated rates exceeded cost coverage at default UPU 

rates. These results indicate that the NSAs improved the Postal Service’s net financial 

position.

Inbound Letter Post at UPU terminal dues tendered as Exprès and displaying the common 

logo of the Exprès service is authorized under Inbound Market Dominant Exprès Service 

Agreement 1. This product is based on the Exprès Service Agreement, a multilateral 

agreement with the designated postal operators of 24 UPU member countries. For FY 2015, 

Inbound Letter Post entered pursuant to the Inbound Market Dominant Exprès Service 

Agreement 1 product generated sufficient revenue to cover cost.

The FY 2015 financial results for the Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements 

with Foreign Postal Operators 1 product appear to validate the Postal Service’s strategy, 

discussed in previous ACRs, of negotiating bilateral NSAs with some of the larger foreign 

postal operators that exchange Letter Post items with the Postal Service.121 The Postal 

Service notes that some of the recent steps it has taken to improve cost coverage include 

the renegotiation of the China Post Group and the Canada Post Corporation NSAs in FY 

2016. Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 20.b. Over time, continued pursuit of this strategy 

should improve cost coverage for Letter Post mail as a whole, including both Inbound 

Letter Post at default UPU rates and Letter Post within NSAs.

In addition, within domestic First-Class Mail, a handling charge of $0.01 per piece applies to 

foreign-origin, inbound direct entry of Single-Piece First-Class Mail (excluding Single-Piece 

Double Cards) tendered by foreign postal operators, subject to the terms of an 

authorization arrangement.122 The Postal Service has authorization arrangements in effect 

with eight foreign postal operators. These arrangements predate the PAEA, and are not 

classified as a product on the Market Dominant product list. The Postal Service presents 

financial results for the inbound direct entry of First-Class Mail in the International Cost 

and Revenue Analysis (ICRA) report. For FY 2015, the inbound direct entry of Single-Piece 

First-Class Mail generated sufficient revenues to cover costs.

The Commission finds that the Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with 

Foreign Postal Operators 1 and Inbound Market Dominant Exprès Service Agreement 1 

products satisfy 39 U.S.C. § 3622.

C. Domestic Market Dominant NSAs

Domestic Market Dominant NSAs must comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3622(c)(10). That section 

requires that such agreements either “improve the Postal Service’s net financial position” 

 

121 Docket No. ACR2012, United States Postal Service FY 2012 Annual Compliance Report, December 28, 2012, at 9 (FY 2012 ACR).

122 Mail Classification Schedule, Section 1105.5, n.3.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 74 -

or “enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other 

functions” and that they “not cause unreasonable harm to the marketplace.” Id.

After approving a Market Dominant NSA, the Commission evaluates it for compliance with 

39 U.S.C. § 3622(c)(10). The Commission reviews the NSA’s performance during “contract 

years,” 12-month periods measured from the time the contract was implemented. The 

Commission reviews the contract year that ended during the fiscal year covered by the 

ACD.

For domestic Market Dominant NSAs, the current accepted analytical principle for 

estimating volume changes due to the Postal Service’s pricing incentive programs uses 

price elasticity to estimate the new volume generated by pricing incentive programs.123

This principle provides for consideration of “the financial impact of price incentives to 

increase mail volume or to shift mail volume between products should be based on the 

Postal Service’s best estimate of the price elasticity of the discounted product.” Id. at 3.

In FY 2015, two domestic Market Dominant NSAs were in effect: PHI Acquisitions, Inc. 

(PHI) NSA and Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. (Valassis) NSA.124 The Commission evaluates these 

NSAs based on their performance during the following contract years:

 PHI NSA: Contract Year 1 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015)

 Valassis NSA: Contract Year 3 (August 23, 2014 through August 22, 2015)

1. PHI NSA

The Postal Service implemented the PHI NSA on July 1, 2014.125 Contract Year 1 ended on 

June 30, 2015. PHI qualified for $2,090,204 in discounts in Contract Year 1. Using the 

elasticity-based accepted analytical principle, the Postal Service estimates that the PHI NSA 

resulted in a net increase in contribution of $112,000.126 February 17, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No 12, question 15. It concludes that the PHI NSA complies with 39 U.S.C. § 

3622(c)(10)(A) and the Commission’s rules. FY 2015 ACR at 54-55.

The Commission finds that the PHI NSA met the criteria of 39 U.S.C. § 3622(c)(10)(A) in 

Contract Year 1 and is encouraged by the positive results of the PHI NSA. By incentivizing new 

volumes that generate more contribution than the discounts awarded, the Agreement 

improved the net financial position of the Postal Service in FY 2015.

 

123 Docket No. RM2010-9, Order Terminating Proceeding, May 27, 2011, at 1 (Order No. 738).

124 FY 2015 ACR at 53. International Market Dominant NSAs are discussed in section B. 6. c., supra.

125 Docket Nos. MC2014-21 and R2014-6, Notice of the United States Postal Service of Implementation Date for PHI Acquisitions, Inc. 

Negotiated Service Agreement, July 30, 2014, at 1. See also Docket Nos. MC2014-21 and R2014-6, Order Adding PHI Acquisitions, Inc. 

Negotiated Service Agreement to the Market Dominant Product List, June 19, 2014 (Order No. 2097).

126 The Postal Service provided PHI with $2.090 million in discounts in Contract Year 1. The discounts encourage PHI to increase volume, and 

thus contribution from PHI increased by $2.202 million. The increase in contribution, minus the discounts, generated a net contribution 

increase of $0.112 million.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 75 -

2. Valassis NSA

The Commission approved the Valassis NSA on August 23, 2012.127 The contract required 

Valassis to begin sending Contract Pieces (i.e., mailpieces eligible for contract prices) within 

90 days after the effective date.128 If Valassis did not enter Contract Pieces within 90 days, 

the contract required Valassis to mail at least 1 million Contract Pieces during the ensuing 

12-month period. Id. The contract included a requirement that Valassis pay the Postal 

Service a $100,000 “transaction fee” if mail volume did not reach this threshold during that 

period. Id.

Valassis did not meet the 1 million Contract Pieces threshold for any contract year. FY 2015 

ACR at 53-54. The Valassis NSA is currently not operating in any market and there are no 

plans to initiate mailing Contract Pieces. Id. The Postal Service collected the $100,000 

transaction fee on September 21, 2015. Id. at 54.

The Valassis NSA has completed its final contract year; therefore, no action is necessary.

D. Nonpostal Services

In FY 2015, Market Dominant nonpostal services129 generated $75 million in revenue and 

incurred $13 million in expenses, which resulted in a net revenue of $62 million. FY 2015 

ACR at 71. This figure represents a 13 percent increase compared to FY 2014.

E. Other Issues

1. Metered Letter Prices

Several commenters address the price differential between Stamped and Metered Letters 

and the Metered Letters price in general. As in previous years, Pitney Bowes Inc. (Pitney 

Bowes), the National Association of Presort Mailers (NAPM), and Stamps.com130 assert that 

the introduction of a separate price for Metered Letters has been a success. Pitney Bowes 

Comments at 6-7; NAPM Comments at 3; Stamps.com Reply Comments at 1-4. They 

support the differential between Stamped and Metered Letters and support increasing the 

differential in the future. Id.

 

127 Docket Nos. MC2012-14 and R2012-8, Order Approving Addition of Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement to the Market 

Dominant Product List, August 23, 2012 (Order No. 1448).

128 Docket Nos. MC2012-14 and R2012-8, Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of Contract and Supporting Data and Request to 

Add Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement to the Market Dominant Product List, April 30, 2012, Attachment B, at 3 (Valassis 

NSA Notice).

129 The two Market Dominant products are Alliances with the Private Sector to Defray Cost of Key Postal Functions and Philatelic Sales. Docket 

No. MC2010-24, Order Approving Mail Classification Schedule Descriptions and Prices for Nonpostal Service Products, December 11, 2012, at 4 

(Order 1575).

130 Comments of Pitney Bowes Inc., February 2, 2016 (Pitney Bowes Comments); Comments of the National Association of Presort Mailers, 

February 2, 2016 (NAPM Comments); Reply Comments of Stamps.com, February 12, 2016 (Stamps.com Reply Comments).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 76 -

2. First-Class Mail Product Cost Coverage Disparity

As in previous ACR proceedings, Pitney Bowes, the National Postal Policy Council 

(NPPC),131 and NAPM express concern about the high cost coverage of First-Class Presorted 

Letters/Postcards. These commenters contend that the relative cost coverage and unit 

contribution of First-Class Presorted Letters/Postcards is too high when compared with 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards. Pitney Bowes Comments at 6-9; NPPC Comments at 6-9; 

NAPM Comments at 2-3. NPPC suggests an alternative pricing approach. NPPC Comments 

at 9. NAPM argues that the Postal Service should reduce prices on Presort letters because 

Presort letters are more profitable and price sensitive than Single-Piece letters. NAPM 

Comments at 2-3. Pitney Bowes contends that lowering prices on Presort letters “would 

increase the volume of Presort letters, which would improve the Postal Service’s financial 

position, and create a more equitable price schedule.” Pitney Bowes Comments at 2.

The Postal Service defends its pricing of First-Class Mail products by providing a rationale 

for its pricing approach. USPS Reply Comments at 15-16. In support of the Postal Service, 

the Greeting Card Association (GCA) notes that the Commission has addressed this issue in 

past ACDs and that the commenters raising this issue have not shown a change in 

circumstances that would cause the cost coverage differences between First-Class Mail 

products to be considered a compliance issue.132

The Commission has previously noted that one objective of the PAEA is to allow the Postal 

Service pricing flexibility, subject to the inflation-based cap and that this flexibility can be 

used to apply non-uniform price adjustments within a class. See FY 2012 ACD at 82; FY 2013 

ACD at 70; FY 2014 ACD at 68; see also 39 U.S.C. § 3622(b)(8). The Commission continues to 

encourage the Postal Service to balance its own needs with those of its customers.

3. Discount for Automation 5-Digit Letters

Pitney Bowes, NPPC, and NAPM contend that the passthrough of avoided cost for 

Automation 5-Digit Letters penalizes users because it is too low and sends inefficient 

pricing signals. They urge the Commission to require the Postal Service to set passthroughs 

at, or as close as practicable to, 100 percent of the cost avoided. Pitney Bowes Comments at 

3-6, Pitney Bowes Reply Comments at 1-4, NPPC Comments at 4-6, NAPM Comments at 2-3. 

“Doing so would promote efficiency, lower the total combined costs for mailers, and 

encourage the retention and growth of its most profitable products.” Pitney Bowes Reply 

Comments at 3.

The worksharing requirements of Title 39 impose a ceiling but not a floor on passthroughs. 

See 39 U.S.C. § 3622(e)(2). The Commission notes that passthroughs below 100 percent send 

inefficient price signals to mailers. Therefore, it encourages the Postal Service to adjust 

discounts to bring passthroughs closer to 100 percent. The Commission, however, recognizes 

 

131 Comments of the National Postal Policy Council, February 2, 2016 (NPPC Comments).

132 Reply Comments of the Greeting Card Association, February 12, 2016, at 3 (GCA Reply Comments).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 77 -

that the PAEA gives the Postal Service pricing flexibility and encourages it to balance its own 

needs with those of its customers.

4. Commercial and Nonprofit Products

ACMA asserts that the inclusion of nonprofit mail in the Standard Mail Flats product 

decreases the overall cost coverage. ACMA Reply Comments at 6. ACMA argues that 

Standard Mail Flats and Carrier Route should be viewed as one product and that nonprofit 

components of the combined product should be removed before setting prices and 

assessing compliance. Id at 13.

The ACD is not the proper forum for the Commission to consider costing methodology and 

product list issues. Should ACMA wish to pursue its inquiry further with a fully supported 

proposal, it may petition the Commission to consider such issues in another proceeding.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 78 -

CHAPTER 4: COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS

A. Introduction

In this chapter, the Commission reviews Competitive products to determine whether any 

rates or fees in effect during FY 2015 were not in compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633, which:

 Prohibits subsidization of Competitive products by Market Dominant products: 

39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1)

 Requires that each Competitive product cover its attributable cost: 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3633(a)(2)

 Requires that, collectively, Competitive products cover an appropriate share of the 

Postal Service’s institutional cost: 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3)

The principal FY 2015 findings for Competitive products are:

 Revenues, as a whole, exceeded incremental costs. Thus, Competitive products were 

not subsidized by Market Dominant products during FY 2015, thereby satisfying 

39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1).

 Revenues for six Competitive products did not cover attributable costs and

therefore did not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2). The Competitive products that 

did not cover attributable costs are: Priority Mail Contract 135; Parcel Return 

Service Contract 8; International Money Transfer Service (IMTS)—Inbound; IMTS—

Outbound; Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates); and Inbound Air Parcel Post (at nonUPU rates). The Commission orders the Postal Service to take corrective action.

 Collectively, Competitive products satisfied the Commission’s 5.5 percent minimum 

contribution regulatory requirement. See 39 C.F.R. § 3015.7(c). As a result, 

Competitive products satisfied 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3) during FY 2015.

B. Cross-Subsidy Provision: 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3633(a)(1)

In Docket No. RM2010-4, the Postal Service proposed using an incremental cost133 model to 

test whether Market Dominant products subsidize Competitive products.134 Under this 

model, the Postal Service estimates incremental costs for Competitive domestic products at 

 

133 Incremental costs are the additional costs incurred by a firm for providing a specific product or set of products.

134 Docket No. RM2010-4, Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in 

Analytic Principles (Proposals Twenty-two – Twenty-five), Proposal Twenty-two, October 23, 2009 (RM2010-4 Petition).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 79 -

the cost component level and adds these estimated costs to determine the system-level 

incremental costs.135

The Postal Service considered the incremental cost model to be an improvement over the 

then-current method of aggregating the attributable costs of Competitive products as a 

group. See Order No. 399 at 2; see also RM2010-4 Petition, Proposal Twenty-two at 1.

Under its proposed methodology, the Postal Service aggregated three cost categories: 

incremental costs for Competitive domestic products, attributable costs for Competitive 

international products,136 and Competitive group-specific costs. FY 2015 ACR at 64. The

Commission approved this hybrid incremental cost methodology. Order No. 399 at 3-5, 14.

In its order approving the methodology, the Commission noted that if marginal costs 

decline continuously, incremental costs will be greater than attributable costs. Id. at 3-4. 

Postal Service operations exhibit such declining marginal cost curves, especially in delivery. 

Because incremental costs are greater than attributable costs, using incremental costs 

raises the Competitive product cost floor when testing for cross-subsidies. Therefore, the 

incremental cost model provides a more rigorous test for determining compliance with 39 

U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1) than the attributable cost coverage requirement of 39 U.S.C.§ 

3633(a)(2).

In FY 2015, the hybrid incremental costs of Competitive products was $12.2 billion and the 

total revenues of Competitive products was $16.4 billion. FY 2015 ACR at 65. Accordingly, 

in FY 2015, revenues from Competitive products exceeded the hybrid incremental costs.137

The Commission finds Competitive products satisfied 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1) in FY 2015.

C. Product Cost Coverage Provision: 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3633(a)(2)

Section 3633(a)(2) of Title 39 of the U.S.C. requires the revenue for each Competitive 

product to cover attributable cost. Below, the Commission discusses the FY 2015 financial 

performance for five separate Competitive product groupings:

 Competitive domestic products with rates of general applicability

 Competitive domestic products consisting of negotiated service agreements 

(NSAs)138

 

135 Docket No. RM2010-4, Order Accepting Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposals Twenty-Two through Twenty-Five), 

January 27, 2010, at 2 (Order No. 399).

136 Order No. 399 established that international Competitive mail would use attributable costs instead of incremental costs because the latter 

are not available for international products. Order No. 399 at 3.

137 The Public Representative also concludes that revenues from Competitive products exceed the FY 2015 hybrid incremental costs. 

PR Comments at 52-53.

138 As discussed in Chapter 3, an NSA is a written contract between the Postal Service and a mailer, to be in effect for a defined period, which

provides for customer-specific rates or fees and/or terms of service in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. See 39 C.F.R. 

§ 3001.5(r).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 80 -

 Competitive international products with rates of general applicability

 Competitive international products consisting of NSAs

 Competitive non-postal services

1. Competitive Domestic Products with Rates of 

General Applicability

In FY 2015, there were 12 Competitive domestic products with rates of general 

applicability: Priority Mail Express; Priority Mail; Parcel Select; Parcel Return Service; 

First-Class Package Service; Standard Post; Address Enhancement Services; Greeting Cards, 

Gift Cards, and Stationery; Competitive Ancillary Services; Premium Forwarding Service; 

Post Office Box Service; and Shipping and Mailing Supplies.

In FY 2015, every Competitive domestic product with rates of general applicability covered its 

attributable cost and thereby satisfied the statutory requirements of 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2).

2. Competitive Domestic Products Consisting of 

Negotiated Service Agreements

As shown in Table IV-1, in FY 2015, there were 200 Competitive domestic products 

consisting of NSAs.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 81 -

Table IV-1

Competitive Domestic NSA Products in Effect During FY 2015

Competitive Domestic NSA Product Groupings Number of Productsa

First-Class Package Service Contracts 34

Parcel Return Service Contracts 8

Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contracts 2

Parcel Select Contracts 9

Priority Mail—Non-Published Ratesb Contracts 1

Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contracts 7

Priority Mail Contracts 106

Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contracts 12

Priority Mail Express Contracts 17

Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contracts 4

Total 200

a With the exception of NSAs entered into under the Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates (NPR) product, each Competitive domestic NSA is a 

separate product.

b The Priority Mail—NPR product allows the Postal Service to enter into Priority Mail NSAs without filing the agreements with the Commission 

for pre-implementation review.

* The Postal Service did not provide contract specific volume, revenue, and cost data for specific Competitive domestic NSAs in effect in 

FY 2015. The Postal Service did not provide contract specific data for 31 First-Class Package Service NSAs, where the NSA partner paid published 

rates, and 31 Competitive domestic NSAs, where there was no mail volume. Chairman’s Information Request No. 4, January 15, 2016, question 

23 (CHIR No. 4); Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-23 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 4, January 22, 2016, 

question 23 (Responses to CHIR No. 4). The Competitive domestic NSAs for which there were no mail volume include: a First-Class Package 

Service contract; two Parcel Return Service contracts; a Parcel Select contract; 21 Priority Mail contracts; two Priority Mail Express & Priority 

Mail contracts; three Priority Mail Express contracts; and a Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service contract. Id.

Source: Library Reference USPS–FY15–NP27, December 29, 2015; Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of Revised Version of USPSFY15-NP27 -- Errata, February 8, 2016; Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 23.

a. Attributable Cost Coverage

Section 3633(a)(2) of Title 39 of the U.S.C. requires each Competitive domestic NSA 

product to cover its attributable cost. The Commission finds that all but two Competitive 

domestic NSAs covered their attributable costs and complied with this statutory 

requirement. The Competitive domestic NSAs that did not cover their attributable costs 

were Priority Mail Contract 135139 and Parcel Return Service Contract 8.

In response to CHIR No. 7, the Postal Service reports that it evaluated these contracts and is 

in discussions with its contract partner to determine whether Priority Mail Contract 135 

should be terminated. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 29.

Additionally, the Postal Service reports that there may be a shift in the characteristics of the 

parcels shipped under Parcel Return Service Contract 8 and that, based on those changes, 

the contract started to cover its cost based on recent Quarter 1 FY 2016 data. Id.

 

139 FY 2015 ACR at 66. In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service incorrectly states that “Priority Mail Contract 35 (Docket No. CP2015-109)” failed 

to cover attributable costs. Id. In its response to CHIR No. 7, the Postal Service states that the correct reference is to Priority Mail Contract 135 

(Docket No. CP2015-109), not Priority Mail Contract 35, as it originally stated. See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-

15, 17-29 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 7, February 8, 2016, question 29 (February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 82 -

The Commission finds that Priority Mail Contract 135 and Parcel Return Service Contract 8

were not in compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) in FY 2015. The Postal Service stated that 

it will either amend or terminate the contracts as appropriate. The Commission directs the 

Postal Service to report within 30 days of issuance of this ACD on the result of the Postal 

Service’s evaluation and the corrective action the Postal Service intends to take.

b. Postal Service’s Use of Assumptions in its Costing Models

In determining whether Competitive domestic NSAs are in compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3633(a)(2), the Commission reviews the costing models the Postal Service uses to 

determine these products’ attributable costs. For the Commission to conduct that review, it 

is essential that the Postal Service accurately note, describe, and source the assumptions it 

uses. In response to two Chairman’s Information Requests (CHIRs), the Postal Service 

provides additional explanation regarding various assumptions that it used to determine 

attributable costs for specific Competitive domestic NSAs.140 This additional explanation 

provides the Commission with a better understanding regarding the nature of the 

assumptions, the sources of the assumptions, and the decision-making process that led to 

the assumptions used.

In FY 2015, based on its review of the Postal Service’s CHIR responses, the Commission finds 

the various assumptions employed by the Postal Service to be reasonable and justified 

estimates. Where the Commission has identified potential sensitivities, the Postal Service has 

provided sufficient explanation to support its use of specific assumptions. In the future, the 

Postal Service should strive to develop actual data for use in NSA cost models.

c. Postal Service’s Use of Partial Year Data in its Costing 

Models

The Postal Service’s reliance on partial year data for costing models can potentially result 

in a mis-estimation of cost. To determine whether Competitive domestic NSAs were in 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2), the Commission reviews the costing models that 

contain the calculation of these products’ attributable costs. Because the accuracy and 

completeness of the cost models are key to compliance determinations, it is essential that 

the cost models reflect operations. When possible, cost should reflect the entire contract 

year to avoid any bias resulting from the use of incomplete or inaccurate data. In its 

responses to CHIRs, the Postal Service explains its use of partial year data for specific 

Competitive domestic NSAs.141 Its explanations contain additional information regarding 

the decision-making process for the use of partial year data.

 

140 See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 5-7, 9-10, 12, and 17-28 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 6, 

January 29, 2016, questions 22-28 (January 29, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6); and Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 

1-3 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 8, February 10, 2016, question 3 (Responses to CHIR No. 8).

141 January 29, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 22; Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 10, February 12, 2016, question 3 (Responses to CHIR No. 10); and Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 16, February 29, 2016, question 3.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 83 -

Although a complete year of data is preferred, based on its review of the Postal Service’s CHIR 

responses, the Commission finds the Postal Service’s use of partial year data in FY 2015 to be 

acceptable. Where the Commission has identified potential sensitivities, the Postal Service has 

provided sufficient explanation to support its use of partial year data. To improve the quality, 

accuracy, or completeness of the Postal Service’s costing data, the Commission directs the 

Postal Service to pursue measures to provide one full year of data to estimate costs in the 

future.

d. Incomplete Negotiated Service Agreement Financial Data

Commission regulations require the Postal Service to file data that allow the Commission to 

evaluate each Competitive domestic NSA for compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2). See 39 

C.F.R. § 3050.21(g)(2). However, the Postal Service did not provide total volume, revenue, 

and cost data for all Competitive domestic NSAs that were in effect during FY 2015.142

The Postal Service notes that 31 First-Class Package Service contracts in effect during 

FY 2015 paid published, not discounted, prices and that the sole purpose of the contracts 

was to allow partners to use the PC Postage payment method during a time when it was not 

authorized for First-Class Package Service rates.143 The Postal Service further explains that,

as of January 27, 2013, PC Postage became an authorized payment method for First-Class 

Package Service and, therefore, these types of First-Class Package Service contracts are no 

longer required. Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 23. The Postal Service states that for 

these reasons, it did not track 31 First-Class Package Service NSA products. ld. The Postal 

Service explains that because the mail was entered at published rates, data entered by 

mailers for these products are included with all other First-Class Package Service data. Id.

The Commission recognizes the unique status of these First-Class Package Service NSA 

products and accepts the Postal Service’s rationale for reporting its financial data with the 

First-Class Package Service product in this limited instance. However, the Commission is 

required to review each NSA product to determine compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2). 

Therefore, for those Competitive domestic NSAs that are not active or are paying published 

rates, the Postal Service should file a notice of termination to remove the agreement from the 

competitive product list.144 Furthermore, the Commission directs the Postal Service to identify 

each NSA product that had no mailpieces shipped under the respective contracts when it files 

future ACRs.

 

142 CHIR No. 4, question 23; see Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 23.

143 Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 23. The Postal Service also notes that 31 Competitive domestic NSAs had no mailpieces shipped under the 

respective contracts in FY 2015. Id. It further notes that the revenue, volume, weight, and attributable costs data for contracts of five products 

were included in a subsequent contract with the same customer. Id. Additionally, the Postal Service states that a product’s revenue, volume, 

weight, and attributable cost data were reported under a nearly identical contract with the same partner. Id. Consequently, for those six 

products, the Postal Service provided the financial data with the corresponding contract with the same mailer that was in effect in FY 2015. The 

Postal Service notes that the revenue, volume, weight, and attributable cost data for one product were reported under a contract with a 

different customer, the result of a typographical error when the Postal Service entered the contract into a tracking workbook. Id. On February 

8, 2016, the Postal Service filed a corrected list of Competitive domestic NSAs. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 28.

144 See, e.g., Docket No. CP2014-29, Notice of the United States Postal Service of Termination of Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 1 

Negotiated Service Agreement, September 30, 2014. The Commission notes that the 31 First-Class Package Service NSAs where the Postal 

Service reports that the NSA partner paid published rates expired in FY 2015 or in Quarter 1 of FY 2016.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 84 -

3. Competitive International Products with Rates of 

General Applicability

Ten Competitive international mail products have rates and fees of general applicability:

 Outbound International Expedited Services

 Outbound Priority Mail International

 Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates)

 Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Package International Service

 International Surface Airlift

 International Priority Airmail

 International Direct Sacks—M-Bags

 IMTS—Outbound

 IMTS—Inbound145

 International Ancillary Services146

The Commission finds that all but the following products satisfied 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2): 

IMTS—Outbound; IMTS—Inbound; Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates); and the Outbound 

Competitive International Registered Mail component of the International Ancillary 

Services product.

a. International Money Transfer Service

Revenues for both the IMTS—Outbound and IMTS—Inbound products were less than 

attributable costs in FY 2015. The Postal Service notes issues with both costs and revenues

for these products in FY 2015.147 The Postal Service previously observed that the products

“[have] a long history of challenges associated with determining [their] attributable costs 

with confidence.”148 The Postal Service reports that only seven In-Office Cost System (IOCS) 

tallies were recorded for both IMTS products combined.149 The Postal Service data systems 

produce a 95-percent confidence interval range of 27 percent to 195 percent for FY 2015 

cost coverage.

150

 

145 IMTS—Inbound consists of a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements with foreign postal operators.

146 The Competitive International Ancillary Services product consists of the following Special Services: International Certificate of Mailing, 

Outbound Competitive International Registered Mail, International Return Receipt, International Insurance, and Customs Clearance and 

Delivery Fee. Mail Classification Schedule § 2615.

147 See FY 2015 ACR at 67-68.

148 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-2, 3a-b, 3d, 4, 6, 7a-e, 8-9, and 11-21 of Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 1, January 16, 2015, question 4.

149 The IOCS collects data on the proportion of time spent by an employee performing various functions on different mail products or services. 

These proportions of time are used to estimate the costs of such products or services (e.g., the time city carriers spend in a delivery post office 

sorting mail). “Tally takers” collect the time data, so “tallies” are used as the source of the data.

150 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-14 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, January 15, 2016, question 10.a 

(January 15, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 85 -

Concerning the revenues for the IMTS products, the Postal Service further explains that 

there was a large adjustment for IMTS—Inbound that boosted revenue in FY 2014, with no 

corresponding FY 2015 adjustment. Id. question 10.b. Additionally, the Postal Service states 

that there was a material decrease in the volume of money orders from the largest source 

country, leading to a further decrease in revenue. Id. The Postal Service also states that 

rates for IMTS—Outbound increased on January 17, 2016, which should help to address 

the product’s cost coverage. FY 2015 ACR at 68.

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission directed the Postal Service to report on developing 

attributable costs for IMTS products based on alternatives to IOCS methodology.151 The 

Postal Service responded with a proposed change in the methodology for developing 

volumes and attributable costs.152 The Commission approved this proposal, with minor 

changes, in Docket No. RM2015-13.153 In response to CHIR No. 2, question 10.c, the Postal 

Service provided a spreadsheet for the methodology, updated for FY 2015. January 15, 

2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 10.c. The Commission expects the Postal Service 

to provide this spreadsheet annually.

The Public Representative observes that these products failed to cover costs, but 

acknowledges that the Postal Service responded positively to the Commission’s FY 2014 

ACD directives. PR Comments at 53-54. The Public Representative also notes that the 

Postal Service has increased IMTS—Outbound prices, and believes this increase may help 

improve cost coverage in FY 2016. Id. at 54. In its reply comments, the Postal Service 

asserts that the recent price increase for competitive services, effective January 17, 2016, 

satisfactorily addresses the below-cost situation for IMTS—Outbound.

154 USPS Reply 

Comments at 19.

Pricing solutions are not immediately available for IMTS—Inbound because it comprises 

several bilateral agreements and is unlikely to cover cost given current revenue and cost.

The Commission finds that the IMTS—Outbound and IMTS—Inbound products were not in 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) in FY 2015. The Commission directs the Postal Service 

to report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on the obstacles to exiting or renegotiating 

the agreements that comprise the IMTS—Inbound product. The Postal Service must discuss 

the impact of the FY 2016 price change for cost coverage of IMTS—Outbound in the FY 2016 

ACR.

 

151 Docket No. ACR2014, Annual Compliance Determination Report for Fiscal Year 2014, March 27, 2015, at 76 (FY 2014 ACD).

152 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Commission Requests for Additional Information Regarding IMTS and 

EPG in the FY 2014 Annual Compliance Determination, June 30, 2015, at 2-7.

153 Docket No. RM2015-13, Order No. 2825, Order Approving Analytical Principles Used In Periodic Reporting (Proposal Five), November 19, 

2015.

154 Reply Comments of the United States Postal Service, February 12, 2016, at 19 (USPS Reply Comments).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 86 -

b. Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates)

Inbound Parcel Post is a combination of two former products: Market Dominant Inbound 

Surface Parcel Post, which was transferred to the competitive product list in FY 2014,155

and Competitive Inbound Air Parcel Post. Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates), like its 

predecessor products, has rates (known as inward land rates) set by the UPU.

Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) did not cover its cost in FY 2015. The Postal Service 

explains that it cannot change the rates set by the UPU unilaterally but is negotiating with 

postal operators to eliminate the need to secure signatures upon delivery, thereby 

removing costs and improving cost coverage. FY 2015 ACR at 67. The Postal Service also 

states that unexpected non-transportation cost increases associated with parcels from 

transition system countries156 contributed to decreasing cost coverage. Responses to CHIR 

No. 4, question 21.c.

Inward land rates also provide bonuses for meeting certain required service features. The 

Postal Service confirms it met all required service features and therefore did not forfeit any 

revenue for Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) in FY 2015. January 15, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No. 2, question 12.

The Public Representative notes that the two predecessor products (Inbound Surface 

Parcel Post and Inbound Air Parcel Post) both covered their costs in FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

PR Comments at 54-55. The Public Representative also notes that the Commission has 

approved previous changes in rates for Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates). Id. at 55. The 

Public Representative concludes that this product requires special attention by the Postal 

Service and close monitoring by the Commission. Id.

In its reply comments, the Postal Service states that it cannot change Inbound Parcel Post 

rates unilaterally and, absent other incentives to negotiate rate increases for this service, is 

constrained in negotiations with other postal operators by the fact that other posts can 

insist on resorting to default UPU rates. USPS Reply Comments at 20. Additionally, the

Postal Service states that it is continuing to work on cost reduction efforts. Id.

The Postal Service also notes that there are a low number of IOCS tallies for Inbound Parcel 

Post. FY 2015 ACR at 67. In response to a CHIR, the Postal Service clarifies that there were 

201 IOCS tallies for Inbound Parcel Post in FY 2015, and that the 95 percent confidence 

interval of cost coverage ranged from 90 percent to 104 percent. Responses to CHIR No. 4, 

question 21.a. Based on the CRA cost data, the Commission determines that this product 

did not cover its cost.

The Commission finds that the Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) product was not in 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) in FY 2015. The Commission directs the Postal Service 

 

155 Docket No. MC2014-28, Order No. 2160, Order Approving Product List Transfer, August 19, 2014, at 8.

156 Transition system countries are mainly developing countries.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 87 -

to report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on the status of its negotiations to remove the 

need to secure signatures upon delivery. The Commission also recommends that the Postal 

Service enter into bilateral agreements with foreign postal operators with rates that are 

above default UPU rates to improve the net financial position of the Postal Service.

c. International Ancillary Services

In FY 2015, the International Ancillary Services product covered its cost.157 One of its 

components, Outbound Competitive International Registered Mail, did not cover its cost.158

The Postal Service states that this is the result of correcting an error in the IOCS calculation 

of previous years. FY 2015 ACR at 68. The Postal Service also states that it is examining 

whether pricing solutions would solve this matter. Id.

The Postal Service confirms in a response to a CHIR that it is required to provide a 

Registered Mail service for outbound items, so it cannot stop offering this service. 

Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 22.

Like Inbound Parcel Post, (at UPU rates) there are few IOCS tallies for Outbound 

Competitive International Registered Mail. In response to a CHIR, the Postal Service 

clarifies that there were 27 IOCS tallies for Outbound Competitive International Registered 

Mail in FY 2015. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 26. Based on the CRA

costing data, the Commission determines that this component of International Ancillary 

Services did not cover its cost.

The Commission directs the Postal Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on 

the results of its examination of pricing solutions for Outbound Competitive International 

Registered Mail and what steps it plans to take to improve cost coverage.

4. Competitive International Products Consisting of 

Negotiated Service Agreements

Competitive international mail also includes products with rates and fees not of general 

applicability that are established pursuant to one or more NSAs. These agreements often

require a minimum volume and/or revenue commitment by mailers or foreign postal 

operators in exchange for reduced rates from the Postal Service.

In general, each international NSA is classified as a separate Competitive product.159 The 

Commission must evaluate each international NSA for compliance with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3633(a)(2), which requires that the revenue for each product cover attributable cost.

 

157 In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service reports that this product did not cover cost because of Outbound Competitive International 

Registered Mail. FY 2015 ACR at 68. The Postal Service later clarified that it under-reported revenue for this component. Correcting this error 

increased this component’s cost coverage and raised the cost coverage of International Ancillary Services above 100 percent. February 8, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 26.

158 The Public Representative’s comments on this product and component were addressed by the Postal Service’s revised filing.

159 Docket No. RM2007-1, Order No. 43, Order Establishing Ratemaking Regulations for Market Dominant and Competitive Products, October 

29, 2007, ¶¶ 2177 and 3001.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 88 -

At the request of the Postal Service, and to address administrative concerns involving 

product reporting and classification on the competitive product list, the Commission 

permitted the grouping of functionally equivalent international NSAs. Such grouping of 

functionally equivalent NSAs was permitted with the express understanding that each NSA 

within a product must cover its attributable cost.

160 Such functionally equivalent 

international NSAs are also collectively evaluated as a product for compliance with 39 

U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2).

The Postal Service reports volume, revenue, and cost data on each Competitive 

international NSA. For FY 2015, it provides such data on 269 international NSAs, of which 

250 include negotiated rates for outbound mail and 19 include negotiated rates for 

inbound mail. The financial results for Competitive outbound and inbound international 

products consisting of NSAs are discussed below.

a. Competitive Outbound International Products Consisting 

of Negotiated Service Agreements

Competitive outbound international products with negotiated rates are classified on the 

competitive product list. Table IV-2 shows the FY 2015 category for each of these products

for which the Postal Service reported FY 2015 financial results.

161

 

160 See, e.g., Docket Nos. CP2011-34, CP2011-35, CP2011-36, CP2011-37, CP2011-38, Order Approving Five Additional Global Expedited 

Package Services 3 Negotiated Service Agreements, December 1, 2010, at 5 (Order No. 601).

161 The Postal Service does not report FY 2015 financial results for the following Competitive outbound international products: Global Direct 

Contracts 1, Global Bulk Economy Contracts, GREPS 3, GEPS—NPR 2, GEPS—NPR 3, Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes—NPR, and 

Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes—NPR. These products had no activity in FY 2015 and in many instances have been superseded 

by products of a similar nature. The Postal Service should remove products that will not be used in the future from the product lists.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 89 -

Table IV-2

Competitive Outbound International Products by Category (FY 2015)162

Category Name

Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) Contracts GEPS 3

Global Expedited Package Services—NPR

GEPS—NPR 4

GEPS—NPR 4.2

GEPS—NPR 5

GEPS—NPR 6

GEPS—NPR 7

Global Plus Contracts Global Plus 1C

Global Plus 2C

Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts

Global Reseller Expedited Package Service (GREPS) 1

GREPS 2

GREPS 4

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/NP2.

In FY 2015, the Commission concludes that Competitive outbound international products 

consisting of NSAs satisfied 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) because revenue exceeded attributable 

costs for each.

The Postal Service also reports financial results for each outbound international NSA 

within these products. For FY 2015, these results show that each of the 250 outbound 

international NSAs generated sufficient revenue to cover their attributable cost.

b. Competitive Inbound International Products Consisting of 

Negotiated Service Agreements

As with Competitive outbound international products, Competitive inbound international 

products with negotiated rates are classified on the competitive product list. Table IV-3

shows the Competitive inbound international products for which the Postal Service 

reported FY 2015 financial results.163

 

162 This table presents the outbound international products by product category. In some cases, the product name is the same name as the 

product category.

163 The Postal Service does not report FY 2015 financial results for four Competitive inbound international products: International Business 

Reply Service Competitive Contract 1, Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Customers, Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal 

Administrations, and Inbound Direct Entry Contacts with Foreign Postal Administrations 1. These products had no activity in FY 2015 and in 

many instances have been superseded by products of a similar nature. The Postal Service should remove products that will not be used in the 

future from the product lists.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 90 -

Table IV-3

Competitive Inbound International Products by Category (FY 2015)164

Category Name

International Business Reply Service 

Competitive Contracts

International Business Reply Service

Competitive Contracts 3

Inbound EMS Inbound EMS 2

Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post Agreement

Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements 

with Foreign Postal Operators 1 (Same)

Source: Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/NP2.

The Postal Service also reports financial results for each NSA within the Competitive 

inbound international products. Of the 19 NSAs, seven were included in the International 

Business Reply Service Competitive Contracts 3 product, two in the Inbound EMS 2 

product, one in the Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) product, and nine in the 

Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 product.

Negotiated rates for each of the 19 NSAs generated sufficient revenue to cover their 

attributable cost in FY 2015. With the exception of Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU 

rates), the Commission concludes that Competitive Inbound International Products 

Consisting of NSAs satisfied 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) because revenue exceeded attributable 

costs for each.

c. Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates)

For Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates), the Postal Service separately reports 

financial results for parcels from Royal Mail and collectively from several other European 

postal operators that are parties to the Agreement for the Delivery of Day-Certain CrossBorder Parcels (E-Parcel Group (EPG) Agreement). Inbound air parcels from Royal Mail are 

entered pursuant to the Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post Agreement, which is 

classified as a product on the competitive product list.165 Bilateral agreements for the entry 

of inbound air parcels from postal operators in the EPG-member countries of Belgium, 

Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland were executed prior to the 

PAEA.166 Therefore, they are not included on the competitive product list because the rates 

for inbound air parcels tendered by EPG-member countries have not changed. Id.

For FY 2015, the Postal Service reports that revenue for Inbound Air Parcel Post (at nonUPU rates) did not cover attributable cost. FY 2015 ACR at 66. Revenue from inbound air 

parcels entered pursuant to the bilateral agreement with Royal Mail exceeded cost.

 

164 As with Competitive outbound international products, in some instances the Competitive inbound international product has the same name 

as the product category.

165 See Docket Nos. MC2009-24 and CP2009-28, Order No. 218, Order Concerning Royal Mail Inbound Air Parcel Post Negotiated Service 

Agreement, May 29, 2009, at 10, 12.

166 Docket No. ACR2013, United States Postal Service FY 2013 Annual Compliance Report, December 27, 2013, at 49.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 91 -

Therefore, the loss is fully attributable to the financial results for inbound air parcels from 

EPG-member countries.

Financial penalties for the late delivery of EPG parcels, as well as late transmission of 

delivery data and missing delivery information, explain a large part of the FY 2015 loss. 

January 15, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 9.b. In FY 2015, as in FY 2014, the 

Postal Service implemented an EPG continuous improvement plan to make operational 

improvements to decrease financial penalties and increase revenue. This plan improved 

quarterly on-time service performance and reduced penalties compared with FY 2014. The 

Postal Service explains that factors such as a focus on parcel scanning and a growth in 

First-Class Mail International parcels over capacity impacted financial penalties. Id.

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission recommended the Postal Service “pursue additional 

improvements in on-time service performance through implementation of the EPG 

continuous improvement plan to improve the financial results for Inbound Air Parcel Post 

(at non-UPU rates) during FY 2015.” FY 2014 ACD at 81. The Commission also directed the 

Postal Service to “negotiate compensatory rates within the EPG Agreement or extricate 

itself from the Agreement.” Id.

In its response to this directive, the Postal Service states that it will exit the EPG Agreement 

according to its terms on June 30, 2016. FY 2015 ACR at 67.

The Public Representative observes that from FY 2012 through FY 2014, the Inbound Air 

Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) product failed to cover cost, and therefore, did not comply 

with 39 U.S.C. §§ 407(a)(2) and 3633(a)(2). See PR Comments at 56. He states that even 

though inbound air parcels entered pursuant to the Royal Mail agreement covered cost in 

FY 2015, Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) as a whole was noncompliant because 

inbound air parcels from EPG-member countries failed to generate sufficient revenue to 

cover cost, but also notes that the Postal Service is in the process of exiting the EPG 

Agreement. Id. The Public Representative, therefore, “agrees that the proposed measure is 

reasonable.” Id. In its reply comments, the Postal Service reiterates that it will exit the EPG

Agreement on June 30, 2016. USPS Reply Comments at 20-21.

As noted above, current rates applicable to inbound air parcels from EPG-member 

countries have not changed and, in FY 2015, revenue again did not cover cost. Because 

current rates for inbound air parcels do not cover attributable cost, the rates are 

inconsistent with federal policy to “promote and encourage unrestricted and undistorted 

competition in the provision of international postal services and other international 

delivery services....” 39 U.S.C. § 407(a)(2). The rates at issue distort competition. Exiting the 

EPG Agreement, however, will remove the distortion in the marketplace.

The Commission concludes that the entry of inbound air parcels from EPG-member countries 

was inconsistent with 39 U.S.C. § 407(a)(2). The Commission directs the Postal Service to 

inform the Commission when it has formally exited the EPG Agreement. By July 31, 2016, the 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 92 -

Postal Service must inform the Commission of the date it formally exited the EPG Agreement 

or must explain why it has not exited the EPG Agreement.

d. Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with 

Foreign Postal Operators 1

The Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 

product consists of nine bilateral NSAs with foreign postal operators for the entry of 

Inbound EMS, inbound air and surface parcel post. For FY 2015, the Postal Service reports

that revenue for each of these NSAs covered their attributable cost. The Commission 

concludes that Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal 

Operators 1 satisfied 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) because revenue exceeded attributable costs 

for each.

5. Competitive Nonpostal Services

In FY 2015, competitive nonpostal services167 generated $106 million in revenue and 

incurred $17 million in expenses, which resulted in a net revenue of $89 million.168 This 

figure represents a 4 percent increase compared to FY 2014.

D. Appropriate Contribution Provision: 39 

U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3)

Section 3633(a)(3) of Title 39 of the U.S.C. requires the Commission to ensure that all 

Competitive products collectively cover an appropriate share of the Postal Service’s

institutional cost. In implementing this section, the Commission determined that if 

Competitive products contribute at least 5.5 percent toward the Postal Service’s total 

institutional costs, then, as a whole, they will cover an appropriate share of the Postal 

Service’s total institutional cost. See 39 C.F.R. § 3015.7(c).169

In FY 2015, the Postal Service reports that total institutional cost was $33.8 billion. FY 2015 

ACR at 69. Therefore, in order to comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3) for FY 2015, 

Competitive products must contribute at least $1.9 billion toward the Postal Service’s 

institutional cost. Id. In FY 2015, the total Competitive products contribution was $4.5 

billion (13.3 percent), which exceeds the minimum contribution requirement. Id. The 

Public Representative concludes that the Postal Service complied with 39 U.S.C. § 

3633(a)(3) in FY 2015. PR Comments at 52.

 

167 The nine competitive products are: 1) Advertising; 2) Licensing of Intellectual Property Other Than Officially Licensed Retail Products; 3) Mail 

Services Promotion; 4) Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP); 5) Passport Photo Service; 6) Photocopying Service; 7) Rental, Leasing, 

Licensing or Other Non-Sale Disposition of Tangible Property; 8) Training Facilities and Related Services; and 9) USPS Electronic Postmark 

Service (EPM) Program. Docket No. MC2010-24, Order No. 1575, Order Approving Mail Classification Schedule Descriptions and Prices for 

Nonpostal Service Products, December 11. 2012, at 4.

168 USPS-FY15-NP27, Preface.

169 In Order No. 1449, the Commission reaffirmed that the appropriate share of institutional costs to be borne by Competitive products is 5.5 

percent, subject to future revision, if necessary. See Docket No. RM2012-3, Order Reviewing Competitive Products’ Appropriate Share 

Contribution to Institutional Costs, August 23, 2012, at 24-25 (Order No. 1449).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 93 -

The Commission finds that in FY 2015 Competitive products satisfied 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(3) by 

covering an appropriate share of the Postal Service’s institutional cost.

E. Other Issues Raised by Commenters

The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (ACI) asserts that the Postal 

Service subsidizes its Competitive products with its “monopoly dollars,” in violation of 39 

U.S.C. § 3633(a)(1).170 ACI also argues that the Postal Service circumvents the requirement 

that Competitive products cover their attributable costs by attributing only a limited 

portion of costs to Competitive products and labeling the remainder as fixed or 

institutional costs. ACI Comments at 3. ACI argues that these issues would be corrected if 

the Postal Service accurately and completely allocated all of its costs. Id. at 4. ACI urges the 

Commission to open a rulemaking proceeding to promulgate rules for a fully distributed 

cost model. Id. at 5.

In its reply comments, Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (Amazon) argues that ACI’s 

comments are outside the scope of the ACD.171 Amazon states that the Commission’s ACD is 

limited to an examination of whether the rates in effect during the fiscal year were in 

compliance with “applicable provisions of this chapter...or regulations promulgated 

thereunder.” Amazon Reply Comments at 1; see 39 U.S.C. § 3653. Amazon asserts that there 

is nothing in 39 U.S.C. chapter 36 or the Commission’s implementing regulations that 

supports ACI’s suggestion that the Commission require the Postal Service to fully allocate 

its institutional cost to individual products and classes or for the Commission to require 

that postal rates cover such fully allocated costs. Amazon Reply Comments at 1.

The scope of the Commission’s ACR review is limited to determining the Postal Service’s 

compliance with rates and services in FY 2015. 39 U.S.C. § 3653(b). Accordingly, the issues 

raised by ACI relating to the costing methodology and cost attribution for Competitive 

products are more appropriately addressed in a separate proceeding. The Commission is 

currently considering two proposals submitted by United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) that 

relate to cost attribution for Competitive products.172 As a result, the issues raised in ACI’s 

comments do not warrant initiation of an additional proceeding to investigate the 

methodology the Postal Service uses to attribute total postal cost.

 

170 Comments of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, February 2, 2016, at 2 (ACI Comments).

171 Reply Comments of Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., February 12, 2016, at 1 (Amazon Reply Comments).

172 See Docket No. RM2016-2, Order No. 2793, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on United Parcel Service, Inc.’s Proposed Changes to Postal 

Service Costing Methodologies (UPS Proposals One, Two, and Three), October 29, 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 94 -

CHAPTER 5: SERVICE PERFORMANCE

A. Service Performance Results by Class

1. Introduction

Section 3652 (a)(2)(B)(i) of Title 39 of the U.S.C. requires the Postal Service to report on 

each Market Dominant product’s “level of service (described in terms of speed of delivery 

and reliability).” Section 3055.2(h) of Title 39 of the C.F.R. requires the Postal Service to 

report “[f]or each product that does not meet a service standard, an explanation of why the 

service standard is not met, and a plan describing the steps that have or will be taken to 

ensure that the product meets or exceeds the service standard in the future.” See also 39 

U.S.C. § 3652(d), (e).

Speed of delivery is evaluated based on the mailpiece reaching its destination within a 

given service standard; reliability refers to consistency of delivery. The Commission 

compares the information in the Postal Service’s ACR against targets established by the 

Postal Service to evaluate annual service performance for each Market Dominant 

product.173

The products listed in Table V-1 met or exceeded their annual service performance targets

for FY 2015.

Table V-1

Market Dominant Products that Met Annual Service Performance Targets, FY 2015

Class Product

Standard Mail  High Density and Saturation Letters

 Parcels

Package Services  Bound Printed Matter Parcels

 Media Mail/Library Mail

Special Services

 Ancillary Services

 International Ancillary Services

 Address List Services

 Money Orders

 Stamp Fulfillment Service

 

173 On an annual basis, the Commission compares a product’s on-time delivery with the delivery target established by the Postal Service. For 

Special Services, the Commission evaluates performance data from metrics developed by the Postal Service applicable to each product.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 95 -

The products listed in Table V-2 did not meet their targets for FY 2015. Significantly, for the 

first time since the Commission began evaluating the service performance of the Postal 

Service, no First-Class Mail products met their service performance targets.174

Table V-2

Market Dominant Products that Failed to Meet Annual Service Performance Targets, 

FY 2015

Class Product

First-Class Mail

 Single-Piece Letters/Postcards (Overnight, 

2-Day; 3-5-Day)

 Presort Letters/Postcards (Overnight, 2-

Day, 3-5-Day)

 Flats (Overnight, 2-Day, 3-5-Day)

 Parcels (Overnight, 2-Day, 3-5-Day)

 Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

International Letters (Combined)

 Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

International Letters (Combined)

Standard Mail

 High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels

 Carrier Route

 Letters

 Flats

 Every Door Direct Mail—Retail

Periodicals  In-County

 Outside County

Package Services  Bound Printed Matter Flats

Special Services  Post Office Box Service

After a summary of the systems the Postal Service uses to measure service performance, 

the Commission discusses the Postal Service’s responses to the FY 2014 ACD directives. 

The Commission then analyzes the Postal Service’s FY 2015 service performance results.

2. Measurement Systems

The Postal Service uses a variety of measurement systems to measure service performance 

for Market Dominant products. The Postal Service began reporting service performance 

results for most Market Dominant products beginning in the third quarter of FY 2011.

Table V-3 identifies each system used to measure those products reported in the Postal 

Service’s Annual Service Performance Report. In Table V-3, and the discussion that follows, 

the Commission uses the following acronyms and abbreviations: EXFC for “External First-

 

174 See Library Reference USPS–FY15–29, December 29, 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 96 -

Class Measurement,” iMAPS for “Intelligent Mail Accuracy and Performance System,” IMb

for “Intelligent Mail barcode,” IMMS for “International Mail Measurement System,” PTS for 

“Product Tracking System,” and SASP for “Seamless Acceptance and Service Performance.”

Table V-3

Service Performance Measurement Systems

Product Single-Piece Presort

Letters Flats Parcels Letters Flats Parcels

First-Class Mail EXFC EXFC PTS iMAPS iMAPS* PTS

Periodicals iMAPS iMAPS

Standard Mail SASP SASP iMAPS iMAPS PTS

Package

Services PTS PTS iMAPS PTS

International 

Mail IMMS IMMS

Special 

Services Custom designed internally based measurement systems

Source: Docket No. PI2008-1, Service Performance Measurement, November 2007, at 6.

* In FY 2015, presorted First-Class Mail Flats were measured with the iMAPS system for the first time.

a. External First-Class Measurement System (EXFC)

EXFC is a sampling system managed by an independent contractor. Delivery performance is 

measured from the street collection box to the delivery mailbox.175 When evaluating 

delivery performance, test mailers record the time they place First-Class Mail in the 

collection box. The pieces are deposited before the last collection-time for the collection 

box. Those test mailpieces are sent to a nationwide panel of receivers who record when 

each is delivered to their mailboxes. Actual transit time is then compared against FirstClass Mail service standards. EXFC provides quarterly service performance measurement 

scores at the area and district levels.

b. Intelligent Mail Accuracy and Performance System 

(iMAPS)

iMAPS provides an end-to-end service performance measurement by using documented 

mail arrival time at a designated postal facility to start a measurement clock and an IMb 

scan by an external, third-party reporter to stop the clock. The measurement involves two 

distinct steps. The Postal Service obtains processing times based on IMb scans reported 

through the SASP system described below. Throughout FY 2015, SASP captured data from 

all Full-Service Intelligent Mail.176 This is combined with a “last mile” factor that is 

developed through scans by third-party reporters upon receipt of the mail. Service 

 

175 Docket No. ACR2009, Annual Compliance Determination, March 29, 2010, at 49 (FY 2009 ACD).

176 Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 2. But see infra V.A.2.f.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 97 -

performance is measured by comparing the overall transit time to the service standards to 

determine the percentage of mail delivered on-time.

c. Product Tracking System (PTS)

PTS is an internal measurement system that measures transit time from the time of mailing 

until the time of delivery. Id. It is only for use with parcels. Measurements are based on 

over-the-counter and delivery confirmation scans. Actual transit time is compared against 

service standards for the Market Dominant Parcel products.

d. Seamless Acceptance and Service Performance (SASP)

SASP uses data provided by commercial mailers with Full-Service Intelligent Mail, such as 

acceptance time, payment, and verification, to enable the Postal Service to monitor service 

delivery and overall performance.

177 Information collected also helps to determine address 

accuracy, verify the quality of mail preparation, and track individual pieces as they move 

through the mail system.

e. International Mail Measurement System (IMMS)

Based on a system similar to EXFC, IMMS measures the domestic leg of transit time for 

international mail. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 9. It measures the time between 

the domestic collection point and the outbound international service center for outbound 

letters, and between the inbound international service center and the domestic delivery 

point for inbound letters.

f. Intelligent Mail Barcode (IMb)

In Quarter 3 of FY 2011, the Postal Service began using IMb to measure service 

performance for Standard Mail, Periodicals, Bound Printed Matter (BPM) Flats, and some 

First-Class Mail products. The Postal Service currently offers two barcode options for 

mailers: Basic and Full-Service. The Basic option allows mailers to utilize IMbs for their 

mailpieces without the added benefit of accounting for each unique piece.178

The Full-Service feature allows the mailer to identify unique mailpieces throughout the 

mail stream, receive start-the-clock notifications, discounts, and automated address 

corrections. Id. Only the Full-Service feature provides data needed to measure service 

performance. Mailers are required to prepare mail with IMbs and submit electronic mailing 

information listing IMbs used. Mail is verified to ensure it meets mail preparation criteria. 

Mail that does not meet mail preparation requirements is excluded from service 

performance measurement. Id.

 

177 United States Postal Service, Guide to Seamless Acceptance, Volume 2.1., June 2015;

https://ribbs.usps.gov/intelligentmail_guides/documents/tech_guides/GuidetoSeamlessAcceptance.pdf. Accessed on March 8, 2016.

178 United States Postal Service, Overview to Intelligent Mail Basic Service; 

https://ribbs.usps.gov/intelligentmail_guides/documents/tech_guides/OverviewIntelligentMailBasicService.pdf. Accessed on March 2, 2016.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 98 -

Since FY 2012, the number and proportion of mailpieces measured by IMb increased. 

Figure V-1 illustrates this trend, showing the percent of First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, 

Periodicals, and Package Services179 volume measured by IMb since 2012.

Figure V-1

Percent of Market Dominant Mail Measured by Full-Service IMb, FY 2012–FY 2015180

District level measurement. Service performance is measured by the Postal Service at the 

district level. These data are aggregated to the area level and then aggregated again to 

report nationwide service performance results.181 In order to be representative of the 

nation as a whole, a product’s nationwide service performance results should include data 

from all districts.

In FY 2011 and FY 2012, the Commission expressed concern regarding representativeness

of nationwide data for some products.182 At that time, the Postal Service was unable to 

produce reliable service performance results at the product and service standard levels for 

some districts due, in part, to low levels of Full-Service IMb participation and missing startthe-clock scans. FY 2012 ACD at 51. Results collected from these districts were deemed 

unreliable due to an insufficient volume of measureable mail and excluded from the 

 

179 BPM Flats is the only Package Service product measured using IMb. The remaining products are measured using the PTS.

180 The Postal Service began reporting service performance results for most Market Dominant products beginning in FY 2011, Quarter 3.

181 See USPS Quarterly Service Performance Reports Quarters 1-4 of FY 2015; http://www.prc.gov/documents/quarterly-performance.

182 FY 2011 ACD at 64-65; FY 2012 ACD at 63-64.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2013

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2014

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2015

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Q3

2015

Q4

% Measured

First-Class Mail Standard Mail Periodicals Package Services
Docket No. ACR2015 - 99 -

nationwide service performance result. The lack of data from some districts created 

“coverage gaps” that impacted the representativeness of nationwide performance

measurement results.

183

In FY 2015, the service performance results reported for products and service standard

levels included data from most districts. Table V-4 compares the percentage of districts 

that reported statistically meaningful results in the first quarter of FY 2012 to the 

percentage of districts that reported statistically meaningful results in the fourth quarter of 

FY 2015.

Table V-4

Percent of Districts that Provided Results Disaggregated by Mail Class184

Mail Type FY 2012 Q1 FY 2015 Q4

First-Class Mail 98.51% 99.50%

Standard Mail 47.30% 88.17%

Package Services 91.79% 100.00%

Sources: USPS Quarterly Service Performance Report for First-Class Mail, Quarter 1 of FY 2012, February 16, 2012; FY 2012, Standard Mail, 

Quarter 1; USPS Quarterly Service Performance Report for Package Services, Quarter 1 of FY 2012, February 16, 2012; USPS Quarterly 

Performance Report Quarter 4, FY 2015, November 9, 2015 (FY 2015, Performance, Quarter 4).

Pieces excluded from measurement. In FY 2015, significant portions of mail with Full-Service 

IMb and entered at discounted prices were not included in measurement. Table V-5 shows 

the percentage of mail in measurement, percentage of Full-Service mail included in 

measurement, and percentage of Full-Service IMb mail excluded from measurement for 

Market Dominant products by class.

 

183 USPS Quarterly Service Performance Reports for Standard Mail, Quarter 1 of FY 2012, February 16, 2012 (FY 2012, Standard Mail, Quarter 1).

184 Periodicals results are disaggregated to the area level only.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 100 -

Table V-5

Percentage of Mail Included and Excluded from Measurement, FY 2015

Product Percentage of mail in 

measurement

Percentage of mail 

entered at FullService IMb prices 

and included in 

measurement

Percentage of mail 

processed as FullService IMb but 

excluded from 

measurement

First-Class Mail

Presorted

Letters/Postcards

52.74% 60.20% 39.80%

Flats 12.75% 54.17% 45.83%

Standard Mail

High Density and 

Saturation Letters

58.78% Not Available Not Available

High Density and 

Saturation 

Flats/Parcels

21.87% Not Available Not Available

Carrier Route 53.80% Not Available Not Available

Letters 56.07% Not Available Not Available

Flats 45.04% Not Available Not Available

Every Door Direct 

Mail–Retail

27.98% N/A N/A

Parcels 30.35% N/A N/A

Total Standard Mail 50.29% 65.21% 34.79%

Periodicals

In-County N/A Not Available Not Available

Outside County 46.70% Not Available Not Available

Total Periodicals 42.68% 61.63% 38.37%

Package Services

Bound Printed 

Matters Flats

10.09% 38.20% 61.80%

N/A = Not Applicable.

Not Available = The Postal Service does not have this information available.

Source: Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4, 8, 11, and 13-16 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 6, February 3, 

2016, question 16 (February 3, 2016, Responses to CHIR No 6).

As shown in Table V-5, a large percentage of mail entered at Full-Service IMb prices is 

excluded from service performance measurement. In the Postal Service’s February 16, 

2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 8, the reasons mail are excluded from 

measurement can be grouped into four broad categories: issues with the barcode or 

accompanying electronic documentation (eDoc), invalid data, operational failures, and 

addressing issues.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 101 -

Issues with the barcode or eDoc. To ensure proper tracking, the Postal Service requires the 

IMbs affixed on mailpieces, handling units, and containers to be unique for a period of 45 

days. Pieces are excluded from measurement if:

• The physical IMb on the mailpiece is not unique.

• The container IMb is found on the placard of more than one container when it is 

entered at the Postal Service facility.

• When the mailpieces’, handling units’, or containers’ IMbs in the eDoc are not 

unique across all mailers and mailings for 45 days.

• The entry facility for the container in eDoc does not match the entry facility in the 

associated Facility Access and Shipment Tracking (FAST) Appointment and both 

facilities do not reside in the same 3-Digit ZIP Code.

• The entry facility is not a valid Postal Service entry facility.

• The mailpiece is nested to an Orphan Handling Unit (handling unit not on a pallet) 

which is not entered at a Business Mail Entry Unit.

• The eDoc piece/tray/container nesting does not match the sampled mail 

preparation.

• The mailer is identified as non-compliant due to inaccuracies in mail preparation or 

the mailer is in a 6-week monitoring period for new mailers.

Invalid data. Invalid data will result in mail being excluded from measurement. Examples of 

invalid data include:

• An entry point for entry discount of the piece/container in eDoc is not valid for the 

entry point and destination per the Mail Direction File.

• The final processing scan ZIP Code does not match a valid area or district.

• The 3-Digit (FSS Facility) sorted pallet is entered directly at a DFSS site.

• The 5-Digit ZIP Code of the entry facility does not match a valid area or district.

• Irregularity with the appointment is identified while unloading the containers.

• The start-the-clock date is 120 days or more before the current date.

• The scheduled ship date and time of the container in eDoc is 48+ hours earlier than 

the postage statement finalization date and time for Postal Service transported 

containers.

• The number of days to delivery exceeds the specified threshold (30 days for FirstClass Mail, 45 days for Standard Mail and Periodicals).

• The mailpiece receives inconsistent scan events when calculating service 

performance measurement (e.g., container/mailpiece scans are not in chronological 

order).

• The 11-digit delivery point in the IMb is not a valid Postal Service delivery point.

• No automation scan is observed for the mailpiece.

• There is a lack of a container unload scan or an inability to identify the FAST 

appointment associated with the container.

Operational failures. Operational failures can result in exclusion from measurement 

because the Postal Service loses visibility of the mailpieces. Operational failures include:
Docket No. ACR2015 - 102 -

• The container is marked as a "broken pallet" when it arrives at Postal Service entry 

facility.

• Volume overflows from one tray to another tray that is not nested in the same 

container.

• The container with First-Class Mail is incorrectly identified as drop-shipped in the 

eDoc.

• Mail is verified at a Detached Mail Unit (DMU) and then transported by the Postal 

Service to a mail processing facility in a different district than the DMU.

Addressing issues. If there are issues with the address on the mailpiece it will be excluded 

from measurement. Addressing issues include:

• 3-Digit Entry and/or Delivery ZIP Code is an IRS processing center, federal agency, 

government, military, or other excluded ZIP.

• The mailing fails a manual or Mail Evaluation Readability Lookup Instrument

verification.

• The mailpiece is redirected from the original destination specified in the IMb as a 

result of a Change Of Address or is Undeliverable as Addressed.

3. Analysis of 2014 Directives and Action Plan 

(Flats)

For several years, service performance results for First-Class Mail Flats, Standard Mail 

Carrier Route, Standard Mail Flats, Periodicals, and BPM Flats have not met their targets 

and have not shown significant improvement.185 In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission 

issued directives to the Postal Service for each of these products composed of flats.186 For 

each flat product, the Postal Service was directed to improve service performance results in 

FY 2015 or, if results did not improve, provide an explanation for why its efforts to improve 

performance were ineffective and detail the changes it plans to make to improve results.

In FY 2015, service performance for many products did not meet existing targets or 

improve relative to the prior year’s results. This was true, in particular, for products 

composed of flats. Service performance for Market Dominant flats products across all mail 

classes (First-Class Mail, Standard Mail, Periodicals, and Package Services) have been 

substantially below targets since FY 2012.

Because the Postal Service failed to supply adequate responses to most of the Commission’s 

FY 2014 directives in its FY 2015 ACR, CHIRs were issued that requested additional 

information.

187 In general, the Postal Service attributes flats service performance results to:

a decrease in flats volume, an increase in parcel volume, distribution deficiencies, and 

 

185 For the purposes of this discussion, Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels are not reviewed with other flats because 

they are entered, processed, and delivered differently.

186 FY 2014 ACD at 104, 109, 112, 114.

187 See Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 103 -

manual processing. Individual flats products are discussed below and a holistic approach to 

service performance issues for flats is discussed in Chapter 6.

a. First-Class Mail Flats

The Commission issued the following service performance directive in the FY 2014 ACD:

This is the fourth consecutive year that First-Class Mail Flats did 

not meet service performance targets. In addition, service 

performance has not improved since FY 2011. The Commission 

directs the Postal Service to improve service for First-Class Mail 

Flats in FY 2015 or to provide an explanation in the FY 2015 ACR 

for why efforts to improve service performance results for FirstClass Mail Flats have been ineffective and detail what changes it 

plans to make to improve service performance.188

The Postal Service did not improve service for First-Class Mail Flats in FY 2015. Library 

Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 4. Figure V-2 illustrates the overall decline in First-Class Mail 

Flats service performance results since FY 2011.

Figure V-2

First-Class Mail Flats 

Service Performance Results, FY 2011–FY 2015

Table V-6 shows service performance targets and results for First-Class Mail Flats over the 

same period.

 

188 FY 2014 ACD at 104 (emphasis in original).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

% On-Time

Overnight

2-Day

3-5-Day
Docket No. ACR2015 - 104 -

Table V-6

First-Class Mail Flats

Service Performance Targets and Results, FY 2011–FY 2015

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Target Result Target Result Target Result Target Result Target Result

Overnight 96.65 90.3 96.65 89.8 96.70 86.6 96.80 84.9 96.80 83.2

2-Day 94.15 84.0 94.15 85.0 95.10 84.4 96.50 82.5 96.50 79.8

3-5-Day 92.85 80.0 92.85 80.0 95.00 77.6 95.25 72.6 95.25 65.3

Figure V-3 illustrates the widening difference between service performance targets and 

service performance results since FY 2011.

Figure V-3

First-Class Mail Flats

Percentage Points Below Target, FY 2011–FY 2015

The service performance of First-Class Mail Flats with a 2-Day service standard was 16.7

percentage points below target in FY 2015. The service performance of First-Class Mail 

Flats with a 3-5-Day service standard was 30.0 percentage points below target in FY 2015.

Rather than improve in FY 2015, service performance results deteriorated to the worst 

level since FY 2011.

(1) Postal Service Response to FY 2014 ACD Directive

Because the Postal Service was unable to improve service performance, it was required to 

provide information regarding past efforts to improve service and future plans to improve 

service. This aspect of the directive required the Postal Service to do two things. First, the 

Postal Service was required to provide an explanation for why its efforts to improve FirstClass Mail Flats performance were ineffective. Second, the Postal Service was required to 

detail what changes it plans to make to improve results. In the Annual Report on Service 

16.7

30.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Percentage points below target

Overnight

2-Day

3-5-Day
Docket No. ACR2015 - 105 -

Performance for Market Dominant Products filed with its ACR, the Postal Service explains 

that realigning and retraining employees in new jobs, winter storms, and network 

constraints were reasons why First-Class Mail Flats performance did not improve in 

FY 2015.189 Regarding its plans to improve service, the Postal Service merely states that it 

“plans to increase emphasis on the processing of First-Class Mail Flats.” Id. at 9. Specifically, 

it states that this “will include standardizing the handling of special sort assignment on the 

flat sorting equipment.” Id.

Several CHIRs were issued to request additional information about the Postal Service’s 

efforts to improve FY 2015 service performance and the reasons such efforts were 

ineffective. In response, the Postal Service explains that its efforts to improve service 

performance for First-Class Mail Flats in FY 2015 included Kaizen events and performing 

sort plan optimization.190 It states that Kaizen events entail deploying Headquarters and 

Field service improvement teams to “highest impact facilities with the goal of identifying 

processing and network constraints that could potentially impact service performance.” Id. 

Concerning sort plan optimization, it explains that it sought to standardize the handling of 

special sort assignments, which refer to “mail pieces that cannot be sorted based on mail 

piece characteristics.” January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 20.a. It 

estimates that 3.2 percent of the First-Class Mail Flats volume was handled by special sort 

assignments in FY 2015. Id. question 20.b.

The Postal Service explains that these efforts to improve service performance for FirstClass Mail Flats were ineffective in FY 2015 “mainly because of continued flats volume 

decline which increase[d] the ratio of allied to productive distribution.” January 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 15.a. The Postal Service further details that an increase 

in the ratio of allied to productive distribution suggests a decrease in the productive 

movement of mailpieces throughout the network.191

The Postal Service also notes that its efforts to improve service performance for First-Class 

Mail Flats were ineffective in FY 2015 because the decline in volume created less dense 

trays and containers, which “have a higher risk to impact service performance.” January 19, 

2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 15.b. This was due to “mail potentially losing its 

facing and alignment, making destination processing less efficient and more prone to 

rejects and missorts” and employees mistaking low-density trays as “empty equipment.” 

February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1.g.

 

189 Library Reference USPS-FY15-29 at 8.

190 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 15-26 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, January 19, 2016, question 15 

(January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2).

191 The Postal Service clarifies that a higher ratio of allied to productive distribution does not directly affect service performance; rather, the 

decline in flats volume negatively affected service performance. The Postal Service states that the decline in flat volume also resulted in an 

increase in the ratio of allied to productive distribution, but clarifies that it is not necessarily linked to the decline in service performance. 

Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-6, 8-10 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 11, February 16, 2016, question 

1.f. (February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 106 -

In order to improve service performance, the Postal Service notes that it will continue 

programs currently in place in FY 2015 to improve service performance in FY 2016. 

Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 9. The Postal Service states it will focus its efforts on 

proper mail flow, sort plan density optimization, and lean and continuous improvement 

tools. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, questions 15.b. Its improvement tools 

“rely on collaborative team efforts analyzing data to improve performance and 

systematically remove defects.”192 The Postal Service states that the combination of these 

tools and Postal Service analysis should identify root causes, solutions, and corrective 

action. Id.

(2) Commission Analysis

The Postal Service repeatedly asserts that service performance results are improving 

because the results in Quarters 3 and 4 have historically been higher than the results in

Quarters 1 and 2.193 The Commission agrees that, in general, service performance is 

typically higher in Quarters 3 and 4 than in Quarters 1 and 2. However, the Commission 

does not concur with the Postal Service’s assessment that this pattern indicates an overall 

improvement in service performance.

Figure V-4 illustrates that service performance results typically increase within a fiscal 

year. This was again true in FY 2015, with the lowest quarterly result occurring in Quarter

2 of FY 2015.

 

192 February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1.i. The Postal Service provides several examples including “process flow maps, value 

stream maps, cause and effect diagrams, pareto charts, process capability analysis, correlation analysis, control charts and gemba walks.” Id.

193 Docket No. ACR2012, Library Reference USPS–FY12–29, December 28, 2012, at 8; Docket No. ACR2013, Library Reference USPS–FY13–29, 

December 27, 2013, at 8; Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS–FY14–29, December 29, 2014, at 8-9.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 107 -

Figure V-4

First-Class Mail Flats with a 3-5-Day Service Standard

Service Performance Results per Quarter, FY 2012 – FY 2015

As Figure V-4 illustrates, although service performance results trend upward by quarter 

during a fiscal year, they are generally declining year-over-year. Improvements during the 

year do not portend improvement in future years.

The Postal Service highlights its use of lean and continuous improvement tools to improve 

nationwide service performance. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 15.b. 

Due to the ongoing decline in service performance results, it appears that the Postal 

Service’s use of its diagnostic tools, or the associated corrective action, has been ineffective 

in increasing service performance results in areas with pinch points194 in processing or 

transportation flows. See Docket No. ACR 2012, Library Reference USPS–FY12–29 at 8. The

Postal Service has not identified how future use of its diagnostic tools will produce better 

service performance results than in the past. For further discussion, including discussion of 

the reasons why diagnostic tools may not have been effective to date, see Chapter 6.

Further, as detailed below, eight districts have recurring poor performance for First-Class 

Mail Flats. The Postal Service states that the purpose of the diagnostic tools is to identify 

problematic locations so that the Postal Service can develop and implement solutions. Id.

However, because the same districts demonstrate repeated poor performance, it does not 

appear that the use of diagnostic tools is leading to improvement.

 

194 Pinch points are functions where the Postal Service is not operating at maximum efficiency from a cost or service perspective. For a further 

discussion of pinch points, see Chapter 6.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2012

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2013

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2014

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2015

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Q3

2015

Q4

% On-Time

Quarterly Trendline (Moving Avg. 2 period)
Docket No. ACR2015 - 108 -

In FY 2015, the Postal Service deployed Kaizen improvement teams to facilities where

processing and network constraints were evident.

195 Table V-7 lists the sites and 

corresponding service reporting districts where improvement teams were deployed. The 

table shows that Kaizen teams were sent to some, but not all, of the consistently lowest

performing districts.

Table V-7

First-Class Mail Flats with a 3-5-Day Service Standard

Correlation Between Recurring Poor Performing Districts and Kaizen Deployment

District Number of Times in 

Bottom Quartile FY 2012 –

FY 2015196

Kaizen Improvement Team 

Site Within District

Baltimore 3

Connecticut Valley 4 Springfield, MA

Greater Boston 4 Boston, MA

Long Island 4

Louisiana 3 New Orleans, LA

Suncoast 3

South Florida 4 Miami, FL

Westchester 4

Another of the Postal Service’s efforts to increase service performance for First-Class Mail 

Flats in FY 2015 was to standardize the handling of special sort assignments on flat sorting 

equipment (i.e., sort plan optimization). January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, 

question 20. Special sort assignments refer to mailpieces that cannot be sorted based on 

mailpiece characteristics. Id. However, the Postal Service states that special sort 

assignments only affect 3.2 percent of current Flats volume. Id. The Postal Service notes 

that this initiative to improve service performance results, the same as all of its FY 2015 

efforts to improve service performance results, will continue as part of its plan to improve 

service performance results in FY 2016. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 9-10.

The Commission’s FY 2014 First-Class Mail Flats directive required the Postal Service to 

provide an explanation for why its efforts to improve First-Class Mail Flats performance 

were ineffective. Although the Postal Service identifies winter storms, network constraints, 

and employee training and realignment as three reasons why its efforts to improve were 

not effective, the Postal Service does not explain how its plans will be effective to overcome 

 

195 February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1.e. The Postal Service explains that Kaizen events entail deploying Headquarters and 

Field service improvement teams to “highest impact facilities with the goal of identifying processing and network constraints that could 

potentially impact service performance.” January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 15.a.

196 This column states the number of instances (the maximum number is 4) where a district was among the 15 lowest-performing districts 

calculated using annual results from FY 2012-FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 109 -

these obstacles in future years. In responses to CHIRs, the Postal Service also points to 

ongoing volume decline as a contributing factor.197

The Postal Service was also required to detail what changes it plans to make to improve 

results. The Postal Service’s response merely stated that it would emphasize the processing 

of First-Class Mail Flats and increase standardization of the handling of special sort 

assignments. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 9. Given that special sort assignments 

make up only 3.2 percent of First-Class Mail Flats volume, this response was inadequate to 

show that the Postal Service has plans in place to successfully address First-Class Mail 

Flats’ service performance.

The Postal Service’s responses to CHIRs did provide more detail but mostly did not 

differentiate its FY 2016 plan from its ineffective FY 2015 actions. Stating it will largely 

take the same approach to improving First-Class Mail Flats service in FY 2016, the Postal 

Service did not adequately explain why these changes will be more effective in FY 2016 

after 4 years of not meeting targets. Instead, it proposed a vague network-wide mitigation 

plan, which substantially overlapped with FY 2015 efforts and did not offer comprehensive 

insight to its corrective actions by, for example, providing information at the district and 

facility-levels.

For these reasons, the Commission takes further action in accordance with these findings in 

Chapter 6.

b. Standard Mail Carrier Route

The Commission issued the following directive in the FY 2014 ACD:

Standard Mail Carrier Route and Flats continue to fall well short 

of intended annual performance targets. The Commission directs 

the Postal Service to improve service for these products in 

FY 2015 or to explain in the FY 2015 ACR why efforts to improve 

results have been ineffective and what changes it plans to make 

to improve service performance.198

Service performance results for Standard Mail Carrier Route were below target for 

FY 2015. In addition, the Postal Service did not significantly improve the service 

performance of Standard Mail Carrier Route in FY 2015.199 Figure V-5 shows the service 

performance results for Standard Mail Carrier Route from FY 2012 to FY 2015.

 

197 January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16; February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 2.f. The effects of volume 

decline are discussed in Chapter 6.

198 FY 2014 ACD at 109 (emphasis in original).

199 Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 11. The service performance results for Standard Mail Carrier Route increased from 81.4 percent in 

FY 2014 to 82.0 percent in FY 2015. While this represents a slight increase, results remain substantially below target.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 110 -

Figure V-5

Standard Mail Carrier Route

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

Figure V-6 shows the percentage points below target for Standard Mail Carrier Route Flats 

from FY 2012 to FY 2015.

Figure V-6

Standard Mail Carrier Route 

Service Performance Percentage Points Below Target, FY 2012–FY 2015

In FY 2014, the Standard Mail Carrier Route service performance result was 9.6 percentage 

points below target, a result that slightly improved to 9.0 percentage points below target in 

FY 2015.

(1) Postal Service Response to FY 2014 ACD Directive

As shown in Figure V-5 above, service performance results for Standard Mail Carrier Route 

did not meet their FY 2015 target. Standard Mail Carrier Route’s service performance 

results were nearly flat year-over-year, increasing only slightly from 81.4 percent in 

70.6

79.7 81.4 82.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

% On-Time

19.4

10.3 9.6 9.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Percentage points below target
Docket No. ACR2015 - 111 -

FY 2014 to 82.0 percent in FY 2015. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 11. Because the 

Postal Service was able to slightly improve its service performance for Standard Mail 

Carrier Route, it was not required to provide an explanation of why its efforts to improve 

performance were ineffective and the changes it plans to make to improve results.

(2) Commission Analysis

Although the Postal Service was able to marginally improve service performance results for 

Standard Mail Carrier Route, results were still 9 percentage points below target in FY 2015. 

The discussion in this section details the obstacles the Postal Service must address in order 

to achieve its service performance target. The Commission provides its analysis of Standard 

Mail Carrier Route quarterly results, worst-performing districts, last mile delivery factor, 

and the impact of the load leveling initiative. Each of these components is an area in which 

the Postal Service must improve in FY 2016 in order to meet service performance targets.

First, the quarterly performance information provided by the Postal Service highlights its 

difficulty sustaining service performance improvement for this product. Figure V-7 

contains the on-time percentage for Standard Mail Carrier Route per quarter.

Figure V-7

Standard Mail Carrier Route 

Service Performance Results by Quarter, FY 2012–FY 2015

In Quarters 2, 3, and 4 of FY 2015, the Postal Service was unable to improve on its FY 2014 

results of the same period. Furthermore, in FY 2015, the Postal Service did not have one 

quarter with on-time performance above 85 percent. In order for the Postal Service to meet 

its service performance targets for Standard Mail Carrier Route in FY 2016, it must improve 

its quarterly results compared to results from the same period during the prior year.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY

2012

Q1

FY

2012

Q2

FY

2012

Q3

FY

2012

Q4

FY

2013

Q1

FY

2013

Q2

FY

2013

Q3

FY

2013

Q4

FY

2014

Q1

FY

2014

Q2

FY

2014

Q3

FY

2014

Q4

FY

2015

Q1

FY

2015

Q2

FY

2015

Q3

FY

2015

Q4

% On-Time

Quarterly Trendline (Moving Avg. 2 period)
Docket No. ACR2015 - 112 -

Second, Standard Mail Carrier Route’s service performance is affected by the Postal 

Service’s inability to leverage its diagnostic tools and resolve issues at the district level.200

In addition to the Postal Service’s inability to meet its targets nationwide, certain districts 

have results substantially below the national average. By improving service performance in 

these districts, the overall service performance result for this product would increase.

Similar to First-Class Mail Flats, multiple districts recur on the list of 15 districts with low 

service performance results from FY 2012 to FY 2015.201 This trend is depicted in Table V8 for Standard Mail Carrier Route, which shows districts that have been in the bottom 15 

performing districts at least 3 of the last 4 years.

Table V-8

Standard Mail Carrier Route

Districts with Recurring Poor Performance Results

Districts (Carrier Route) # of Times Appeared in Bottom Quartile 

FY 2012 – FY 2015202

Greater Boston 4

New York 4

South Florida 4

Triboro 4

Westchester 4

Philadelphia Metro 3

As an example, the recurring performance of the New York District illustrates on-going 

problems with Standard Mail Carrier Route service performance at the district level. In 

FY 2012, the New York District’s on-time percentage for Standard Mail Carrier Route was 

59.8 percent.203 In FY 2015, the New York District’s on-time percentage for Standard Mail 

Carrier Route was 63.1 percent. Id. Although the score for this district improved 3.3 

percentage points from FY 2012 to FY 2015, it remained nearly 28 percentage points below 

target.

The service performance result for the New York District was 10.8 percentage points below 

the national average in FY 2012, and 19 percentage points below the national average in 

 

200 The Postal Service’s efforts here include Kaizen events, deploying Headquarters and Field service improvement teams to “highest impact 

facilities with the goal of identifying processing and network constraints that could potentially impact service performance.” January 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 15.a.

201 See Table V-7 First-Class Mail Flats with a 3-5-Day Service Standard Correlation Between Recurring Poor Performing Districts and Kaizen 

Deployment.

202 This column states the number of instances where a district was among the 15 lowest-performing districts calculated by annual results from 

FY 2012- FY 2015.

203 USPS Quarterly Performance Reports for Quarter 4 of Fiscal Year 2012, November 9, 2012 (FY 2012, Performance, Quarter 4), Excel file 

“Standard Mail-Carrier Route 124 Scores Report.xlsx” tab “SM YTD” cell U43.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 113 -

FY 2015. Because the Postal Service’s targeted efforts to improve its worst performing 

districts has resulted in districts that remain nearly 28 percentage points below target, the 

Commission is concerned that the tools currently employed by the Postal Service will be 

insufficient to meaningfully improve Standard Mail Carrier Route results in future years.

The third important issue for improvement of Standard Mail Carrier Route is the last mile 

factor. The last mile factor represents the time between the last processing operation and 

the final delivery point of a particular mailpiece.

Because Standard Mail Carrier Route is highly presorted, these pieces go through 

comparatively fewer operations to process and deliver these flats, which leave fewer 

opportunities for pinch points to negatively impact service performance.204 Standard Mail 

Carrier Route requires only bundle processing before transportation for delivery. As part of 

its action plan to increase service performance results for Carrier Route bundles, the Postal 

Service states that it intends to focus on last mile issues, which is one of two pinch points 

for Standard Mail Carrier Route. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16.a.

Table V-9 contains quarterly last mile factors for Destination-Entry Carrier Route 

mailpieces from FY 2012 to FY 2015.

205

Table V-9

Standard Mail Carrier Route

Destination-Entry Last Mile Factors, FY 2012–FY 2015

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

-4.3 -4.6 -6.4 -11.8 -17.8 -11 -9 -9.7 -16.8 -14 -9.1 -9.6 -13.7 -11.5 -9.5 -12.5

Source: See USPS Quarterly Service Performance Reports Quarters 1-4 of FY 2012 to FY 2015; http://www.prc.gov/documents/quarterlyperformance.

The table illustrates that the Postal Service has been unable to consistently improve the last 

mile factor by quarter or fiscal year. The Postal Service’s intent to improve Standard Mail 

Carrier Route service performance by focusing on delivery operations matches a potential 

solution with a proximate cause. However, the Postal Service has not outlined a clear plan 

of how it plans to improve last mile performance for this product.

The fourth issue affecting Standard Mail Carrier Route in FY 2015 was the recent reduction 

in service standards for specific portions of these products. The Postal Service’s mail 

processing strategy includes a load leveling initiative, which affects all pieces entered at a

 

204 For a further discussion of pinch points for flats, see Chapter 6.

205 The last mile factor “shows the difference in on-time performance based on the final automated processing scan compared with actual 

delivery.” FY 2015, Performance, Quarter 4.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 114 -

Destination Sectional Center Facility (DSCF) on Fridays and Saturdays.

206 The service 

standard of this mail was extended from 3 to 4 days in an effort to improve network 

operations and logistics. February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 9.a. Figure

V-8 shows that in FY 2015 service performance results for Standard Mail Carrier Route 

mailpieces were affected by load leveling.

Figure V-8

Standard Mail Carrier Route 

Comparison of Load Leveled Mail and All Mail, FY 2015

Figure V-8 shows that the service performance results for Standard Mail Carrier Route 

subject to the load leveling initiative were similar to the overall results for the product. 

Figure V-8 also shows that mail affected by load leveling was below the Postal Service’s 

service performance target for the year. If the Postal Service is unable to meet the service 

performance target for the subset of this product that has an additional day in the service 

window, it follows that the Postal Service faces significant challenges in meeting the target 

for the product as a whole.

Although the service performance result for Standard Mail Carrier Route improved slightly 

in FY 2015, it remained 9 percentage points below target. Because the results for Standard 

Mail Carrier Route remain substantially below target, further action is necessary. Further 

action for Standard Mail Carrier Route is discussed in Chapter 6.

c. Standard Mail Flats

The Commission issued the following directive in the FY 2014 ACD:

 

206 Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 9.a. Effective July 1, 2014, the service standard applicable to DSCF Standard Mail entered after the 

critical entry time on Thursday until the critical entry time on Saturday was changed to permit load leveling at mail processing plants and 

delivery units. Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS-FY14-29 at 13.

79.9 81.8 85.0 81.9 79.3 81.9 85.3

82.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

% On-time

Load Leveled Carrier Route All Carrier Route
Docket No. ACR2015 - 115 -

Standard Mail Carrier Route and Flats continue to fall well short 

of intended annual performance targets. The Commission directs 

the Postal Service to improve service for these products in 

FY 2015 or to explain in the FY 2015 ACR why efforts to improve 

results have been ineffective and what changes it plans to make 

to improve service performance.207

The Postal Service did not improve service performance for Standard Mail Flats in FY 2015. 

Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 11. Figure V-9 shows the service performance results 

for Standard Mail Flats from FY 2012 to FY 2015.

Figure V-9

Standard Mail Flats 

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

Figure V-10 shows the percentage points below target for Standard Mail Flats from 

FY 2012 to FY 2015.

 

207 FY 2014 ACD at 109 (emphasis in original).

70.0

76.9 76.2 73.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

% On-Time
Docket No. ACR2015 - 116 -

Figure V-10

Standard Mail Flats

Service Performance Percentage Points Below Target, FY 2012–FY 2015

Figure V-9 illustrates that the service performance results have been declining since 

FY 2013. In FY 2014, Standard Mail Flats service performance results were 14.8 percentage 

points below target, declining to 17.2 percentage points below target in FY 2015.

(1) Postal Service Response to FY 2014 ACD Directive

As detailed in Figure V-10 above, service performance results for Standard Mail Flats did 

not meet its FY 2015 target. In addition, Standard Mail Flats service declined in FY 2015. 

Because the Postal Service was unable to improve its service performance for Standard 

Mail Flats, it was required to explain why its efforts to improve Standard Mail Flats 

performance were ineffective and what changes it plans to make to improve results.

In response to the FY 2014 directive, the Postal Service provides a brief discussion in the 

Annual Report on Service Performance for Market Dominant Products filed with its ACR. See

Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 13-14. It summarizes the service performance results 

for Standard Mail Flats, stating, “[w]hile Standard Mail [F]lats has not achieved the target 

yet, the trend has been the same as for letters, continuing to improve through Postal 

Quarters 3 and 4.” Id. at 13.

The Postal Service also provides one general statement regarding why its efforts to 

improve Flats’ service performance have been ineffective, and three statements concerning 

its past and future plans for improvement. With respect to why past efforts have not 

improved service performance, the Postal Service states that “disruption caused by 

realigning staffing and educating employees in new jobs resulted in slippage of 

performance.” Id.

Regarding its past and future plans for improvement, it states that it will continue “focusing 

on the improvement of Standard Flat processing by reducing the WIP [Work In Process]

20.0

13.1

14.8

17.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Percentage Points Below Target
Docket No. ACR2015 - 117 -

cycle time by decreasing the time between bundle and next handling processing.” Id. at 14.

The Postal Service also states that it will “utilize the increased depth of distribution that the 

additional separations on the Automated Parcel and Bundle Sorter [APBS] enable to reduce 

re-handling and manual sortation.” Id. Finally, the Postal Service states that it “continues to 

apply the same letter strategies on flats operations.” Id.

To better understand these statements, several CHIRs were issued. In response to these 

inquiries, the Postal Service states that, similar to First-Class Mail Flats, its efforts to 

improve service performance were ineffective in FY 2015 due to “continued volume 

decline.” January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16.a. The Postal Service 

further details similar obstacles to improvement for Standard Mail Flats as were provided 

for First-Class Mail Flats, specifically “mail potentially losing its facing and alignment, 

making destination processing less efficient and more prone to rejects and missorts” and 

employees mistaking low-density trays as empty equipment as problems arising from less 

dense trays. February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 2.f. In addition, the 

Postal Service states that the increase in parcel volume has adversely affected its efforts to 

improve service performance results because flats compete for “bundle processing 

machine availability.” January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16.a. The Postal 

Service states that it considers mailpiece volume when determining the order in which it 

processes pieces.208

As part of its efforts to improve its service performance, the Postal Service notes that it will 

continue existing programs in FY 2015 to improve service performance in FY 2016. The 

Postal Service deployed 21 new package sorter machines in an effort “to increase package 

capacity and eliminate the competing processing window between higher package volume 

and bundle processing.”209 It also states that it is working with the mailing industry to 

create multi-scheme pallets and utilize diagnostic tools to address pallet handling and last 

mile delivery issues. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16.b.

The Postal Service states that it plans to “continue focusing on the improvement of 

Standard Mail Flat processing ... by decreasing the time between bundle and next handling 

processing.” Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 14. It reports that in FY 2015, the average 

time between bundle and the next handling process was 29 hours, 5 hours greater than the

target of 24 hours. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question22.

Regarding the next handling process, the Postal Service represents that the use of the APBS 

machines reduces re-handling and manual sortation and includes this as part of its 

mitigation plan. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 14. The percentage of Standard Mail 

 

208 To clarify the operations process, the Commission asked for a description of the process used to determine which mail is processed first on 

bundle processing machines and if there were circumstances that would lead to bundles and packages being processed concurrently. The Postal 

Service responded that “[o]perating plans, which include the processing sequence, are developed based on projected volumes to align with 

volume arrival profiles.” It also added that “[t]here are several factors that drive the ability/need to sort these products together” which include 

“volume, number of separations, downflow requirements, number of machines, and processing windows.” February 16, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No. 11, question 2.d.

209 January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16.b. See also February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, questions 2.e., 2.i.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 118 -

Flats processed on the APBS increased from 43.1 percent in Quarter 1 of FY 2012 to 60.3 

percent in Quarter 4 of FY 2015. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 23. 

However, service performance declined over this period. In response to a CHIR regarding 

this apparent contradiction, the Postal Service notes that there is no correlation between 

the usage of the APBS and service performance. February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR 

No. 11, question 6.

To combat the general problem of declining flats volume, the Postal Service states it will 

focus its efforts on proper mail flow, sort plan density optimization, and lean and 

continuous improvement tools. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16.b. 

Its improvement tools “rely on collaborative team efforts analyzing data to improve 

performance and systematically remove defects.”210 The Postal Service asserts that the 

combination of these tools and Postal Service analysis should identify root causes, 

solutions, and corrective action. February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1.h.

(2) Commission Analysis

In past ACRs and again in this docket, the Postal Service represents that its service 

performance results are improving because its service performance results improved in 

Quarters 3 and 4 compared to Quarters 1 and 2.211 The Commission notes that, in general, 

service performance is typically higher in Quarters 3 and 4 than in Quarters 1 and 2. 

However, with respect to Standard Mail Flats, it appears that this represents a cyclical 

variation rather than an overall improvement in service performance results.

Figure V-11 contains the on-time percentage for Standard Mail Flats by quarter.

 

210 February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 2.h. The Postal Service provides several examples including process flow maps, value 

stream maps, cause and effect diagrams, pareto charts, process capability analysis, correlation analysis, control charts and gemba walks. Id. 

at question 1.i.

211 Docket No. ACR2012, Library Reference USPS–FY12–29 at 8; Docket No. ACR2013, Library Reference USPS–FY13–29 at 8; Library Reference 

USPS–FY15–29 at 13.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 119 -

Figure V-11

Standard Mail Flats

Service Performance Results by Quarter, FY 2012–FY 2015

Figure V-11 illustrates that the FY 2015 quarterly on-time percentages for Standard Mail 

Flats were below the FY 2013 and FY 2014 levels. While the Postal Service has been able to 

improve service performance results in Quarters 3 and 4, it has not been able to sustain 

that improvement through to the next fiscal year.

The Postal Service repeatedly mentions that it will perform sort plan optimization to 

improve service performance for Standard Flats.212 However, it does not quantify the 

percentage of Standard Mail Flats that this plan will affect. Given that the Postal Service 

included this initiative in efforts to improve service in FY 2015, it is unclear to the 

Commission how this initiative will have a greater impact on service performance in 

FY 2016 than it did in FY 2015.

Another important issue facing Standard Mail Flats is the Postal Service’s inability to 

leverage its diagnostic tools to resolve issues at the district level.213 In addition to the 

Postal Service’s inability to meet its targets nationwide, certain districts have results 

substantially below the national average. By improving service performance in these 

districts, the overall service performance result for this product would increase.

Similar to Standard Mail Carrier Route, multiple districts recur on the list of 15 districts 

with low service performance results from FY 2012 to FY 2015.214 This trend is depicted in 

 

212 February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16; February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1.

213 The Postal Service’s efforts here include Kaizen events, deploying Headquarters and Field service improvement teams to “highest impact 

facilities with the goal of identifying processing and network constraints that could potentially impact service performance.” January 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16.

214 See Table V-7 First-Class Mail Flats with a 3-5-Day Service Standard Correlation Between Recurring Poor Performing Districts and Kaizen 

Deployment.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2012

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2013

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

2014

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

2015

Q1

2015

Q2

2015

Q3

2015

Q4

% On-Time

Quarterly Trendline (Moving Avg. 2 period)
Docket No. ACR2015 - 120 -

Table V-10 for Standard Mail Flats, which shows districts that have been in the bottom 15 

performing districts at least 3 of the last 4 years.

Table V-10

Standard Mail Flats

Districts with Recurring Poor Flats Performance Results

Districts (Flats) # of Times Appeared in Bottom 

Quartile FY 2012 – FY 2015215

Greater Boston 4

Bay-Valley 3

Central Illinois 3

Chicago 3

Connecticut Valley 3

Honolulu 3

Long Island 3

New York 3

Northern New Jersey 3

Philadelphia Metro 3

South Florida 3

Triboro 3

Westchester 3

The performance of the Long Island District is illustrative of the nationwide problems with 

Standard Mail Flats service performance. In FY 2012, the Long Island District on-time 

percentage for Standard Mail Flats was 63.1 percent.216 In FY 2015, the Long Island District 

on-time percentage for Standard Mail Flats increased to only 65.6 percent, still more than 

25 percentage points below target. Id.

The performance of the Long Island District illustrates the problems with Standard Mail 

Flats service performance. The service performance result for the Long Island District was 

6.9 percentage points below the national average in FY 2012, and 8.2 percentage points 

below the national average in FY 2015. Because the Postal Service’s targeted efforts to 

improve its worst performing districts result in districts that are 8.2 percentage points 

below target, the Commission is concerned that the tools currently employed by the Postal 

Service will be insufficient to meaningfully improve Standard Mail Flats results in future 

years.

 

215 This column states the number of instances (the maximum number is 4) where a district was among the 15 lowest-performing districts 

calculated by annual results from FY 2012-FY 2015.

216 FY 2012, Performance, Quarter 4, Excel file “Standard Mail-Flats 124 Scores Report.xlsx” tab “SM YTD” cell U42.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 121 -

In recent years, the Postal Service discussed various initiatives for improving Standard Mail 

Flats service performance, including the development of diagnostic tools. The purpose of 

these tools is to identify problem areas. Yet service performance results across the nation 

continue to decline. This is especially apparent for districts with recurring results away 

from the target, such as the Long Island District. Because the Postal Service has been unable 

to resolve service issues in districts with poor performance, it is unclear how its current 

plans will lead to different and improved results. For further discussion, including 

discussion of the reasons why diagnostic tools may not have been effective to date, see

Chapter 6.

Similar to Standard Mail Carrier Route, Standard Mail Flats were also affected by load 

leveling in FY 2015. As described previously, the load leveling initiative affects all pieces 

entered at a DSCF on Fridays and Saturdays.

217 The service standard of this mail was 

extended from 3 to 4 days in an effort to improve network operations and logistics.218

Figure V-12 shows that in FY 2015, service performance results for Standard Mail Flats

mailpieces were affected by load leveling.

Figure V-12

Standard Mail Flats

Comparison of Load Leveled Mail with All Mail, FY 2015

Figure V-12 shows that the service performance results for Standard Mail Flats subject to 

the load leveling initiative were higher than the overall results for the product. However, 

Figure V-12 also shows that mail affected by load leveling was below the Postal Service’s 

 

217 February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 9.a. Effective July 1, 2014, the service standard applicable to DSCF Standard Mail 

entered after the critical entry time (CET) on Thursday until the critical entry time on Saturday was changed to permit load leveling at mail 

processing plants and delivery units. Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS–FY14–29 at 13.

218 February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 9.a.

83.8 82.7

87.2 85.7

74.2 71.1

74.8 74.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

% On-Time

Load Leveled All Flats
Docket No. ACR2015 - 122 -

service performance target for the year. If the Postal Service is unable to meet the service 

performance target for the subset of this product that has an additional day in the service 

window, it follows that the Postal Service faces significant challenges in meeting the target 

for the product as a whole.

Although the Postal Service discussed some changes it plans to make to improve 

performance for Standard Mail Flats, the Commission finds the response insufficient to

address consecutive years of failure to meet Standard Mail Flats service performance 

targets. Similar to the response provided to the First-Class Mail Flats directive, the 

response proposed is a vague network-wide mitigation plan, which does not offer 

comprehensive insight to planned Postal Service corrective actions at the district- and 

facility-levels. As further explained in Chapter 6, the Postal Service’s current mitigation 

plans are insufficient and inadequate to repair systemic problems facing flats mailpieces.

Consequently, because service performance did not improve in FY 2015, the Commission 

finds further action is necessary. For further discussion of these issues and the associated 

directives, see Chapter 6.

d. Periodicals

Service performance results for both Periodicals products, In-County and Outside County, 

are reported jointly. The performance of all Periodicals is used as a proxy for the 

performance of In-County.219 The Postal Service states that the “use of a proxy for InCounty Periodicals performance is necessary because of the nature of In-County Periodicals 

mailers’ relatively small size and scope.” Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 15-16. 

Because the service performance results are the same for Outside County and In-County, 

the Commission reviews them together in the ACD. The Commission issued the following 

directive in the FY 2014 ACD concerning Periodicals:

The Postal Service again did not meet its delivery performance 

targets for its Periodicals product. The Commission directs the 

Postal Service to improve service for Periodicals in FY 2015 or to 

explain in its FY 2015 ACR why efforts to improve results have 

been ineffective and what changes it plans to make to improve 

performance.220

The Postal Service did not improve service for Periodicals in FY 2015. Library Reference 

USPS–FY15–29 at 15. Figure V-13 illustrates that service performance results have not

improved since FY 2013.

 

219 Nearly all Periodicals pieces measured by iMAPS have information in electronic documentation to distinguish between In-County and 

Outside County mail. Approximately 1 percent of measured pieces fell into the In-County category; therefore, Periodicals results at the class 

level serve as a proxy for In-County performance. See FY 2015, Performance, Quarter 4.

220 FY 2014 ACD at 111-112 (emphasis in original).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 123 -

Figure V-13

Periodicals

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

Figure V-14 shows how many percentage points below target service performance results 

were for Periodicals from FY 2012 to FY 2015.

Figure V-14

Periodicals

Service Performance Percentage Points Below Target, FY 2012–FY 2015

The service performance result for Periodicals was 13.4 percent below target in FY 2015.

68.7

82 80.9

77.7

68.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

% On-Time

22.3

8.9

10.2

13.4

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Percetage points below target
Docket No. ACR2015 - 124 -

(1) Postal Service Response to FY 2014 ACD Directive

As detailed above in Figure V-13 and Figure V-14, service performance results for 

Periodicals declined in FY 2015. Because the Postal Service was unable to improve service 

performance, it was required to explain in its FY 2015 ACR why efforts to improve results 

have been ineffective and what changes it plans to make to improve performance. The 

Commission finds the Postal Service’s response to this directive inadequate.

For Periodicals, the Postal Service provides a brief discussion in the Annual Report on 

Service Performance for Market Dominant Products filed with its ACR. See Library Reference 

USPS–FY15–29 at 16-17. The Postal Service notes that Periodicals service experienced a 

“slight decline from FY 2014.” Id. at 16. The Postal Service offers two reasons why its 

efforts to improve service performance were not successful. One, the Postal Service 

represents that “[t]he increase in WIP resulted in an increase in the time between bundling 

and next handling processing.” Id. Two, the Postal Service notes that “[t]he slight decrease 

in performance occurred while the Postal Service was aligning efforts to address other 

product lines that were experiencing greater declines during the year.” Id.

Regarding changes it plans to make to improve performance, the Postal Service proffers 

three mitigation plans. One, it is “working to revise the processing procedures of mixed 

Periodicals to ensure a standard work flow for this mail.” Id. Two, it notes that a “standard 

workflow was developed for Periodicals including newspapers,” and training for these 

revised procedures was provided. Id. Three, it states that it is “using the WIP cycle time to 

identify locations and operations where the time between arrival and bundle-to-piece 

distribution is outside of control.” Id. at 17.

In responses to several CHIRs, the Postal Service further explains why efforts to improve 

Periodicals service were unsuccessful, describes efforts it undertook to improve 

performance in FY 2015, and refines plans to improve service performance for Periodicals.

Regarding why its efforts to improve service were unsuccessful, the Postal Service states 

that service performance results for Periodicals have been “impacted by continued volume 

decline.” January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 17.a. Accordingly, the Postal 

Service asserts that the decrease in volume produced “less dense trays and containers” 

which had a greater risk of affecting service performance results. Id. question 17.b. Similar 

to other flats, the Postal Service notes “the increased package volume competes for bundle 

processing machine availability,” contributing to the decline in service in FY 2015. Id.

question 17.a.

In response to CHIRs, the Postal Service also identifies efforts it undertook to improve 

service performance in FY 2015. The Postal Service explains that it deployed 21 new 

package sorter machines and held several Kaizen events in FY 2015. January 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 17.b. Service improvement teams were deployed to 22 

locations, which were identified by the Postal Service as having a higher impact on 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 125 -

nationwide service performance. February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 

3.g.i.

Regarding additional plans to improve future performance, the Postal Service represents 

that it is developing multi-scheme pallets, and is focusing on proper mail flow, density 

optimization, and last mile impact. Id. Furthermore, the Postal Service implemented new 

prices and mail preparation rules for FSS, which it states will encourage entry of mail with

faster and more efficient processing of mail in FSS zones. February 16, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No. 11, question 3. The Postal Service also notes that it is “reissuing [the] color code 

policy to ensure all mail is properly identified with the appropriate delivery standard.”

February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 3.c.

(2) Commission Analysis

Figure V-15 contains the on-time percentage for Periodicals by quarter.

Figure V-15

Periodicals

Service Performance Results by Quarter, FY 2012–FY 2015

Similar to responses given for other flats products, the Postal Service highlights that service 

performance results for Periodicals steadily increase throughout the fiscal year.221 As 

 

221 Docket No. ACR2012, Library Reference USPS–FY12–29 at 8; Docket No. ACR2013, Library Reference USPS–FY13–29 at 8; Docket No. 

ACR2014, Library Reference USPS–FY14–29 at 8-9.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY

2012

Q1

FY

2012

Q2

FY

2012

Q3

FY

2012

Q4

FY

2013

Q1

FY

2013

Q2

FY

2013

Q3

FY

2013

Q4

FY

2014

Q1

FY

2014

Q2

FY

2014

Q3

FY

2014

Q4

FY

2015

Q1

FY

2015

Q2

FY

2015

Q3

FY

2015

Q4

% On-Time

Quarterly Trendline (Moving Avg. 2 period)
Docket No. ACR2015 - 126 -

Figure V-15 illustrates, although results trend upward by quarter during a fiscal year, 

annual service performance for Periodicals has declined year-over-year since FY 2013. 

Improvements during the third and fourth quarters of a year do not portend improvement 

in a future year for Periodicals.

Although the Postal Service provides a list of actions it undertook to improve service 

performance for Periodicals in FY 2015, the actions did not achieve improved results. As 

shown in Figure V-15, service performance declined in FY 2015. Although the Postal 

Service discusses its mitigation actions generally in the ACR and responses to CHIRs, its 

explanations do not contain quantitative analysis. Several of the actions the Postal Service 

describes deserve further scrutiny.

Table V-11 shows that Critical Entry Times (CETs) for some Periodicals moved to earlier 

times during the second quarter of FY 2015. When the Postal Service moves CETs to earlier 

in the day it has more time to process and deliver the mail.

Table V-11

Periodicals

Change in Critical Entry Times and Service Performance by Quarter, FY 2015

Processing Container 

Make-Up

FY 2015

Old 

CET

New 

CET

FSS

Bundle Sort 0800 1100

No Bundle 

Sort 

1100 1100

Non-FSS

Bundle Sort 

Required

1600 1100

No Bundle 

Sort 

Required

1700 1400

No Bundle 

Sort –

Carrier 

Route Pallet

1700 1700

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Overall Periodicals Service Performance FY 2014 77.7 79.2 83.4 83.2

Overall Periodicals Service Performance FY 2015 78.2 76.3 78.2 77.4

As shown in Table V-11, despite having more time to process Periodicals during Quarters 2, 

3, and 4 of FY 2015, overall service performance results for Periodicals during those 

quarters remained below the FY 2014 levels. In fact, the only quarter in which Periodicals 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 127 -

performed better than in FY 2015 was the first quarter, where CET times were the same as 

in FY 2014.

The Postal Service points to volume declines, which it contends led to less dense trays, as 

one of the reasons for lower service performance. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 

2, question 17. However, the Postal Service has not offered sufficient support for this 

contention. Flats volumes vary throughout the year and throughout the country, and the 

Postal Service has not demonstrated that performance is worse in areas with less volume 

or less density. In order to meaningfully assess why its FY 2015 efforts failed to improve 

performance, this problem must be looked at quantitatively, focusing on areas and times of 

the year where volumes were lower. The Commission discusses this issue further in 

Chapter 6.

The Postal Service also discusses several initiatives undertaken during FY 2015 that were 

designed to improve results in automation processes, such as Kaizen events and improved 

automation equipment. Id. The Postal Service has not linked these facility and area specific 

events with improvements in these locations. The Postal Service also discusses the WIP 

tool as part of its diagnostic tools. In order to meaningfully assess why its FY 2015 efforts 

failed to improve performance, the Postal Service should have leveraged this tool. The 

Commission discusses these issues further in Chapter 6.

In FY 2015, the Postal Service implemented FSS pricing for Periodicals, which created 

separate FSS and non-FSS zones.222 The Postal Service implies that “changes to mail 

makeup and entry [will] improve mail flow streamline operations” and improve service. 

January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 17.a. The Postal Service further 

explains that the new pricing scheme allows more volume to be processed earlier and 

avoid upstream handlings. February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 3. The 

Postal Service’s FSS pricing initiative is a positive step; however, the Postal Service has not 

quantified how the FSS mail preparation requirements may affect service performance.223

Quantifying the effects of changes intended to improve service performance is critical to 

understanding what steps can be taken to meaningfully improve service performance. The 

effects of FSS are discussed further in Chapter 6.

The Postal Service has not achieved on-time delivery for Periodicals above 82 percent 

during the PAEA era. This is particularly concerning in light of the fact the Postal Service 

appears to indicate that Periodicals’ service performance was not a priority in FY 2015, 

stating that “[t]he slight decline in performance occurred while the Postal Service was 

aligning [its] efforts to address other product lines that were experiencing greater declines 

during the year.” Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 16. The Commission finds that 

 

222 See supra, Chapters 2 and Chapter 3.

223 The Postal Service scores processing for FSS and non-FSS scheme mail. A processing score reflects the percentage of mail for which the 

measured processing duration does not exceed the expected number of days in transit from Postal Service acceptance to the final processing 

operation. This score differs from a service performance score because it does not include the last mile component that reflects time in transit 

from final automated operation to delivery. Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4 of Chairman’s Information Request 

No. 16, question 2.a. (Responses to CHIR No. 16).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 128 -

service performance for Periodicals must be an area for improvement and focus in future 

years.

The Commission’s FY 2014 Periodicals Directive required the Postal Service to provide an

explanation for why its efforts to improve Periodicals performance were ineffective. As 

described above, the Postal Service provided a high-level explanation of the steps it took to 

try to improve performance in FY 2015. However, those steps were ineffective, and the 

Postal Service did not adequately explain why those steps were ineffective in improving 

Periodicals service performance.

The Postal Service was also required to detail what changes it plans to make to improve 

results. In the ACR, the Postal Service mentions several plans, including employee training, 

revising of processing procedures, and utilization of WIP cycle time, but does not provide 

further detail. Id. at 16-17. In responses to CHIRs, the Postal Service discusses several other

plans, but for the most part, does not differentiate its FY 2016 plan from its ineffective 

FY 2015 actions.

Stating it will largely take the same approach to improving Periodicals service in FY 2016, 

the Postal Service does not adequately explain why these changes would be more effective 

in FY 2016. Instead, it proposes a vague network-wide mitigation plan, which substantially 

overlaps with FY 2015 efforts and does not offer insight to its corrective actions by, for 

example, providing information at the area- and facility-levels. For these reasons, the 

Commission takes further action in accordance with these findings in Chapter 6.

e. Bound Printed Matter Flats

The Commission issued the following directive in the FY 2014 ACD:

Results for BPM Flats remain the lowest among Package Service 

products and have decreased since FY 2013. The Commission 

views the Postal Service’s previous strategies to increase 

performance results as largely ineffective. It directs the Postal 

Service to improve performance for BPM Flats in FY 2015 or 

include a discussion of its FY 2015 strategies to increase results 

and measurable volume in its FY 2015 ACR.224

The Postal Service did not improve service for BPM Flats in FY 2015. Figure V-16 shows 

service performance results for BPM Flats from FY 2012 to FY 2015. In FY 2015, the ontime service performance result was 45.2 percent. Figure V-16 shows that service 

performance for BPM Flats declined since FY 2013.

 

224 FY 2014 ACD at 114 (emphasis in original).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 129 -

Figure V-16

Bound Printed Matter Flats

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

As shown in Figure V-17, the service performance results for BPM Flats was 44.8 

percentage points below the target of 90 percent on-time in FY 2015, 15 percentage points 

further below the target than in FY 2014.

Figure V-17

Bound Printer Matter Flats

Service Performance Percentage Points Below Target, FY 2012 – FY 2015

54.3

62.6 60.2

45.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

% On-Time

35.7

27.4

29.8

44.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Percentage points below target
Docket No. ACR2015 - 130 -

(1) Postal Service Response to FY 2014 ACD Directive

As detailed above in Figure V-16 and Figure V-17, service performance results for BPM 

Flats declined in FY 2015. Because the Postal Service was unable to improve service 

performance, it is required to provide an explanation for why its efforts to improve BPM 

Flats performance were not effective and explain how it plans to improve service 

performance results.

The Postal Service provides a brief discussion of BPM Flats in the Annual Report on Service 

Performance for Market Dominant Products filed with its ACR. See Library Reference USPS–

FY15–29 at 20-21. The Postal Service has previously noted that due to the relatively low 

volume of BPM Flats, individual mailers significantly affect service performance results.225

The Postal Service provides two reasons why its efforts to improve service performance for 

BPM Flats were ineffective in FY 2015. First, a large portion of BPM Flats pieces are 

manually processed because their mail characteristics are “not generally compatible with 

flat or package sorting equipment.” Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 20. Second, 

current regulations allow automated and non-automated BPM flats to be comingled 

resulting in “machineable pieces potentially being handled manually.”Id. at 21.

Regarding its plans to improve performance, the Postal Service states that it “plans to focus 

on the improvement of BPM Flats processing by reducing the WIP cycle time for machine 

compatible pieces by decreasing the time between bundle and next handling processing.”Id.

The Postal Service states that it will decrease time between bundle and next process by 

“advancing the processing of Standard Flats to day zero (day of acceptance).” Id. In 

addition, the Postal Service notes that it “is reviewing the make-up and entry requirements 

for this product to improve its ability to be processed efficiently.” Id.

(2) Commission Analysis

The Commission noted in its FY 2012 ACD that the Postal Service should work with mailers 

to increase measured volume and utilize diagnostics to increase performance results for 

BPM Flats.

226 In FY 2015, only 10.1 percent of BPM Flats were mailed with Full-Service IMb, 

enabling service performance tracking. Of this small subset, only 38.2 percent were 

processed on automation equipment and had service performance actually measured.227

Thus, less than 4 percent of all BPM Flats were in measurement in FY 2015. Of this 4 

percent, less than half were delivered on-time.

 

225 See Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-2 and 4 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 

6, February 18, 2015, question 4 (February 18, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 6).

226 Docket No. ACR2012, USPS–FY12–29 at 20-21; See also Docket No. ACR2013, USPS–FY13–29 at 19; Docket No. ACR2014, USPS–FY14–

29 at 22.

227 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4, 8, 11, and 13-16 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 6, February 3, 

2016, question 16 (February 3, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 131 -

The relatively low proportion of BPM Flats measured by IMb lessens the effectiveness of 

diagnostic tools used to search the network for causes of delay. The Postal Service explains 

that there are few BPM Flats mailers and that BPM Flats are more likely to be manually 

processed due to their incompatibility with sorting equipment.228 The Postal Service states 

that it plans to overcome challenges specific to BPM Flats by improving processing for 

Standard Flats. Id. at 21.

The Commission acknowledges the unique characteristics of BPM Flats mail and the 

challenges these characteristics create during processing. The Postal Service’s mitigation 

plan relies heavily on the strategy proposed for other flats and its successful 

implementation. Nonetheless, the service performance results for BPM Flats did not 

improve in FY 2015 and was 44.8 percentage points from the target. As a result, the 

Commission directs further action in Chapter 6.

4. FY 2015 Service Performance Results by Class

a. First-Class Mail

(1) FY 2015 Results

For the first time since the Postal Service began reporting service performance of all 

Market Dominant mail products, no First-Class Mail product met or exceeded its service 

performance targets. See Table V-2. Table V-12 shows the on-time percentages and targets 

for First-Class Mail between FY 2011 to FY 2015.

 

228 Docket No. ACR2012, Library Reference USPS–FY12–29 at 20-21.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 132 -

Table V-12

First-Class Mail

Service Performance Results, FY 2011–FY 2015

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Target %

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards

Overnight 96.65 96.7 96.65 97.0 96.70 96.8 96.80 96.7 96.80 95.8

2-Day 94.15 94.2 94.15 95.6 95.10 96.0 96.50 95.7 96.50 94.0

3-5-Day 92.95 91.9 92.85 93.2 95.00 92.5 95.25 88.6 95.25 77.3

Presorted 

Letters/Postcards

Overnight 96.65 90.8 96.65 96.9 96.70 97.3 96.80 97.2 96.80 96.0

2-Day 94.15 89.2 94.15 95.9 95.10 97.2 96.50 96.6 96.50 93.8

3-5-Day 92.85 90.7 92.85 95.4 95.00 95.4 95.25 92.5 95.25 88.0

Flats

Overnight 96.65 90.3 96.65 89.8 96.70 86.6 96.80 84.9 96.80 83.2

2-Day 94.15 84.0 94.15 85.0 95.10 84.4 96.50 82.5 96.50 79.8

3-5-Day 92.85 80.0 92.85 80.0 95.00 77.6 95.25 72.6 95.25 65.3

Parcels

Overnight 96.65 90.3 96.65 89.8 96.70 89.8 96.80 88.4 96.80 84.8

2-Day 94.15 83.2 94.15 85.8 95.10 89.1 96.50 86.8 96.50 84.2

3-5-Day 92.85 86.6 92.85 88.4 95.00 88.8 95.25 83.8 95.25 73.7

Outbound SinglePiece 

International

Overnight 96.1 95.0 94.3 93.0 90.4

2-Day 92.5 92.9 92.7 93.2 92.5

3-5-Day 91.1 90.7 87.5 85.7 82.5

Combined 94.00 91.9 94.00 91.5 94.00 88.9 94.00 87.8 94.00 85.3

Inbound Letter 

Post

Overnight 93.4 94.1 92.3 91.8 88.6

2-Day 88.6 91.5 90.7 89.4 83.7

3-5-Day 87.6 89.2 86.5 82.9 71.3

Combined 94.00 91.9 94.00 90.5 94.00 88.0 94.00 85.2 94.00 75.6

Note: Service performance results are reported using one decimal place while targets are reported using two decimal places. This captures the 

incremental increase in annual service performance targets. Numbers in red indicate service performance results that did not meet or exceed 

the annual service performance target.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 133 -

(2) Postal Service Explanation for Not Meeting Service 

Standards

The Postal Service generally attributes its First-Class Mail service performance results to: 

winter weather and implementation of Network Rationalization, and ties these to problems 

associated with its transportation network. See Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 8, 9.

Similar to previous years, the Postal Service attributes lower service performance results, 

in part, to winter weather. Specifically, it explains that winter storms “interrupted network 

flows” throughout the First-Class Mail transportation network. Id. at 8. The Postal Service 

had nearly identical reasoning last year when it represented that, due to severe winter 

weather, it needed to divert First-Class Mail with service standards longer than 2-days to 

available surface transportation.229

The Postal Service explains that Phase 2 of Network Rationalization caused a shift in mail 

volume between mail processing facilities, which resulted in additional interrupted 

network flows due to insufficient air carrier capacity in the needed locations.230 Table V-13

shows the Postal Service’s requested capacity compared to what air carrier integrators 

produced in Quarters 2, 3, and 4 of FY 2015.231

Table V-13

Air Capacity by Quarter

FY 2015 Quarter

Air Carrier 

Capacity 

Requested

Air Carrier 

Capacity

Received

Air Capacity Gap

2 172,802,712 152,268,168 -20,534,544

3 166,389,873 153,097,529 -13,292,344

4 164,085,103 155,999,285 -8,085,818

Data is calculated using daily cubic feet volume.

Source: January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 19.b.

In response to capacity constraints, the Postal Service states that it “onboarded new 

commercial air carriers, purchased dedicated charters to offset the shortage of capacity and 

continued to negotiate additional capacity from air network integrators.” January 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 19.c.

With respect to First-Class Mail products with a 3-5-Day service standard, service 

performance results have declined in every fiscal year since FY 2012. The Postal Service 

notes that “3-5-day Single-Piece Mail utilizes our air transportation network which is most 

 

229 Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 8; Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS–FY14–29 at 8.

230 See January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 19.a.

231 Data is not provided for Quarter 1 because Phase 2 of Network Rationalization was implemented on January 5, 2015, at the beginning of FY 

2015 Quarter 2.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 134 -

susceptible to impact from weather.”232 As discussed above, the Postal Service also 

experienced air capacity constraints in FY 2015 due in part to Phase 2 of Network 

Rationalization, which affected service performance for products that utilized air 

transportation.

Figure V-18 shows the results for First-Class Mail products with a 3-5-Day service standard 

(e.g., products utilizing the air transportation network) from FY 2012 to FY 2015. The 

results for all First-Class Mail products with a service standard of 3-5-Days declined in FY 

2015.

Figure V-18

First-Class Mail 3-5-Day

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

The Postal Service also explains that “the disruption caused by realigning staffing and 

educating employees in new jobs resulted in slippage of performance.” Library Reference 

USPS–FY15–29 at 8. New service standards resulting from the Phase 2 implementation of 

Network Rationalization resulted in a change in operating windows. January 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 18.a. This change led to “re-bidding of the majority of 

craft employee’s assignments at mail processing locations” for all 67 service reporting 

districts. Id. questions 18.a., 18.b.

Table V-14 shows that the percentage of Tour 1 employees decreased between Quarters 1

and 3 of FY 2015, while the percentage of employees working Tours 2 and 3 increased 

during the same period. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 18.d. The 

Postal Service explains that “churn in the labor pool associated with the overall operational 

changes, the learning curve associated with employees developing new skill sets, and 

 

232 Docket No. ACR2013, Library Reference USPS–FY13–29 at 8.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

% On-Time

Flats Presort-Letters/Postcards Single-Piece-Letters/Postcards
Docket No. ACR2015 - 135 -

gaining familiarity with new operational work locations created the service disruption.”

February 16, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 4.c.

Table V-14

Change in Employee Tours

Tour October 2014 May 2015

1 46.0% 30.0%

2 14.3% 26.6%

3 39.7% 44.4%

Source: January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 18.d.

(3) Comments

The Public Representative comments that no First-Class Mail products met their service 

performance targets for FY 2015. PR Comments at 6. He also notes that the every product’s 

performance score was less than the corresponding FY 2014 result. Id. He observes that the 

“largest quarterly changes in service performance occurred within the 3-5-Day category of 

products.” Id. at 8. He notes that the “service standards for these products are, in part, 

affected by long distance transportation issues.” Id. Accordingly, he suggests, “[p]riority 

should be given to improving the 3-5-Day service standard segments of First-Class Mail 

products.” Id. at 11.

The Public Representative also examines quarterly data for domestic First-Class Mail 

products and concludes that “typically the highest service performance is achieved in the 

first quarter, and the lowest service performance occurs in the second quarter.” Id. at 8. He 

reasons that this pattern may be due to winter-month transportation issues, but notes that 

“[w]inter weather is an annual event that the Postal Service must plan and prepare for.” Id. 

at 10. He concludes that winter weather “does not explain the root cause for why FirstClass Mail products generally are not compliant with meeting annual service performance 

targets.” Id.

(4) Commission Analysis

A change in service standards related to Network Rationalization removed the overnight 

standard in FY 2015 and shifted more mail to the 2-Day and 3-5-Day service standard in 

FY 2014 and FY 2015. FY 2013 ACD at 105. Despite the longer processing window, service 

performance dramatically declined for products with a 3-5-Day service standard.

The Postal Service provides two general explanations for how Phase 2 of Network 

Rationalization affected service performance results: air capacity and employee 

realignment/education. It provides evidence demonstrating that operational changes and 

capacity constraints occurred at the same time as adverse service performance results. 

Specifically, the timing of employee realignment and air transportation availability 

coincided with a decrease in service performance results.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 136 -

While the Postal Service is able to identify issues surrounding FY 2015 service performance 

results, it has been unable to quantify the link between the issues it identifies and the 

recent rapid and severe service performance degradation, especially with respect to 

products with a 3-5-Day service standard. Furthermore, the Postal Service does not show a 

connection between the issues it identifies and how its mitigation plan will lead to service 

performance targets being met.

The Postal Service repeatedly points to its root diagnostic tool as the primary method for 

identifying problematic processing facilities and rectifying operational issues. The 

Commission has not been able to link the tool’s use with identifiable Postal Service actions 

to improve service performance. Furthermore, because the Postal Service’s targeted efforts 

in its worst performing facilities have not yielded results year-after-year, it is not apparent

why the same strategy would produce an improvement at any other facility. For example,

Table V-15 shows that several districts with relatively high-weighted volumes of SinglePiece First-Class Mail with a 3-5-Day service standard remained the worst performing 

districts from FY 2012 to FY 2015.

Table V-15

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day Service Standard

Correlation Between Poor Performing Districts and Weighting

District Occurrences on Worst 

District List233

FY 2015 Weighting

Dallas 1 4.10%

Suncoast 2 3.56%

Lakeland 2 3.09%

Central Illinois 2 2.43%

Santa Ana 5 2.28%

Colorado/Wyoming 12 2.13%

Seattle 8 2.08%

South Florida 12 2.01%

There are 67 districts. If all 67 districts were equally weighted, each district would account 

for 1.49 percent of volume. Thus, any district with a FY 2015 weight of over 1.49 percent 

accounts for a higher portion of the nationwide service performance results. For example, 

the Dallas District accounts for 4.10 percent of the weighted volume, therefore its service 

performance results have a large impact on the nationwide scores.

Furthermore, Table V-16 shows that there were no districts that met service performance 

targets for 3-5-Day Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in FY 2015.

 

233 This column states the number of instances where a district was among the 15 lowest-performing districts calculated by quarter from 

FY 2012-FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 137 -

Table V-16

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards

Districts that Met Service Performance Targets by Quarter, FY 2015

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Number of 

Districts that 

Met Service 

Performance 

Targets

0/67 0/67 0/67 0/67

Percentage of 

Districts that 

Did Not Meet 

Target

100% 100% 100% 100%

These data suggest that the Postal Service’s targeted efforts to find and fix certain facilities 

with abnormally deficient results are ineffective because the problem spans all districts.

Tables V-15 and V-16 illustrate the ineffectiveness of the Postal Service’s efforts to improve 

service performance. The data suggest that the problem is widespread and efforts focused 

on the worst performers have not worked. Given the widespread nature of the problem and 

the continued decline in service performance, the Commission is concerned that the Postal 

Service has not provided new plans, platforms, tools, or metrics that tackle and sufficiently 

address such a widespread problem.

In addition, the Postal Service continues to indicate that severe winter weather is an 

obstacle to consistently meeting its service performance targets. Because severe winter 

weather is an annual occurrence, it is critical that the Postal Service prepare adequately for 

expected, seasonal variations in weather to avoid adverse impacts to service performance.

In addition, the quarterly district level service performance reports that the Postal Service 

provides illustrate that all quarters, not just quarters where severe weather occurs, have

reported results less than the target.234 This demonstrates that the problem is more 

widespread than one that can be explained by severe winter weather.

The Commission finds that the Postal Service did not meet its service performance targets for 

First-Class Mail in FY 2015. The Commission expects service performance to improve in 

FY 2016.

The Commission is particularly concerned with the recent dramatic decline of service 

performance for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day service 

standard and determines that First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards is not in 

compliance.

 

234 See USPS Quarterly Service Performance Reports Quarters 1-4 of FY 2012 to FY 2015; http://www.prc.gov/documents/quarterlyperformance. See also Figure V-4 First-Class Flats with a 3-5-Day Service Standard Service Performance Results per Quarter, FY 2012-FY2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 138 -

The Commission directs the Postal Service to improve service for First-Class Mail Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards in FY 2016. The Postal Service must provide an explanation in the FY 2016 

ACR detailing specific efforts targeted to improve service performance results for First-Class 

Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in FY 2016. Further, it must provide a detailed, 

comprehensive plan to improve service performance for First-Class Mail Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards within 90 days of issuance of this ACD.

In addition, the Postal Service must provide the following data, disaggregated by district level 

and service standard, in conjunction with its plan: percent of First-Class Mail Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards that missed collection box pickups; percent of First-Class Mail Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards where First Processing Operations (FPO) occurred one day after collection 

box pickup; percent of First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards that missed processing 

windows due to ground transportation constraints; percent of First-Class Mail Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards that missed processing windows due to air transportation constraints; 

average WIP cycle time; facilities with above average WIP cycle time; and percent of FirstClass Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards that have already missed service standard by Last 

Processing Operation (LPO).

Furthermore, First-Class Mail Flats continued to fall substantially short of annual 

performance targets. The Commission’s directive for this product is discussed in Chapter 6.

b. Standard Mail

(1) FY 2015 Results

Table V-17 shows that service performance results for Standard Mail Parcels and High 

Density and Saturation Letters exceeded the performance targets set by the Postal Service. 

Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Letters exceeded the target for the third 

consecutive year. Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels were near this 

year’s target of 91 percent on-time delivery.

Service performance for Standard Mail Carrier Route did not meet performance targets, but 

service performance results for this product improved slightly in FY 2015. FY 2015 results 

for Standard Mail Letters and Flats did not meet performance targets.

The Postal Service was able to provide service performance results for Every Door Direct 

Mail—Retail this year for the first time.235

Table V-17 below shows service performance results for all Standard Mail products.

 

235 “The service performance measure for Every Door Direct Mail – Retail involves the identification of mailpiece bundles within delivery units. 

Delivery of these bundles is captured with a scan made by carriers at the delivery unit upon distribution for delivery. Service performance is 

measured by comparing the total transit time, from start-the-clock to estimated delivery, to the service standard to determine the percent 

delivered on-time.” USPS Quarterly Performance Reports for Quarter 1, FY 2015, February 9, 2015, Excel file “Standard Mail – Every Door Direct 

Mail 151 Scores Report.”
Docket No. ACR2015 - 139 -

Table V-17

Standard Mail

Service Performance Results, FY 2011–FY 2015

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Target % 

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

Target % 

OnTime

High Density 

and 

Saturation 

Letters

90.0 86.9 90.0 87.2 90.0 90.8 91.0 92.3 91.0 91.5

High Density 

and 

Saturation 

Flats/Parcels

90.0 76.6 90.0 90.8 90.0 87.0 91.0 87.2 91.0 87.0

Carrier 

Route

90.0 50.1 90.0 70.6 90.0 79.7 91.0 81.4 91.0 82.0

Letters 90.0 71.3 90.0 80.7 90.0 85.9 91.0 87.1 91.0 85.8

Flats 90.0 59.9 90.0 70.0 90.0 76.9 91.0 76.2 91.0 73.8

Parcels 90.0 N/A 90.0 N/A 90.0 98.7 91.0 N/A 91.0 98.1

Every Door 

Direct Mail—

Retail

91.0 78.5

Note: Numbers in red indicate service performance results that did not meet or exceed the annual service performance target.

(2) Postal Service Explanation for Not Meeting Service 

Standards

In general, the Postal Service states that staff realignment and employee education 

activities as part of Network Rationalization caused a “slippage” in Quarter 2 service 

performance. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 13. With respect to products that did not 

meet service performance targets, the Commission describes the Postal Service’s 

explanation for Standard Mail Carrier Route and Flats at supra section V.A.3.

The Postal Service explains that because of its focus on “WIP cycle time and reduction of 

processing delays, [it] has been able to achieve Standard letters target since April 2015.” Id.

It identifies these two reasons as the primary causes of the relatively higher service 

performance results for Standard Mail Letters, compared to Standard flats (High-Density 

and Saturation Flats/Parcels, Carrier Route, and Flats). Id. Consequently, the Postal Service 

plans to apply the same strategy to flats to improve its service performance. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 140 -

Service performance results for Standard Mail products with a 6-10-Day service standard,

measured End-to-End, remain relatively low compared to all Destination Entry mail and 

other End-to-End service standards. Table V-18 shows service performance results for each 

End-to-End product’s 6-10-Day service standard from FY 2012 to FY 2015.

Table V-18

Standard Mail Products with a 6-10-Day Service Standard236

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

High Density and 

Saturation Letters 82.3 57.9 56.5 57.4

High Density and 

Saturation 

Flats/Parcels

N/A N/A 72.7 54.4

Carrier Route 74.3 64.5 60.2 60.6

Flats 59.8 53.1 52.9 45.1

Letters 55.7 59.8 56.7 48.6

In FY 2015, nearly all service performance results for Standard Mail products with a 6-10-

Day service standard were below 60 percent on-time delivery. Furthermore, the results in 

Table V-18 show a significant downward decline from FY 2012 to FY 2015 for all Standard 

Mail products with 6-10-Day service standards.

The Postal Service states that “[t]he extended surface network transportation through the 

NDC network is the highest challenge to this category.” January 29, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No. 6, question 20.b. The Postal Service also explains that “[l]ow volume combined 

with extra handling and transportation puts this volume at a higher risk to meet service 

performance.” Id.

(3) Comments

PostCom advises that the mailing industry expected a substantial improvement in service 

performance because of the Postal Service’s load leveling initiative, but that FY 2015 

service performance results “indicate this improvement has not occurred.” PostCom 

Comments at 4. PostCom further comments that “there is no way for industry to isolate the 

data necessary to compare service performance for the specific category of Standard Mail 

impacted by the Load Leveling change because it is a subset of a larger category reported 

by the USPS.” Id. It suggests that the Postal Service “make available data showing the 

service performance only for those pieces impacted by the Load Leveling change over the 

3-year period starting from before the change to the end of FY 2015.” Id. at 5.

 

236 No Standard Mail products entered as Destination Entry have a 6-10-Day service standard.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 141 -

The Public Representative observes that service performance results “appear less severe 

than in First-Class Mail,” but suggests that “the Commission increase oversight and 

visibility of the Postal Service’s efforts to improve service performance for the Standard 

Mail products that are not meeting service performance goals.” PR Comments at 12-13. He

also suggests the Commission require the Postal Service to file a “detailed plan within a 

reasonable timeframe that outlines the steps the Postal Service proposes to take to 

improve Standard Mail service performance.” Id. at 13.

(4) Commission Analysis

The Postal Service did not meet its service performance target for Standard Mail Letters in 

FY 2015. The service performance result for Standard Mail Letters declined in FY 2015, a 

reversal from the previous 4-year trend of improving performance. The Postal Service 

accurately notes that service performance started to improve in April. Although the Postal 

Service did not meet its target for Standard Mail Letters, it was closer to its target 

compared with other products.

The 6-10-Day service standard components of Standard Mail were the worst performers in 

Standard Mail in FY 2015. The Postal Service states these components were particularly 

troubled because the “volume is handled in multiple NDCs and P&DCs before reaching its 

destination.” January 29, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 20.b. The Postal Service 

states that it will leverage its diagnostic tools such as the “WIP cycle time” to improve 

performance of End-to-End Standard Mail. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 13.

The Commission agrees that an increase in WIP cycle time has an adverse effect on service 

performance results. The tools developed by the Postal Service to improve the performance 

of Destination Entry Standard Mail are facility specific, and thus the Postal Service needs to 

leverage a more operationally comprehensive approach to improve the performance of 

End-to-End Standard Mail.

The Commission finds the Postal Service continues to meet its service performance target for 

Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Letters, which exceeded the annual service 

performance target. The Commission also finds the Postal Service provided its service 

performance results for Standard Mail Parcels, as directed by the Commission in the FY 2014 

ACD, and for those results exceeding the annual service performance target.

However, the Commission is concerned with the recent slippage in the service performance of 

Standard Mail Letters. The Postal Service advises that service performance for Standard Mail 

Letters has improved since April 2015. The Commission expects this positive improvement in 

service performance to continue in FY 2016.

The Commission is also concerned that the service performance of Every Door Direct Mail—

Retail and Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels were below the intended 

annual performance target. The Commission expects service performance to improve in FY 

2016.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 142 -

Standard Mail Carrier Route and Standard Mail Flats continued to fall substantially short of 

intended annual performance targets. The Commission’s directives with respect to these 

products are discussed in Chapter 6.

c. Periodicals

(1) FY 2015 Results

Annual service performance results for Periodicals decreased for the second consecutive 

year as shown in Table V-19.

Table V-19

Periodicals

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Target

% 

OnTimeTarget

% 

OnTimeTarget

% 

OnTimeTarget

% 

OnTime

InCounty 91.00 68.7 91.00 82 91.00 80.9 91.00 77.7

Outside 

County 91.00 68.7 91.00 82.1 91.00 80.8 91.00 77.6

Note: Numbers in red indicate service performance results that did not meet or exceed the annual service performance target.

(2) Postal Service Explanation for Not Meeting Service 

Standards

The Postal Service’s explanation for not meeting service standards with respect to all 

Periodicals products (i.e., In-County and Outside County) is described in detail in section 

V.A.3.d.1. of this Chapter. In summary, the Postal Service attributes service performance 

problems with Periodicals to an increase in WIP cycle time and a shift in management focus 

toward other classes. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 16.

(3) Comments

The Public Representative comments that service performance results for Periodicals 

continue to decline. PR Comments at 14-15. He suggests that the Commission require the 

Postal Service to “file a detailed plan within a reasonable timeframe that outlines the steps 

the Postal Service proposes to take to improve Periodicals service performance.” Id. at 14.

(4) Commission Analysis

As discussed in section V.A.3.d. of this Chapter, service performance results for Periodicals 

have not improved since FY 2013 and were 13.4 percentage points below target in 

FY 2015. The Commission is concerned that the Postal Service has not effectively leveraged 

its diagnostic tools with respect to WIP cycle time. The Commission’s analysis of the service 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 143 -

performance of Periodicals is discussed in detail in section V.A.3.d. of this Chapter and 

Chapter 6.

This was the fourth consecutive year that Periodicals did not meet its service performance 

target. The Commission’s directive with respect to Periodicals is discussed in Chapter 6.

d. Package Services

(1) FY 2015 Results

The Postal Service did not achieve consistent service performance results for Package 

Services. The service performance for both BPM Parcels and Media Mail/Library Mail 

exceeded annual targets for the fourth consecutive year. In contrast, service performance 

results for BPM Flats decreased by 15 percentage points compared to FY 2014.

Table V-20 shows service performance results for Package Services from FY 2012 to 

FY 2015.

Table V-20

Package Services

Service Performance Results, FY 2012–FY 2015

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Target % OnTime Target % OnTime Target % OnTime Target % OnTime

Parcel 

Post/Alaska 

Bypass

90 86.8 90 85 90 N/A* 90 N/A*

Bound 

Printed 

Matter Flats

90 54.3 90 62.6 90 60.2 90 45.2

Bound 

Printed 

Matter 

Parcels

90 94.4 90 98.4 90 99.3 90 99.4

Media 

Mail/Library 

Mail

90 92.7 90 93.3 90 91.7 90 91.2

* Alaska Bypass Service, which was created when Single-Piece Parcel Post moved to the Competitive product list, was granted a semipermanent exception from service performance reporting in FY 2014. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 18.

Note: Numbers in red indicate service performance results that did not meet or exceed the annual service performance target.

(2) Postal Service Explanation for Not Meeting Service 

Standards

As shown in Table V-20, BPM Flats is the only Package Services product that did not meet 

or exceed its FY 2015 service performance target. The Postal Service’s explanation for not 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 144 -

meeting the service standard for BPM Flats is described in detail in section V.A.3.e.1. of this 

Chapter. In summary, the Postal Service attributes BPM Flats’ decline to the product’s 

unique mail characteristics, manual processing, and regulations regarding non-automated 

and automated commingling. Library Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 20-21.

(3) Comments

The Public Representative observes that service performance for BPM Flats declined 15 

percent since FY 2014. PR Comments at 15. He suggests that “the Commission ... inquire 

whether or not the Postal Service believes the Bound Printed Matter Flats service 

performance standard (and target) is realistic” and possibly adjust it so that “the product’s 

price reflects the value of service actually being provided.” Id. at 17.

(4) Commission Analysis

As discussed in section V.A.3.e.2. of this Chapter, service performance results for BPM Flats 

have not improved since FY 2013 and were 44.8 percentage points below target in 

FY 2015. While the Commission acknowledges the unique characteristics of BPM Flats mail, 

the Commission is concerned that the Postal Service’s plan for improving the service 

performance of this product relies heavily on the strategy proposed for other flats and its 

successful implementation. See supra V.A.3.e. of this Chapter and Chapter 6 for the 

Commission’s detailed analysis of these issues.

Media Mail/Library Mail and Bound Printed Mail Parcels exceeded the Postal Service’s annual 

service performance targets. The service performance of Bound Printed Matter Flats was 

substantially below other Package Services products for the fourth consecutive year. The 

Commission’s directive with respect to Bound Printed Matter Flats is discussed in Chapter 6.

e. Special Services

(1) FY 2015 Results

Service performance results exceeded targets for each product within the Special Services 

class, with the exception of Post Office Box Service. The Post Office Box Service result was 

89.7 percent, just under the 90.0 percent target. Table V-21 compares FY 2015 results to 

previous years and the annual target of 90.0 percent on-time.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 145 -

Table V-21

Special Services

Service Performance Results, FY 2011–FY 2015

FY 

2011

FY 

2012

FY 

2013

FY 

2014

FY 

2015 Target

Ancillary Services 93.4 93.4 91.4 92.3 92.1 90.0

International Ancillary 

Services 99.6 99.6 99.3 99.7 99.7 90.0

Address List Services 93.3 83.3 100 33.3 100 90.0

Money Orders 97.2 99.2 99.2 98.3 99.3 90.0

Post Office Box Service 93.1 92.6 90.9 90.2 89.7 90.0

Stamp Fulfillment Services -- 96.7 99.5 98.4 97.1 90.0

Note: Numbers in red indicate service performance results that did not meet or exceed the annual service performance target.

(2) Postal Service Explanation for Not Meeting Service 

Standards

The Postal Service explains that the score for Post Office Box Service was affected by “a 

change in mail mix and [move] to a non-scheme qualified bid environment.” Library 

Reference USPS–FY15–29 at 25. As a preemptive strategy to counteract these challenges, 

the Postal Service “deployed postal technology enhancements for the non-scheme 

distribution change.” Id. It states that this strategy was not completely successful; 

therefore, it will deploy more enhancements and realign resources to return Post Office

Box Service performance to targeted levels. Id.

(3) Comments

The Public Representative comments that service performance for Post Office Box Service 

did not meet its 90.0 percent on-time target. PR Comments at 17. He suggests that the 

“Commission require the Postal Service to report the actual steps the Postal Service 

proposes to take to ensure Post Office Box Service does not continue to deteriorate.” Id. 

at 18.

(4) Commission Analysis

Service performance results for Post Office Box Service have declined since FY 2011; 

however, results have typically been at or near target.

The Postal Service exceeded service performance results for all special services, except for Post 

Office Box Service, which was near its service performance target. The Commission expects the 

service for Post Office Box Service to improve in FY 2016.

5. Other Issues

The Public Representative notes that the Postal Service claimed its Network 

Rationalization plan impacted service performance results for several categories in 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 146 -

FY 2015. PR Comments at 5. He states he “is not surprised that network rationalization has 

had an impact on service performance.” Id. However, he is “uncertain as to whether the 

Postal Service’s cost cutting efforts (i.e., network rationalization) are being carried out at 

the expense of service performance, or whether the Postal Service will be able to both 

adjust its network and meet service performance targets in the near future.” Id.

The Public Representative also observes that “[w]hen costs cannot be easily controlled, 

operators are sometimes tempted to reduce service as the quickest means of reducing 

costs.” Id. n.4. He states that it would be permissible for the Commission to tie service 

performance to the price cap under the PAEA. Id.

The Public Representative suggests two Commission actions in response to the Postal 

Service’s FY 2015 service performance results. Id. at 19. One, that “the Commission host 

quarterly public meetings where the Postal Service presents service performance results 

and explains plans for improvement.” Id. Two, that the Commission require the Postal 

Service “to report average calendar days-to-delivery for each deliverable market dominant 

mail product.” Id.

In response to the Public Representative’s comments regarding poor service performance, 

the Postal Service reiterates its plans intended to “mitigate ‘adverse impacts’ to service, and 

by extension, its service performance results.

” USPS Reply Comments at 25-27. The Postal 

Service urges the Commission to reject the Public Representative’s suggestions for “the 

Commission to exercise extraordinary action unwarranted by present circumstances.” 

USPS Reply Comments at 26.

Valpak comments that “the Postal Service has not yet established any service performance 

targets (goals) for reliability of delivery service for any class of mail... [or] provided any 

statistical measures of the actual reliability of delivery service.” Valpak Reply Comments at 

12 (emphasis omitted). Valpak contends that “[i]n a price cap regime, such targets and 

statistical measures should be seen as essential to keep the Postal Service from degrading 

service in an effort to save money.” Id. 

PostCom states that “reliable, predictable, and consistent delivery service, within the 

parameters of the service standards, is a critical part of ensuring that customers continue 

to use the Postal Service... .” PostCom Reply Comments at 3. It urges the Commission to 

continue working with the Postal Service to improve measurement and meet service 

performance targets. Id.

The Commission acknowledges the issues raised by the commenters and notes they may 

merit consideration. Interested parties may submit petitions to initiate a proceeding if 

circumstances warrant.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 147 -

B. Customer Access

1. Introduction

Title 39 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) requires the Postal Service to report “measures of 

the quality of service afforded by the Postal Service in connection with [each Market 

Dominant] product, including ... the degree of customer satisfaction with the service 

provided.” 39 U.S.C. § 3652(a)(2)(B)(ii). Measuring customer access to postal services is 

important in evaluating universal service. Access may also have an impact on customer 

satisfaction. 39 C.F.R. § 3055.91 requires the Postal Service to provide information 

pertaining to four aspects of customer access: post offices (including closings and 

emergency suspensions), residential and business delivery points, collection boxes, and 

wait time in line.

The FY 2015 ACR and Library Reference USPS–FY15–33237 contain customer access 

information responsive to the requirements of Title 39 and the Commission’s regulations. 

The Postal Service provides additional information in responses to CHIRs. It also provides a 

copy of the Collection Point Management System database and additional data on 

suspended post offices in Library Reference USPS–FY15–45.238

2. Retail Facilities

In its FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service provides data on the number of retail facilities at the 

beginning and end of FY 2015, as well the number of retail facility closings during 

FY 2015.239 This information is disaggregated by type of retail facility. Table V-22 shows 

the number of retail facilities from FY 2013 to FY 2015. Postal-managed retail facilities 

consist of post offices, stations and branches, and carrier annexes. Non-postal-managed 

retail facilities consist of contract postal units, village post offices, and community post 

offices.

 

237 Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, December 29, 2015. The Postal Service revised this Library Reference when responding to an information 

request. Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing of a Revised Version of USPS–FY15–33 -- ERRATA, February 3, 2016. Citations to 

Library Reference USPS–FY15–33 in this Chapter are to the revised version.

238 Library Reference USPS–FY15–45, February 3, 2016; February 3, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6, questions 1, 2.

239 Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, Excel file “PostOfficesFY2015.Rev.2.3.16.xlsx.,” tab “Post Offices”; see 39 C.F.R. § 3055.91(a)(1)-(3).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 148 -

Table V-22

Retail Facilities

Facility Type FY 

2013

FY 

2014

FY 

2015

FY 2015 

Change 

from FY 

2014

FY 2015 

Change 

from FY 

2013

 Post Offices

 

26,670 

 

26,669 

 

26,615 -54 -55

 Classified Stations & Branches 

 and Carrier Annexes

 

5,032 

 

4,993 

 

4,991 -2 -41

Total Postal-Managed

 

31,702 

 

31,662 

 

31,606 -56 -96

 Contract Postal Units

 

2,718 

 

2,660 

 

2,504 -156 -214

 Village Post Offices

 

385 

 

759 

 

874 115 489

 Community Post Offices

 

629 

 

560 

 

536 -24 -93

Total Non-Postal-Managed

 

3,732 

 

3,979 

 

3,914 -65 182

Total Retail Facilities

 

35,434 

 

35,641 

 

35,520 -121 86

Note: These totals do not include offices under emergency suspension.

Sources: Library Reference USPS–FY15–33; United States Postal Service 2015 Annual Report to Congress at 26 (FY 2015 Annual Report to 

Congress); Library Reference USPS–FY15–17, December 29, 2015.

The total number of retail facilities in FY 2015 was 35,520, 121 less than the FY 2014. 

Other than Village Post Offices,240 which increased by 115 in FY 2015 to a total of 874, all 

facility types decreased from the previous year. The largest decrease was in Contract Postal

Units,241 which decreased by 156.

3. POStPlan

On May 25, 2012, the Postal Service requested an advisory opinion from the Commission 

on POStPlan, a proposal to realign the hours of operation at approximately 17,700 of its 

nearly 32,000 post offices, stations, and branches to more closely reflect the workload at 

these offices.242 The Commission issued its advisory opinion on August 23, 2012, which 

 

240 Village Post Offices are operated by local businesses and offer limited postal services like stamps and flat-rate products.

241 Contract Postal Units are operated by local businesses and offer the same basic services available at a postal-managed retail facility.

242 Docket No. N2012-2, United States Postal Service Request for an Advisory Opinion on Changes in the Nature of Postal Services, May 25, 

2012, at 1.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 149 -

stated that if implemented properly, POStPlan should help balance service and cost savings 

in a manner consistent with Title 39.243

Table V-23 compares the number of POStPlan offices as proposed in Docket No. N2012-2 

with the number of POStPlan offices at the end of FY 2015.

Table V-23

POStPlan244 Status through FY 2015

Projected 

Office 

Level

As Proposed 

in N2012-2

Status as of 

End of FY 

2015

% 

Converted

Level 2

 

1,891 

 

1,837 97.1%

Level 4

 

6,837 

 

6,668 97.5%

Level 6

 

4,333 

 

4,289 99.0%

Total

 

13,061 

 

12,794 98.0%

Source: February 17, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 16.

The table demonstrates that 98 percent of the post offices covered by POStPlan have had 

their hours of operation realigned.

4. Suspensions

The Postal Service provides data on the number of post offices under suspension at the end 

of FY 2015.245 This number is calculated by adding the number of post offices under 

suspension at the start of the fiscal year, to the number of post offices suspended during 

the year, and then subtracting the number of post offices reopened or closed by a Postal 

Service final determination during the year.246 Table V-24 shows that the number of post 

offices under suspension continues to grow.247

 

243Docket No. N2012-2, Advisory Opinion on Post Office Structure Plan, August 23, 2012, at 2.

244 Under POStPlan, the Postal Service planned to reduce hours of operation at approximately 13,000 post offices to 2 hours per weekday (Level 

2), 4 hours per weekday (Level 4), or 6 hours per weekday (Level 6). Some POStPlan offices with higher workload hours were upgraded to

executive and administrative schedule (EAS) Level 18 or above, effectively making them full-time offices.

245 Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, Excel file “PostOfficesFY2015.Rev.2.3.16.xlsx,” tab “Suspensions”; see 39 C.F.R. § 3055.91(a)(4)-(6).

246 It appears from the information provided by the Postal Service that no post office under suspension was closed in FY 2015. See Library 

Reference USPS–FY15–33, Excel file “PostOfficesFY2015.Rev.2.3.16.xlsx,” tab “Suspensions.”

247 The most common reason for suspension is an expired or terminated lease. For more information on suspensions, see Library Reference 

USPS–FY15–45, Excel File “ChIR.6.Q.1.Suspensions.xlsx.” Other reasons include damaged property, health and safety, and lack of qualified staff. 

Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 150 -

Table V-24

Number of Post Offices Under Suspension at the End of FY 2015

Under Suspension at 

the Start of FY 2015

Suspended 

During FY 2015

Reopened 

During FY 2015

Under Suspension 

at the End of 

FY 2015

Post Offices 408 94 26 479

Stations/Branches 109 19 7 121

Carrier Annexes 1 0 0 1

Total 518 113 33 598

Source: Library Reference USPS–FY15–33.

The most common reason for suspension is an expired or terminated lease.248 The Postal 

Service performed discontinuance studies for some of these offices in connection with 

prior facility reduction initiatives, but many of these studies are more than 2 years old;249

they may need to be updated if the Postal Service chooses to pursue discontinuation of 

these offices. At the end of FY 2012, the number of post offices under suspension was 

211.250 In 3 fiscal years, that number has nearly tripled. The Commission is concerned that 

the number of post office suspensions continues to increase instead of decrease.

The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service proceed expeditiously in 

either discontinuing offices under suspension or reopening them.251 It reiterates that 

recommendation in this proceeding. The Commission expects the Postal Service to reduce the 

number of facilities under suspension in FY 2016. If it is unable to do so, the Postal Service 

shall include a detailed explanation of why it was unable to do so in the FY 2016 Annual 

Compliance Report.

5. Delivery Points

The Postal Service reports information on the number of residential and business delivery 

points at the beginning and end of FY 2015.252 The total number of delivery points in FY 

2015 was 154,951,828, an increase of 1,059,852 from FY 2014. FY 2015 Annual Report to 

Congress at 26. This growth was due entirely to the large increase in residential delivery 

 

248 For more information on suspensions, see Library Reference USPS–FY15–45, Excel File “ChIR.6.Q.1.Suspensions.xlsx.” Other reasons include 

damaged property, health and safety, and lack of qualified staff. Id.

249 As detailed in Library Reference USPS–FY15–45, Excel File “ChIR.6.Q.1.Suspensions.xlsx,” over 300 of the 598 facilities under suspension have 

been under suspension since January 1, 2014.

250 FY 2012 ACD at 65.

251 See FY 2014 ACD at 121.

252 Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, Excel file “DeliveryPointsFY2015.xlsx”; see 39 C.F.R. § 3055.91(b). The Postal Service provided additional 

delivery point information in its responses to a CHIR. Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-10 of Chairman’s Information 

Request No. 15, March 2, 2016, question 4, Excel file “ChIR15.Q4.DeliveryPointsFY2015.xlsx.”
Docket No. ACR2015 - 151 -

points, which outpaced the decline in business delivery points.253 Table V-25 shows the 

trend in average number of mailpieces per delivery point from FY 2009 to FY 2015.

Table V-25

Average Number of Mail Pieces per Delivery Point

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Number of 

Pieces (Millions)

 

176,744 

 

170,859 

 

168,297 

 

159,859 

 

158,384 

 

155,375 

 

154,157 

Number of 

Pieces per 

Delivery Point

1177 1133 1111 1051 1036 1010 995

Source: Commission calculation based on FY 2015 Annual Report to Congress at 24, 26.

6. Collection Boxes

The Postal Service provides data on the number of collection boxes at the beginning and 

end of FY 2015.254 Nationally, there were 153,999 collection boxes at the end of FY 2015, 

2,346 fewer than in FY 2014. Additional data on collection boxes appear in Library 

Reference USPS–FY15–33.

7. Wait Time in Line

39 C.F.R. § 3055.91 requires the Postal Service to provide information pertaining to aspects 

of customer access including wait time in line. The Postal Service provides the average 

customer wait time in line for retail service for the beginning of FY 2015 and for each 

successive fiscal quarter at the Postal Administrative Area and National levels.255 The 

Postal Service measures average wait time in line through the Retail Customer Experience 

(RCE) program and the Point of Sale (POS) survey. It states that the service standard for 

wait time in line is “Five Minutes or Less.” FY 2015 Annual Report to Congress at 32.

The RCE program uses private “mystery shoppers” to conduct mailing transactions at over 

8,000 large retail outlets.256 Table V-26 below shows the national average customer wait 

time in line results for the RCE program by fiscal quarter for FY 2015.257

 

253 FY 2015 Annual Report to Congress at 26, contains additional details regarding delivery points.

254 Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, Excel file “CollectionBoxesFY2015.xls”; see 39 C.F.R. § 3055.91(c).

255 Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, Excel file “WaitTimeInLineFY2015.xlsx”; see 39 C.F.R. § 3055.91(d).

256 FY 2015 Annual Report to Congress at 32. To be an RCE program retail location, a post office has to be a Level 20 or higher office and 

generate $500,000 or more in walk-in revenue annually. See Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-12, 16-18 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 13, February 18, 2016, question 10.d. (February 18, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 13). The Commission will 

discuss the RCE program and POS survey in detail in its analysis of the Postal Service’s FY 2015 Annual Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual 

Performance Plan.

257 Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, “WaitTimeInLineFY2015.xlsx,” tab “Area Avg Wait” contains information on wait time in line for each 

Postal Administrative Area.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 152 -

Table V-26

RCE Program National Average Wait Time in Line

By FY 2015 Quarter

FY 2015 Quarter

Average Retail Customer 

Experience Wait Time in Line 

(minutes:seconds)

Quarter 1 2:33

Quarter 2 2:43

Quarter 3 2:40

Quarter 4 2:36

Source: Library Reference USPS-FY15-33, Excel file "WaitTimeInLineFY2015.xlsx." tab "Quarter Avg Wait Nat."

The POS survey is used for retail customers who conduct transactions at smaller retail 

locations. The POS retail equipment issues a survey invitation at the bottom of each retail 

receipt.258 The Postal Service explains that wait time in line results between the POS survey 

and RCE program differ “[b]ecause POS surveys measure customer perception and the RCE 

measures actual wait time in line.”259 It states that “identical periods of waiting can lead to 

different results in the POS surveys and the RCE.” Id.

Table V-27 below shows the POS survey wait time in line results for both FY 2014 and 

FY 2015.

 

258 See Library Reference USPS–FY15–38, December 29, 2015, file “FY 15-38 Preface.pdf.”

259 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses to Questions 1-5, 12-14, 26, 27, and 31-33 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 13, March 11, 2015, 

question 12 (Docket No. ACR2014, March 11, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 13).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 153 -

Table V-27

POS Survey Wait Time in Line, FY 2015

Wait Time in Line FY 2014 FY 2015

1-3 minutes 64.9% 60.3%

4-5 minutes 18.6% 20.8%

6-10 minutes 8.8% 10.1%

11-15 minutes 3.4% 3.9%

16 or more minutes 4.3% 4.8%

Sources: Library Reference USPS–FY15–38, Library Reference USPS–FY14–38.

Both the RCE program and POS survey report that customer wait times in line increased in 

FY 2015. In FY 2014, 9 percent of the RCE program respondents reported wait times of 

more than 5 minutes.260 In FY 2015, this number increased to 12.5 percent. February 18, 

2016, Responses to CHIR No. 13, question 11. Similarly, for the POS survey, Table V-27

illustrates that a higher percentage of POS customers reported wait times longer than 5 

minutes in FY 2015 than in FY 2014. In FY 2014, 16.5 percent of POS survey respondents 

reported their wait time in line of more than 5 minutes. In FY 2015, this number increased 

to 18.9 percent.

8. Alternative Access

In addition to providing products and services at postal managed retail facilities, the Postal 

Service has continued to expand postal access through alternate channels. Figure V-19

compares retail revenue by channel from FY 2012 to FY 2015. The channels are:

 Post Offices (walk-in revenue from post offices and contract postal units)

 Internet Access (PC Postage and Click-N-Ship)

 All Other (stamps only sales by retail partners, self-service kiosks, and stamps by 

mail/phone/fax)261

 

260 Docket No. ACR2014, United States Postal Service Responses to Questions 8, 11, and 15-19 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 13, 

March 19, 2015, question 11 (Docket No. ACR2014, March 19, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 13).

261 “Self Service Kiosks” is the current term for the equipment formerly known as Automated Postal Centers. January 29, 2016, Responses to 

CHIR No. 6, question 5. There were 2843 operational Self Service Kiosks as of the end of FY 2015, and there are no plans to add additional ones 

in FY 2016. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 154 -

Figure V-19

Retail Revenue by Channel

Source: January 29, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 6; FY 2014 ACD at 124.

In FY 2015, more than 43 percent of retail revenue was generated through channels other 

than postal managed retail facilities.

C. Customer Satisfaction with Market 

Dominant Products

1. Background

The Postal Service is required to provide measures of the degree of customer satisfaction 

with the service provided for Market Dominant products. 39 U.S.C. § 3652(a)(2)(B)(ii). In 

the Annual Compliance Report, the Postal Service must provide a copy of each type of 

customer survey, a description of the type of customer targeted by the survey, the number 

of surveys initiated and received, and the number of responses received for each question, 

disaggregated by each possible response. 39 C.F.R. § 3055.92. The Postal Service provides 

this information in Library Reference USPS–FY15–38.

In FY 2015, the Postal Service measured customer satisfaction with Market Dominant 

products by surveying three customer groups: residential, small/medium business, and 

large business customers. Residential customers completed the Delivery (Residential) 

survey.262 Small/medium business customers (those with fewer than 250 employees at one 

site) completed the Delivery (Small/Medium Business) survey.263 A panel of large business 

 

262 Library Reference USPS–FY15–38, file “Delivery - USPS FY15 Residential Delivery SURVEY.pdf.”

263 Library Reference USPS–FY15–38, file “Delivery - USPS FY15 Small Business Delivery SURVEY.pdf.”

$10,627 $10,723 $11,006 $10,769 

$4,088 $4,857 $5,554 $6,134 

$2,359 $2,303 

$2,344 $2,172 

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

2012 2013 2014 2015

Post Offices (WIR) Internet Access All Other
Docket No. ACR2015 - 155 -

customers (those with more than 250 employees at one site) completed the Large Business 

survey.264 These surveys are part of the Customer Insights (CI) program, which is intended 

to provide a comprehensive view of customer experience across the most frequently used 

customer contact channels. FY 2015 ACR at 57. The Commission examines the CI program 

and the customer surveys in detail in its analysis of the Postal Service’s FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 2016 Annual Performance Plan.

Table V-28 contains a comparison of FY 2014 and FY 2015 customer satisfaction results for 

residential, small/medium business, and large business customers. The Postal Service 

began surveying large business customers in the last quarter of FY 2015. The Postal Service 

explains that it elected to conduct the Large Business survey in response to information 

requests issued in Docket No. ACR2014. Id.

Table V-28

FY 2014 and FY 2015 Comparison of 

Customer Satisfaction with Market Dominant Products

Market Dominant 

Products (Mailing 

Services)

Residential % Rated 

Very/Mostly Satisfied

Small/Medium 

Business % Rated 

Very/Mostly Satisfied

Large Business % 

Rated 

Very/Mostly 

Satisfied (Q4 only)

2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

First-Class Mail 91.15% 89.22% 87.25% 84.77% ** 83.27%

Single-Piece 

International 85.58% 85.80% 83.04% 82.31% ** 82.65%

Standard Mail 86.76% 85.11% 83.82% 80.82% ** 79.49%

Periodicals 85.90% 85.50% 83.26% 82.42% ** 77.10%

Single-Piece Standard 

Post 88.92% 86.66% 84.06% 82.65% ** 77.81%

Media Mail 88.66% 87.17% 86.55% 85.18% ** 78.61%

Bound Printed Matter --* --* 81.72% 81.70% ** 76.54%

Library Mail --* 85.10% 81.79% 85.43% ** 78.66%

*-- Number of responses received did not meet minimum threshold for 90% level on confidence.

**-- FY 2014 Not Available.

Source: FY 2015 ACR at 59.

2. Comments

The Public Representative observes that customer satisfaction for residential and 

small/medium business customers declined for almost every market dominant product in 

FY 2015. PR Comments at 24. He asserts that large business customers appear to be less 

satisfied than residential and small/medium business customers for almost all products. Id.

at 25. He suggests that “the Commission closely monitor customer satisfaction to ensure 

 

264 Library Reference USPS–FY15–38, file “LargeBusiness - USPS FY15 LB Panel Survey.pdf.”
Docket No. ACR2015 - 156 -

that further declines do not occur.” Id. He reiterates his concern that the Postal Service may 

reduce service to save costs while complying with the price cap, which provides no benefit 

to customers. Id.

The Postal Service acknowledges recent declines in customer satisfaction for residential 

and small/medium business customers, which it attributes to misdelivered mail and gaps 

in the scanning processes. USPS Reply Comments at 25. The Postal Service states that it will 

increase customer satisfaction by training employees to maintain high scanning integrity 

and ensuring that customers understand the meaning of delivery scans. Id. It explains that 

customer care centers are being refined to provide better root cause analysis on “No 

Delivery – No Attempt” and “Failed First Attempt” scans. Id. It notes that Mobile Delivery 

Devices have upgraded software that will improve scan events and ensure delivery 

accuracy. Id.

3. Commission Analysis

a. Survey Methodology

The Commission acknowledges that the Postal Service surveyed large business customers

in FY 2015.265 The Postal Service continued its surveys for residential and small/medium 

business customers in FY 2015. The FY 2015 Large Business survey is designed to collect 

specific customer experience details by asking large business customers to evaluate 

consistency, accuracy, tracking, and other features for each Market Dominant product. 

Surveying large business customers improves the Postal Service’s measurement of 

customer satisfaction with Market Dominant products because it considers feedback from 

all three major customer groups that use these products. Surveying large business 

customers improves measurement of customer satisfaction at the product level.

The FY 2015 surveys were conducted at one part of the fiscal year and the results may 

therefore be biased based on the time period surveyed. The number of completed surveys 

can also affect the precision of measurements for less frequently used products such as 

Library Mail.266 The Postal Service acknowledges, “[w]ithout conducting additional surveys 

throughout the year, it is not possible to determine with precision, how representative the 

FY 2015 Large Business Survey results are of different, specific time periods throughout 

the year.” Response to CHIR No. 14, question 13.

 

265 The Postal Service states that it “elected to perform a Large Business survey in Quarter 4 of 2015, and reports those results here.” FY 2015 

ACR at 59.

266 For example, in FY 2014, the Postal Service administered the Delivery (Residential) survey from August to September 2014 and received only 

145 residential customer satisfaction responses for the Library Mail product during the 2-month survey period. As a result, the FY 2014 Library 

Mail customer satisfaction result for residential customers did not meet the same level of precision as the FY 2015 Library Mail customer 

satisfaction result. By contrast, in FY 2015, the Postal Service administered the Delivery (Residential) survey throughout the entire year and 

received 859 residential customer satisfaction responses for the Library Mail product, which increased the level of precision compared to FY 

2014. See February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, questions 20.a., 20.b.; Library Reference USPS–FY15–46, February 8, 2016, Excel file 

“ChIR7.Q20.Residential_Library_FY14.xlsx,” ; Library Reference USPS–FY15–33, Excel file “CI Question Response Counts FY15.xlsx,” 

“Delivery_Res” tab.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 157 -

The Commission recommends that the Postal Service continue surveying large business 

customers and consider their responses when measuring customer satisfaction with Market 

Dominant products. To facilitate the Commission’s evaluation, the Postal Service should file a 

table similar to Table V-28 above in the FY 2016 ACR. In the FY 2016 ACR, the Postal Service 

should also discuss reasons for any customer satisfaction decline for each Market Dominant 

product for residential, small/medium business, and large business customers. The Postal 

Service should consider, to the extent it deems useful, administering surveys throughout the 

fiscal year to improve the representativeness of the surveys.

b. Survey Results

The Postal Service attributes the decline in customer satisfaction to misdelivered mail and 

gaps in the scanning processes. However, these reasons, when considered in tandem with 

available data, may not completely explain the decline in customer satisfaction for a 

number of Market Dominant products. Table V-29 lists the percentage of residential and 

small/medium business customers who responded negatively (Somewhat Disagree or 

Strongly Disagree)267 to statements related to their most recent delivery experience in 

FY 2014 and FY 2015.

 

267 Question 2 of the Delivery (Residential) and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys asks customers to evaluate their experiences with 

mail or packages they recently received by expressing their level of agreement with statements on carrier performance, delivery and tracking 

accuracy, and mail delivered in good condition. Customers provide their responses on a six-point scale: Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, 

Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and Don’t Know.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 158 -

Table V-29

Percent of Residential and Small/Medium Business Customers Who Responded 

Negatively to Delivery Survey Statements for Mail or Packages Recently Received

Delivery Survey 

Statement

Percent of Residential 

Customers who Somewhat or 

Strongly Disagreed

Percent of Small/Medium 

Business Customers who 

Somewhat or Strongly Disagreed

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2015

Mail or packages 

are delivered to 

the correct 

address.

11.2 11.7 12.9 14.8

Letter carriers 

perform their 

job well.

9.3 9.8 10.7 11.8

Tracking 

information for 

packages is 

accurate.

4.8 5.0 4.6 5.3

Mail or packages 

are delivered in 

good condition.

4.8 4.9 4.7 7.4

Letter carriers 

are friendly and 

courteous.

4.1 4.4 5.6 6.0

Sources: Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS–FY14–38, December 29, 2014, Excel file “CI Question Response Counts 

FY2014.xlsx,” tabs “Delivery_SMB” (small/medium business customers) and “Delivery_RES” (residential customers); Library Reference 

USPS–FY15–38, Excel file “CI Question Response Counts FY15.xlsx,” tabs “Delivery_SMB” (small/medium business customers) and 

“Delivery_RES” (residential customers). “Don’t Know” responses were included in the total for the percentage negative response 

calculations.

Table V-29 illustrates that between FY 2014 and FY 2015, negative responses increased. 

Delivery accuracy and letter carrier performance received the most negative responses 

from residential and small/medium customers in FY 2014 and FY 2015. Between FY 2014 

and FY 2015, the percentage of negative responses—particularly for delivery accuracy, 

mail or packages delivered in good condition, and letter carrier performance—increased 

for small/medium business customers to a larger extent than for residential customers.

The Postal Service’s proposal to improve scanning may address issues related to the 

accuracy of tracking information. However, it may not address other major causes of 

customer dissatisfaction that relate to delivery accuracy and letter carrier performance.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 159 -

The Commission notes that the Postal Service plans to modify FY 2016 questions on the 

Delivery (Residential) and Delivery (Small/Medium Business) surveys “to gain deeper 

insights into our customer’s delivery experience and delivery needs.”268

In the FY 2016 ACR, the Commission recommends that the Postal Service further examine 

increasing customer dissatisfaction results for misdelivered mail and letter carrier 

performance and describe what changes it implemented to address these issues. The 

Commission also recommends the Postal Service continue its efforts to improve scanning and 

provide more accurate tracking information to customers. If the Postal Service elects to 

change survey questions, the Commission encourages the Postal Service to ensure that results 

are comparable across fiscal years.

 

268 Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-6 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 3, January 21, 2016, question 6 

(Responses to CHIR No. 3).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 160 -

CHAPTER 6: FLATS COST AND SERVICE 

ISSUES

A. Background

The Postal Service has faced significant challenges in processing and delivering flat-shaped 

mailpieces (flats) profitably during the PAEA era. Postal Service efforts relating to 

improving flats products’ service or contribution (profitability) are ongoing and 

interrelated. This chapter, therefore, reviews these issues in tandem. The Commission

explores potential causes for the problems identified to date and calls on the Postal Service 

to take steps to better define the scope of the problems and potential solutions. Specifically, 

the Commission requires that the Postal Service report on methods to quantify what the 

Commission understands to be the main drivers of significant and ongoing service failures 

and cost shortfalls.

Relevant to the financial performance, and as reported in Chapter 3, in FY 2015 the 

attributable costs of Outside County Periodicals and Standard Flats combined to exceed 

revenues by over $1 billion. See Chapter 3, supra, at 43, 51. Since FY 2008, the combined 

attributable costs of four flats products exceeded revenues by more than $8 billion. Id. 

Relevant to service performance and as detailed in Chapter 5, the Postal Service has never 

met its service performance targets for any flats product.

In previous ACDs, the Commission directed the Postal Service to provide information 

regarding operational changes for flats designed to reduce costs and improve costing 

methodologies in both Periodicals and Standard Mail.269 The Commission also directed the 

Postal Service to make efforts to improve service performance for flats and explain why 

other efforts have not been effective. See FY 2014 ACD at 109.

1. Flats Financial Performance

The Postal Service implemented a wide range of operational changes in the past 10 years 

intended to reduce the costs of flats.270 Despite these operational changes, the shortfall 

created by flats products’ attributable costs exceeding revenues was higher in FY 2015 

than any year since FY 2012.

271 In addition, the Postal Service has not, despite Commission 

 

269 See, e.g., Docket No. ACR2008, Annual Compliance Determination Report, March 30, 2009, at 54, 58-60 (FY 2008 ACD); FY 2009 ACD at 65, 

75; FY 2010 ACD at 93-94, 103-107; FY 2011 ACD at 106, 117-118; FY 2012 ACD at 89, 92-97, 109-116; FY 2013 ACD at 44-45, 53-55; FY 2014 

ACD at 40-41, 47-48.

270 See Chapter 3, supra, at 47-49, 53-59; Periodicals Mail Study at 95-97; FY 2014 ACD at 38; see also Docket No. N2012-1; Docket No. N2014-1; 

and Docket No. R2010-4, Library Reference USPS-R2010-4/9, July 6, 2010.

271 FY 2015 ACR at 29-30; see Chapter 3, supra, Tables III-1 and III-5. In FY 2015, the Postal Service incorporated three methodology changes 

which it estimates increased unit costs for Standard Mail Flats by 0.99 cents, or 2.1 percent. See FY 2015 ACR at 29-30. The shortfall has 

continued to increase, even after removing the effects of these methodology changes.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 161 -

direction, provided estimates as to the financial impacts of the majority of these 

operational changes. See Chapter 3, supra, at 48-49, 54-58. The Commission has 

consistently recommended that the Postal Service improve the financial performance of 

flats products in its past ACDs as detailed in Table VI-1 below.

Table VI-1

Annual Compliance Determinations Where the Postal Regulatory Commission 

Recommended the Postal Service Improve Standard Mail Flats and Periodicals 

Financial Performance

Product/Class FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Standard Mail Flats X X X X X X X

Periodicals X X X X X X X

Source: FY 2008 ACD at 54, 58-60; FY 2009 ACD at 65, 75, 87-88; FY 2010 ACD at 93-94, 103-107; FY 2011 ACD at 106, 

117-119; FY 2012 ACD at 89, 92-97, 109-116; FY 2013 ACD at 44-45, 53-55; and FY 2014 ACD at 40-41, 47-48.

The Commission previously directed the Postal Service to provide visibility into the 

financial impacts of its operational changes to Standard Mail Flats in order to ascertain the 

effectiveness of those changes. In the FY 2010 ACD, after 3 years of increasing negative 

contribution from Standard Mail Flats, the Commission directed the Postal Service to 

“increase the cost coverage of the Standard Mail Flats product through a combination of 

above-average price adjustments...and cost reductions....” FY 2010 ACD at 106. As part of 

this directive, the Commission required that in subsequent ACRs the Postal Service 

describe all operational changes designed to reduce overall flats costs in the previous fiscal 

year and estimate the financial effects of such changes. Id. at 107. In FY 2015, as in previous 

years, the Postal Service did not quantify the financial effects of those changes. See Chapter 

3, supra, at 48-49, 54-58.

The Commission steadily increased its attempts to encourage transparency for the 

operational initiatives designed to reduce flats costs for Periodicals as well. The 

Commission worked with the Postal Service to produce the Periodicals Mail Study272 in 

FY 2010, in which the Commission and the Postal Service described initiatives designed to 

reduce the cost of flats. Periodicals Mail Study at 81-99. In the FY 2013 ACD, the 

Commission found that the Postal Service was unable to report on the success of initiatives 

developed from the Periodicals Mail Study that were designed to lower the cost of 

Periodicals. FY 2013 ACD at 45. The Commission, therefore, required the Postal Service to 

quantify the financial impact of implementing the operational strategies outlined in the 

Periodicals Mail Study and develop metrics to track progress in subsequent ACRs. Id. As 

discussed in Chapter 3, in the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service did not provide a detailed 

analysis of the cost savings impact of these operational strategies or the progress in 

developing metrics to assess the resulting cost savings. The Postal Service continues to 

 

272 The Periodicals Mail Study responds to section 708 of the PAEA, which directs the Postal Service and Commission to jointly address the 

quality of data for attributing costs and opportunities for operational efficiencies, including pricing incentives. See Periodicals Mail Study at 5.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 162 -

maintain that it “is unable to provide an estimate of the financial impacts of these 

operational initiatives at this time.” FY 2015 ACR at 19.

To date, despite Commission inquiries, the Postal Service has not quantified the impact of 

its operational changes on flats costs. Moreover, it was unsuccessful in reducing costs as 

evidenced by the continued increase in costs for flats. Further, the Postal Service did not 

explain its failure to develop metrics to assess cost savings and other issues. As a result, the 

Postal Service did not identify a comprehensive plan to ameliorate the problem or a way to 

measure the effectiveness of its actions on this billion-dollar challenge.

2. Flats Service Performance

In addition to the increased costs for flats products, the Postal Service did not meet its 

service performance targets for flats products.273 The Postal Service has in recent years 

experienced significant reductions in on-time delivery for several flats products. This 

decline in service performance for flats products continued despite the relaxation of 

several service standards since FY 2012.274 While the Postal Service increased service 

windows (an effort to increase volume on automation equipment and drive efficiency), it 

did not meet these less stringent service standards. Table VI-2 contains the service 

performance results for selected flats products from FY 2011 to FY 2015.

 

273 See Chapter 5, supra, at 102-131 for further details regarding service performance.

274 The Postal Service sets its own service performance targets (the measure of the amount of mail within a product or group that meets a 

specified service standard). In FY 2012, the Postal Service implemented Phase 1 of its Network Rationalization initiative. Pursuant to this 

initiative, service windows for First Class, Standard Mail, and Periodicals were increased. In FY 2015, service windows were again increased 

pursuant to Phase 2 of Network Rationalization. See Docket No. N2012-1, Advisory Opinion on Mail Processing Network Rationalization Service 

Changes, September 28, 2012, at 41-72 (Docket No. N2012-1, Advisory Opinion). In FY 2014, the Postal Service implemented the load leveling 

program, which increased the service windows for specific portions of Standard Mail and Periodicals. See Docket No. N2014-1, Advisory Opinion 

on Service Changes Associated with Standard Mail Load Leveling, March 26, 2014, at 10-19 (Docket No. N2014-1, Advisory Opinion).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 163 -

Table VI-2

Flats Products’ Service Performance Results FY 2011–FY 2015

Product

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Target

% 

OnTime Target

% 

OnTime Target

% 

OnTime Target

% 

OnTime Target

% 

OnTime

First-Class Mail 

Flats 3-5 Day275 92.85 80.00 92.85 80.00 95.00 77.60 95.25 72.60 95.25 65.28

Standard Mail 

Carrier Route 90.00 50.10 90.00 70.60 90.00 79.70 91.00 81.40 91.00 82.02

Standard Mail 

Flats 90.00 59.90 90.00 70.00 90.00 76.90 91.00 76.20 91.00 73.78

Periodicals 

Outside County 91.00 75.50 91.00 68.70 91.00 82.10 91.00 80.80 91.00 77.57

Bound Printed 

Matter Flats N/A N/A 90.00 54.30 90.00 62.60 90.00 60.20 90.00 45.20

Source: Library Reference PRC-LR-ACR2015/9.

In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission noted the Postal Service’s continued difficulties with 

achieving service performance targets for flats across all classes. Specifically, the 

Commission noted that flats in First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Package 

Services did not meet service performance targets in FY 2014 and had not met targets since 

the inception of the modern service standard tracking program. FY 2014 ACD at 104, 109, 

111-112, 114. In the FY 2014 ACD, the Commission directed the Postal Service to improve 

performance for flats in FY 2015 or, if results did not improve, provide an explanation for 

why its efforts to improve results were ineffective and to identify the changes it plans to 

make to improve service performance. Id. As discussed in Chapter 5, service performance 

results for all but one flats product did not improve, and the Postal Service failed to supply 

adequate plans for improvement given service performance results for flats remain below 

applicable targets. See Chapter 5, supra, at 102-131.

3. Data Systems

The Postal Service did not provide transparency into the financial and service impacts of 

the operational initiatives intended to improve flats products’ cost coverage. Based on the 

Postal Service’s responses to CHIRs in this proceeding and past ACDs, the Postal Service 

recognized limitations in its use of its data sources. Specifically, it noted that isolating cost 

and service impacts of operational initiatives by class is difficult because the available data 

are not collected at the class level, or the available data are not representative of all 

volume.276 These limitations have an effect on the Postal Service’s ability to measure the 

 

275 “First-Class Mail Flats 3-5 Day” denotes First-Class Mail Flats that have a service standard of 3 to 5 days. Most First-Class Mail Flats volume

falls into this category.

276 See February 17, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 4; Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 5-7 and 10-12 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 4, February 19, 2015, question 11 (Docket No. ACR2014, February 19, 2015, 

Responses to CHIR No. 4).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 164 -

effectiveness of its operational initiatives intended to improve cost and service 

performance for flats.

For financial reporting purposes, the Postal Service focuses on CRA-level data, which are 

used for cost attribution. The CRA was developed in response to the statutory 

requirements of the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) and the subsequent PAEA. In multiple 

studies, stakeholders have repeatedly advocated and the Commission has repeatedly 

agreed that CRA-level data are “reasonably accurate for rate-setting purposes.” Periodicals 

Mail Study at 57; see also FY 2014 ACD at 48. Although relevant for developing reasonably 

accurate product costs,

277 the CRA data are not “sufficient to accurately assess the savings 

achievable through improved operational efficiency.” Periodicals Mail Study at 57. Further, 

CRA data are not designed to identify the “pinch points,” i.e., functions where the Postal 

Service is not operating at a maximum efficiency and where operational reality does not 

match ideal operational design. Rather, CRA data are designed to determine the costs 

incurred by classes and products in a given year. These limitations inhibit the CRA from 

being an effective data source to evaluate the success of operational initiatives intended to 

improve flats costs.

With respect to service performance, the Postal Service developed and implemented a host 

of new data systems over the past 5 years. Many of these systems are used to track and 

report service performance. In response to CHIRs in this proceeding, the Postal Service 

identifies numerous data systems which it has developed to track operational issues for 

service performance and tracking for flats. The Postal Service indicates that the following 

systems can provide additional insight into flats products: Mail History Tracking System 

(MHTS), IMb Service Performance Diagnostics System (SPD), Flats ID Coding System 

(FICS), Seamless Acceptance and Service Performance (SASP), Business Intelligence Data 

Storage (BIDS), and Intelligent Mail Accuracy and Performance System (IMAPS).278

However, as discussed in Chapter 5, it appears that the Postal Service’s use of its diagnostic 

tools was ineffective in improving service performance results for flats products. See 

Chapter 5, supra, at 103-104, 115-116, 123, 129. It is not clear whether these data systems 

are able to track or measure problems causing flats service performance declines, i.e., the 

pinch points in processing or transportation flows. It is also unclear that the Postal Service 

leveraged the available data to provide visibility and insight into the issues facing flats, 

which may prevent the Postal Service from developing effective solutions. The Postal 

Service repeatedly indicates that it is “unable to provide an estimate of the financial 

impacts”279 of the operational changes intended to improve flats mail processing. Further, 

the Postal Service states that “[f]or the vast majority of programs the Postal Service has no 

 

277 For example, CRA data is developed for accuracy in ratemaking and cross-subsidy analysis, an important economic feature of both the PRA 

and the PAEA. See FY 2011 ACD at 119.

278 February 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, questions 8 and 12.

279 FY 2015 ACR at 19; see also February 17, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 4 (“The Postal Service has not developed and is not 

developing metrics to assess the cost-savings impact of operational strategies for Periodicals for FY 15.”).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 165 -

system in place today to accurately measure the isolated cost impact of a single initiative

due to the number of factors impacting costs in a given operation.”280

The solutions presented by the Postal Service failed to achieve the intended improvements

given the continued decline in flats cost coverage and service performance. Without 

visibility into the capabilities of the Postal Service’s current data systems to track and 

measure the impacts of its operational initiatives intended to improve flats costs and 

performance, flats will continue to be a billion-dollar issue for years to come.

B. Current Flats Environment: Factors 

Contributing to Cost and Service Issues

During the course of this ACD proceeding, the Commission attempted to gather more 

information regarding the cost coverage and service performance issues with flats. The 

Postal Service responses to numerous CHIRs highlight potential obstacles to improving 

cost coverage and service performance for flats. Based on the Postal Service responses, the 

Commission identifies the following obstacles which are shared among flats in all classes of 

mail:

1. Bundle processing281

2. Low productivity on automated equipment282

3. Manual sorting283

4. Productivity and service issues in allied operations284

5. Increased transportation time and cost285

6. Last mile/delivery286

These six operations are “pinch-points,” functions where the Postal Service is not operating 

at maximum efficiency from a cost or service perspective. Figure VI-1 illustrates a basic 

flats processing flow and the obstacles that may occur at each node in the flow.

 

280 Docket No. ACR2014, February 19, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 11.

281 January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16; Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 14; Responses of the United States Postal Service 

to Questions 1-6, 8-10 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 11, February 16, 2016, question 3 (Responses to CHIR No. 11); February 19, 2016, 

Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 1.

282 February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 1; Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 16.

283 Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 14.

284 January 15, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 5; January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, questions 22, 24, and 26; Responses to 

CHIR No. 11, question 1.

285 January 29, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6, question 20; Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1.

286 January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 17.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 166 -

Figure VI-1: Flats Mail Processing Impact on Cost and Service

In this section, the Commission discusses the potential cost and service impacts of each 

pinch point, the data limitations, and potential data sources that may provide actionable 

information in the future.

1. Bundle Sorting Operations/Bundle Breakage

The first pinch point for flats involves the bundle sorting operation. Bundles are plasticwrapped or banded groups of presorted pieces. The bundle sort pinch point is implicated

both when moving the mail to the bundle sort and during the bundle sort. Over 90 percent 

of flats arrive at Postal Service facilities presorted in bundles on pallets or in sacks.

Periodicals Mail Study at 36. Seventy-five percent of all flats are dropshipped to either a 

destination sectional center facility (DSCF) or a Destination Flats Sequencing System 

(DFSS) facility. See Library Reference PRC–LR–ACR2015/9. Almost all flats require a 

bundle sort. Periodicals Mails Study at 36.

The bundle sorting operation implicates both cost and service performance issues for flats. 

Bundle breakage is an issue unique to the processing of flats, particularly with bundle 

processing on the Automated Package Processing System (APPS) and Automated Parcel 

Bundle Sorter (APBS). When postal employees unload pallets that contain bundles of flats

and perform the bundle sort, the bundles can break. Bundle breakage occurs when the 
Docket No. ACR2015 - 167 -

material that holds the flats together in a bundle breaks. When a bundle breaks, the value 

of the presortation is lost and this increases costs to the Postal Service to process the pieces 

that were formerly bundled together. Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 3.b.

When bundle breakage occurs, it also negatively impacts service performance because the 

formerly bundled pieces now require additional handling and processing by the Postal 

Service. Id. Further, delays in the bundle sort process regardless of breakage can also 

negatively affect service performance. As discussed in the “allied operations” section below, 

any time delay between arrival of palletized flats and the initial bundle process can cause 

flats to miss their service performance standards. Thus, the time required for the initial 

bundle sort is a pinch point for effective service performance.

Although bundle breakage negatively affects cost and service performance of flats, the 

actual cost and service impact of bundle breakage is unclear.287 Postal Service data systems 

do not record all instances of bundle breakage and only estimate bundle breakage. Docket 

No. ACR2014, February 6, 2015 Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 9. The Postal Service 

states that bundle breakage continues to be a significant problem for flats.288 Bundle 

breakage leads to an increase in the number of handlings, cost of processing, and time prior 

to finalization. Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 3.b. In FY 2015, the Postal Service 

completed a Lean Six Sigma study on bundle breakage. Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 

18. However, this study was not designed to determine the current scope and scale of 

bundle breakage; it was designed to mitigate breakage going forward.

As expressed above, the current data are limited in identifying the actual cost and service 

impacts of bundle breakage. Specifically, because the currently available data do not fully

indicate the scope and scale of bundle breakage at a national or facility level, the impacts of

this issue on cost and service performance are unclear. Without knowing the actual impact 

of bundle breakage at a facility level, it is difficult to propose or implement effective 

solutions to this problem. However, by leveraging its available data, including IMb and 

MHTS, the Postal Service can gain insight into where and when bundle breakage occurs.

For example, quantifying the percentage of a given mailer’s volume that results in broken 

bundles would allow the Postal Service to develop a specific mitigation strategy tailored to 

that mailer. IMb data could be utilized to identify at-risk mailings, which would allow the 

Postal Service visibility into the root cause of the problem. These types of data would be 

relevant to identify areas of improvement that could be achieved through changes in mail 

preparation standards and rules when the Postal Service establishes or revises them.

2. Low Productivity on Automated Equipment

The second pinch point for flats is automated processing. The APBS, the APPS, and the 

Automated Flats Sequencing Machine (AFSM) 100 are the three primary machines used to 

 

287 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-4, 8-9, and 13-17 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 

4, February 6, 2015, question 9 (Docket No. ACR2014, February 6, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 4).

288 See FY 2015 ACR at 27; see also United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Audit Report – Periodicals Mail Costs, Report No. 

CRR-AR-11-001, December 7, 2010, at 4-6.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 168 -

process flats. The APBS and APPS are used to sort bundles of flats and the AFSM is used to 

sort individual pieces to carrier routes.

This pinch point also impacts both cost and service for flats. One of the major issues 

causing the increased cost of flats is the decline in productivity on automated equipment. 

Over the past decade, the productivities measured in pieces per hour (pph) for these 

machines declined.289 When productivities go down, the cost efficiency of the Postal 

Service’s operations declines.

The Postal Service attributes these productivity declines to the long running volume 

declines but does not explain why lower volumes necessarily translate into lower 

productivities.290 Despite the lower volume, the Postal Service made changes to its 

operations intended to increase productivities, but those changes did not produce 

measurable positive effects on productivities. As an example, APBS replaced the Small 

Parcel and Bundle Sorter (SPBS) in FY 2013.291 This change was supposed to improve 

productivity, however, as Table VI-3 shows, the productivity continued to decline after the 

APBS was introduced.292

 

289 See Table VI-3 below. Further note that the productivity for the SPBS/APBS increased from FY 2011 to FY 2013. This increase was due to the 

deployment of the APBS, which automated the keying activity required by the SPBS. While the Postal Service upgraded the SPBS, the current 

productivity of the new generation, the APBS, is lower in FY 2015 than the prior generation in FY 2008. See Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of 

the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-6, 8, 10, 12-13 and 15-22 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, January 23, 2015, question 8 

(Docket No. ACR2014, Responses to CHIR No. 2).

290 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 8. The Postal Service has not linked the productivity of the APPS, APBS, or AFSM at a 

facility level to facility-specific volumes. That is, the Postal Service has not provided evidence that facilities with lower volume actually have 

lower productivities.

291 Docket No. ACR2014, February 19, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 11.

292 See Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-2, 5-11 and 13-14 of Chairman’s Information Request 

No. 3, January 30, 2015, question 6 (Docket No. ACR2014, January 30, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 3).
Docket No. ACR2015 - 169 -

Table VI-3

Pieces Per Hour (PPH) Sorted

AFSM100 Incoming 

Secondary SPBS/APBS Incoming APPS Incoming

Fiscal 

Year PPH % Change PPH % Change PPH % Change

2008 3273 252 498

2009 3138 -4.1% 224 -10.8% 451 -9.3%

2010 2998 -4.5% 208 -7.2% 430 -4.7%

2011 2898 -3.3% 201 -3.4% 397 -7.7%

2012 2692 -7.1% 220 9.6% 361 -9.0%

2013 2725 1.2% 232 5.4% 350 -3.0%

2014 2685 -1.5% 219 -5.6% 319 -9.1%

2015 2673 -0.4% 205 -6.6% 304 -4.5%

Source: PRC-LR-ACR2015/9.

The Postal Service notes that productivity and volume declines negatively impact service 

performance. January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, questions 15, 16, and 17. The 

Postal Service further notes that it attempts to maximize volume per sort plan, which leads 

to processing being performed later in the day. Id. questions 16 and 17. There are 

indications that, in some cases, the Postal Service may be delaying processing until it has 

reached a certain volume. Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1. Given the continuing 

decline in volume, this delay in processing will only decrease the Postal Service’s ability to 

meet its service performance standards for flats.

The Postal Service implemented a number of operational and concurrent service standard 

changes with the purpose of increasing flats automation productivity. The Postal Service 

implemented Mail Processing Realignment in two phases. In Phase 1, the Postal Service 

consolidated 140 facilities and extended service standards for flats across multiple classes 

and products.293 The Postal Service implemented Phase 1 from FY 2012 to FY 2014. One of 

the purposes of Phase 1 was to increase volume at the facility level to increase available 

volume for automation processing. In FY 2015, the Postal Service implemented Phase 2, 

which extended service windows and realigned operating windows in mail processing 

facilities.294 In Docket No. N2012-1, the Postal Service estimated that implementation of 

Phase 2 would improve flats processing productivity by 15 percent.295 As detailed in Table 

 

293 Docket No. N2012-1, Advisory Opinion at 46; see also Revised Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products, 77 Fed. Reg. 31,190 

(May 25, 2012).

294 See Revised Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products; Designation of Implementation Date, 79 Fed. Reg. 44,700 (August 1, 

2014).

295 Docket No. N2012-1, Advisory Opinion at Appendix H at 6, Table H-1.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 170 -

VI-3, flats processing productivities continued to decline in FY 2015. These operational 

changes had a limited effect and service performance continued to decline.

In addition to the three primary machines to process flats, the Postal Service implemented 

the Flats Sequencing System (FSS) to sequence flats automatically. The FSS sorts flats into 

delivery point sequence (DPS). Where the FSS is not used to sequence flats, carriers must 

manually sequence, or “case” the mail. One of the intended benefits of FSS is a decrease in 

casing costs in FSS zones. Due to the reduction in flats volume and the FSS failing to meet 

key performance requirements, the deployment of the FSS is more limited today than 

originally envisioned.296 As of January 2014, the Postal Service deployed 100 FSS machines 

in 33 locations.297

However, the FSS did not have the intended effect on improving cost or service. In FY 2015, 

20 percent of flats that destinated in FSS zones were not finalized on FSS equipment.298 The 

Postal Service spent over $202 million on processing flats on the FSS in FY 2015.299 The 

Postal Service estimates that only 81.9 percent of flats that destinate in FSS zones were 

finalized to DPS on the FSS in FY 2015, requiring the remainder to be manually cased

despite these mailpieces paying the cheaper automation FSS prices.300 The inability of the 

Postal Service to achieve DPS percentages above 81.9 percent creates cost and service 

issues for flats across all classes and products. However, the Postal Service did not clearly 

identify the cost or the service impact of the FSS implementation.

301

The Postal Service develops its productivity data for its automated equipment using the 

MODS and Web End-of-Run (WebEOR) system.

302 WebEOR provides high quality granular 

productivity data on the total pieces processed on automation equipment and MODS allows 

the Postal Service insight into the workhours for these operations.

303 However, these data 

systems provide limited insight into the causes of the problems involving the decline in 

 

296 United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Audit Report – Challenges in Controlling Costs with Standard Mail Flats and 

Periodicals, Report No. SM-WP-15-001, February 26, 2015, at 8 (USPS OIG Report No. SM-WP-15-001).

297 USPS OIG Report No. SM-WP-15-001 at 8. Facilities that house FSS machines are referred to as destination FSS (DFSS) facilities.

298 Library Reference USPS-FY15-11, December 29, 2015, Excel file “USPS-FY15-11 STD flats.xlsx,” tab “Coverage Factors,” cell E79.

299 Library Reference USPS-FY15-26, December 29, 2015, Excel file “shp15prc.xls,” tab “Flats (2),” columns “F” and “AX.” The cost of FSS 

processing in Management Operating Data System (MODS) and network distribution center (NDC) facilities was over $202 million.

300 Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 13. In its Responses to CHIR No. 4, question 13, the Postal Service states that only 59.99 percent of flats 

that destinate in FSS zones are finalized via the FSS. However, in February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 10, the Postal Service 

explains that the 59.99 metric includes “mail pieces not intended to be processed on the FSS, specifically EDDM, High Density and Saturation 

Flats” and that 81.9 percent of machinable flats destinating in FSS zones are successfully sequenced.

301 The Postal Service has repeatedly stated it is unable to isolate the cost savings from the FSS Initiative. See Docket No. ACR2014, Notice of the 

United States Postal Service of Filing Partial Supplemental Information in Response to Order No. 2313, January 15, 2015, Attachment A at 4. 

Concerning service performance, in a notice revising its response to CHIR No. 12, question 11, the Postal Service confirmed that it “has not 

developed a process to measure service performance impact -- from acceptance to delivery -- that could be said to result from FSS scheme 

bundles.” Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing a Revised Response to Question 11 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 12 --

ERRATA, February 18, 2016, question 11 (February 18, 2016, Response to CHIR No. 12).

302 United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Audit Report – Web End-of-Run System, Report No. MS-AR-14-004, June 2, 2014, at 

1 (USPS OIG Report No. MS-AR-14-004); see also Library Reference USPS-FY15-23.

303 USPS OIG Report No. MS-AR-14-004 at 1.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 171 -

productivity and increase in costs facing the automated processing of flats. Further, these 

data systems do not record information at the product level. That is, for a given processing 

run, the Postal Service has data on how many pieces were fed and finalized, but it generally 

does not have data as to whether those pieces were Periodicals, Standard Mail Flats, or 

Standard Mail Carrier Route.304 While the Postal Service implemented various operational 

initiatives intended to improve both cost and service performance, it did not leverage 

available data or develop new data sources to detail the aspects of the initiatives that are 

working. It also did not determine which aspects of the initiatives are not working as 

planned. The Postal Service could leverage available service performance information, such 

as the MHTS and IMb SPD, to determine if the changes to the operating windows for flats 

have led to increased productivity. The Postal Service could leverage available machine run 

information to determine the frequency with which multiple processing runs occur in the 

same operation in the same facility. Such information could provide insight relevant to 

improving the productivity of automation flats in a timely fashion.

The Postal Service could leverage existing data in order to gain better insight into the 

problems facing its automated flats processing from a global perspective. The Postal 

Service has evaluated specific functions of automation processing in an attempt to increase 

visibility regarding the issues. The Postal Service can utilize the results of these inquiries, 

including the results from the Bundle Breakage Lean Six Sigma project, Mail Pieces At-Risk 

report, and Electronic Mail Improvement Reporting (eMIR)305 to determine where flats are 

encountering problems at each step in the automated processing system. FY 2015 ACR at 

19-20, 24-25, and 27. The Postal Service also has the ability to leverage IMb data in order to 

identify at-risk mailings. See FY 2015 ACR at 19 (FSS Scorecard). Further, the IMb data 

could identify locations where automation runs are class specific, and therefore help

generate class-specific productivity.

3. Manual Processing

The third pinch point for flats is manual processing. Generally, automation is preferable to 

manual processing, which tends to be more costly and time consuming. Manual processing 

of flats is a pinch point because a high percentage of flats continue to be diverted to manual 

processing, resulting in higher costs and poorer service.

Manual processing of flats has a large impact on costs. In FY 2015, the Postal Service spent 

over $355 million manually processing flats.306 For example, the Postal Service reports that 

a manual incoming secondary sort costs an additional 21.899 cents per piece, over eight

times as much as the cost of 2.609 cents per piece for an automated incoming secondary 

 

304 In some instances, the Postal Service will process Periodicals and First-Class Mail Flats on specific runs, which are recorded using different 

MODS operations codes. However, there is no method for measuring the actual content of those processing runs.

305 The eMIR system “was designed to save costs by assigning Postal Service representatives to contact mailers to discuss the reported issues, 

their root causes, and corrective action the mailer will take.” See United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Audit Report –

Electronic Mail Improvement Reporting – Workshare Mail Quality, Report No. CP-AR-16-001, December 8, 2015, at 1.

306 The cost of manual processing in MODS and NDC facilities was over $139.0 million. See Library Reference USPS-FY15-26, Excel file 

“shp15prc.xls,” tab “Flats (2),” columns “M, N, O, and AY.” The cost of manual processing in non-MODS facilities was over $216.7 million. See id.

columns “BN, BO, BP.”
Docket No. ACR2015 - 172 -

sort. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 10. According to the Postal 

Service, 10 percent of flats were processed manually in FY 2015, despite the fact that 95 

percent of flats were entered at automation prices.307

In addition to costs, when flats are processed manually, service times are negatively 

impacted because manual sortation generally increases the time it takes to process the 

mail. The Postal Service uses automation systems to track service performance issues. 

Manual sortation creates transparency issues because the service performance of those 

pieces manually sorted is not measured accurately.308

Currently, MODS and eFlash data309 provide information relating to the manual processing 

of flats. However, neither MODS nor Eflash record the actual volume that is manually 

processed. Instead of measuring actual volume, the Postal Service tracks the workhours in 

manual processing operations and attributes the related costs to specific products on the 

basis of In-Office Cost System (IOCS) tallies. To estimate the volume in manual processing 

operations, the Postal Service multiplies the volume processed in automation operations by 

a factor estimated from a survey to calculate an estimate of manually processed volume.310

Similar to automation operations, the Postal Service does not track volume by class or 

product in manual operations. Because existing data systems do not record actual volumes 

by product or facility, these data systems are insufficient for the Postal Service or the 

Commission to address the significant cost and service impacts of the practice.

The current data provided by the Postal Service lacks transparency, as there is no way to 

track and report the amount of manual processing that actually occurs. The Commission 

and the Postal Service previously identified global issues with the cost and service 

performance of flats that are manually processed. See Periodicals Mail Study at 2. However, 

the Postal Service needs to identify, analyze, and explain why so many flats continue to be 

processed manually. The Postal Service does not currently identify the total volume of flats 

processed manually at a facility level. Without facility-level data, there is no way to 

measure the extent of manual processing at individual facilities or propose targeted 

solutions.

By using IMb data and the aggregation platforms developed for evaluating service 

performance, the Postal Service has the ability to identify the portion of IMb volume that is 

unable to be finalized on automation equipment. This data system can be used to 

determine where, when, and potentially why, automation compatible volumes are 

 

307 See FY 2015 ACR at 21; Library Reference USPS-FY15-4, December 29, 2015, Excel files “FY15 STD MAIL BD.xls,” “FY15 Periodicals BDs.xls,” 

and “FY15 FCM BDs.xls.”

308 In its February 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 8, the Postal Service details how the IMb SPD used to identify service issues 

requires barcode scans from automation processing.

309 See United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Audit Report – Flat-Shaped Mail Costs, Report No. MS-AR-13-003, January 4, 

2013, at 1. The eFlash system reports data from delivery, mail processing, customer service, and other functions. Such data are collected by 

individual post offices and then summarized at various organization levels.

310 United States Postal Service Handbook M-32, Management Operating Data System (MODS), March 2009, at 12. Specifically, “WebEOR 

calculates volume as a percentage of automated mail that flows to manual operations.” USPS OIG Report No. MS-AR-14-004 at 5.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 173 -

manually processed. The Postal Service could also utilize the MHTS, the SPD tool, and the 

Informed Visibility platform to identify a way to track and report the actual amount of 

manual processing that occurs. By examining all available data relating to the manual 

processing of flats as a whole, as opposed to at the class or product level, the Postal Service 

will be able to develop a plan to increase visibility and transparency regarding the causes 

for the manual processing of flats. These types of data would be necessary to illuminate the 

root causes of manual processing and provide the increased visibility necessary to create 

solutions to the cost and service impacts of this problem.

4. Allied Operations Cost and Service Issue

The fourth pinch point for flats is allied operations. Allied operations are mail processing 

activities that involve preparing the mail for pallet, bundle, or piece processing and include 

platform operations, e.g., unloading trucks and moving pallets to mail processing 

equipment. Allied operations occur throughout the mail processing and delivery work flow. 

Due to the numerous operations required to move the mail, allied operations are also the 

largest single cost center in mail processing. Periodicals Mail Study at 66-67.

The productivity of allied operations has declined and this decline has negatively impacted 

both the cost and service performance for flats. As noted by the Postal Service, the ratio of 

allied costs to productive distribution has increased for flats operations in recent years. See 

Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1. This means that the costs of preparing and moving 

the mail for processing increased faster than the cost of processing. Because allied activities 

do not involve the processing of individual mailpieces, it is impossible (with the data 

systems currently in use) to calculate pieces per hour, normally used to measure 

productivity, for these operations. See Docket No. N2012-1, Advisory Opinion at 103-104.

Until the Postal Service is able to measure volumes in allied operations, the Commission 

evaluates the percentage of time (and thus cost) devoted to allied operations as the nextbest productivity measure for allied operations. Id. Functionally, an increase in the 

percentage of allied costs means that the productivity of these operations has declined.

Service performance is negatively impacted by the decline in the productivity of allied 

operations. As allied operations are the processes used to move flats to where they need to 

be, productive allied operations are critical to the timely processing of the mail. In an ideal 

mail flow, palletized mail is unloaded from mailer trucks and moved directly to the staging 

area, where the bundles are sorted.311 Then the sorted bundles should immediately move 

to the next operation, either being sorted by piece or transported to the destination 

delivery unit (DDU). Id. Moving the mail from the trucks to the staging area and from the 

bundle sort to the next operation are allied activities. Thus, efficient and effective allied 

operations are key to meeting service performance targets.

In FY 2014, as part of its efforts to improve the productivity of its mail processing network, 

the Postal Service introduced a load leveling program meant to create loads that can be 

 

311 See February 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 12, question 1, file “ChIR.12.Q1.2010.Periodical VSM.pdf.”
Docket No. ACR2015 - 174 -

more evenly processed across the workweek. See Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 9.

The intended result of the program was to reduce the cost of allied operations by 

producing containers and trays with more volume. See generally, Docket No. N2014-1, 

Advisory Opinion.

Despite its intent to improve costs, the Postal Service did not quantify any associated cost 

savings for the load leveling operational changes.312 There is little evidence that 

implementation of service standard changes and operation schedule changes associated 

with load leveling or Network Rationalization had the desired impact of reducing costs, but 

they have impacted service.313 The load leveling program also required relaxed service 

standards for flats entered at the DSCF on Fridays and Saturdays. See Responses to CHIR 

No. 11, question 9. As discussed in Chapter 5, supra, while mail subject to the program had 

better service performance results in FY 2015, it did not meet service performance targets.

See Chapter 5, supra, at 121, Figure V-12. Service performance results demonstrate that the 

Postal Service does not meet even the post-load leveling and processing Network 

Rationalization relaxed service standards.

The Postal Service measures time between processing operations using Work In Process 

(WIP) cycles. Utilizing one machine to process both bundles and parcels appears to have 

led to longer WIP cycles for flat sorting because the bundles compete with the parcels for 

processing time. See January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 16. When mail is 

not moved in a timely fashion, service performance declines, as demonstrated in the WIP 

metric. The WIP metric has many purposes. One purpose is to measure the time between 

bundle processing and the next handling (either a piece distribution or another bundle 

distribution). See id. question 22. In FY 2015, the median time between bundle processing 

and the next handling was 29 hours. Id. This means that flats sat idle in Postal Service 

facilities for more than 1 day, on average, after bundle processing. As seen in Table VI-4, the

median number of hours it takes for flats to be processed increased in FY 2015.

 

312 See Docket No. ACR2014, January 30, 2015, Responses to CHIR No. 3, question 6.

313 See id.; see also Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Questions 1-3, 5 of Chairman’s Information Request 

No. 17, May 15, 2015, question 3, which demonstrates that workhours were not reduced as much as planned. See also Responses to CHIR No. 

11, Excel file “ChIR.11.Q9b.Attachment.xlsx,” which shows that load-leveled mail is not meeting its revised 4-to-5 day service standard.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 175 -

Table VI-4

Service Performance Diagnostics Tool

Median 5 Day Work In Process

Standard Mail Flats, FY 2012–FY 2015

Time Period from Service Performance Diagnostics Median 

Hours

FY 2012 (Week ending 3/02/12 - 9/28/12) 52.4

FY 2013 (Week ending 10/19/12 - 9/27/13) 50.5

FY 2014 (Week ending 10/01/13 - 9/30/14) 49

FY 2015 (Week ending 10/01/14 - 9/30/15) 52

Source: FY 2015 ACR at 22; Docket No. ACR2013, Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 1-11 of Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, January 23, 2014, question 1.

Currently, the Postal Service uses MODS data to determine allied handling time and cost 

information. See Library Reference USPS-FY15-7, December 29, 2015. With respect to 

allied handling time, this data system does not provide insight into the volume of mail 

being processed in allied operations, nor does it allow for insight into the time between 

handlings. The Postal Service has been using the WIP and SPD tools to diagnose processing 

issues, including allied issues, for several years.314 Although expansive, these data do not 

provide the distribution of allied costs between letters, flats, and parcels. Further, the data 

provide little visibility into WIP metrics and SPD diagnostics at a facility or product level. 

Without improving these data, it is difficult to propose or implement targeted solutions to 

the problems facing flats. The current data used by the Postal Service are insufficient to 

provide visibility and transparency for the issues facing flats cost and service performance 

with respect to allied operations.

The Postal Service could leverage newly available data in order to gain better insight into 

the problems facing its allied operations. Most recently, the Postal Service has implemented 

an Informed Visibility tool. As the Informed Visibility315 tool ramps up operational 

deployment, the Postal Service should be able to improve its ability to measure the 

percentage of flats that are not moved between operations quickly and accurately. By 

leveraging available data, the Postal Service should be able to identify and eliminate errors 

in its allied operations and improve productivity from both a cost and service perspective. 

Specifically, the Postal Service can determine the time between mail entry, bundle scans, 

and piece processing scans. Using this information the Postal Service can determine, at the 

facility level, how long flats sit idle and at what point in the process there is a breakdown.

Further, the Postal Service can identify when flat mail is in a facility but not processed with 

other flats, impacting volume density and the allied to productive ratio.316 Such information 

could provide insight relevant to improving the productivity of allied operations.

 

314 For more information on the SPD, see Chapter 5, supra.

315 For more information on the Informed Visibility tool, see Docket No. PI2015-1.

316 The allied to productive ratio is the ratio of allied costs to productive distribution.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 176 -

5. Transportation

The fifth pinch point for flats’ cost and service issues is transportation operations. After 

flats are processed, they have to be transported, either to a DDU for delivery or to another 

mail processing facility for additional sortation. The Postal Service generally transports all 

shapes of mail together. Due to the comingled nature of transportation operations, there is 

limited visibility concerning the cost and service impacts of flats transportation operations. 

Despite this transparency issue, global information regarding transportation highlight 

certain issues regarding the cost and service performance of flats.

In the past 3 years, unit costs for transportation for flats have increased by 13.7 percent, as 

detailed in Table VI-5 below.

Table VI-5

Flats Transportation Costs

FY 2013–FY 2015

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

% Change 

FY 2013 to 

FY 2015

Cost Segment 14 Flats Cost 686, 602 669,692 712,179 3.7%

Flats Volume 23,558,663 22,161,652 21,489,192 -8.8%

Flats Transportation Unit Costs $0.0291 $0.0302 $0.0331 13.7%

Source: PRC-LR-ACR2015/9.

In addition to the cost increases, issues with transportation have contributed to the decline 

in service performance. In January 19, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 2, question 19, the 

Postal Service indicates that transportation capacity constraints have decreased service 

performance results.317

The Postal Service currently uses the Transportation Cost System (TRACS) to allocate 

transportation costs. TRACS samples how products use transportation but it is not 

designed to identify specific transportation issues.318 Based on the aggregated data 

provided by TRACS and the service performance data provided in Library Reference USPSFY15-29,319 it appears that flats are being transported in ways that are both expensive and 

unreliable. However, TRACS provides limited insight and visibility as to the causes of these 

transportation cost and service issues. Specifically, TRACS does not provide data on the 

number of trips for each product that is on surface and air transportation. Further, the 

number of transportation legs and trips per facility/DDU are currently unidentified. In 

 

317 See also January 29, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 6, questions 19 and 20; Responses to CHIR No. 11, question 1.

318 See Docket No. RM2013-6, Order No. 1983, Order on Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposals One Through Five), February 

4, 2014, Proposal Two; Library Reference USPS-FY15-36, December 29, 2015, file “USPS_FY15_36_TRACS.Preface.pdf.”

319 See Library Reference USPS-FY15-29, December 29, 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 177 -

addition, there is no transparency as to the volume and cost of truck capacity used by flats 

and the service performance delay caused by missed transportation.

For service performance measurement, the Postal Service uses an adjustment factor called 

the last mile factor. The last mile factor is calculated using the “last recorded mail 

processing scan reported by the IMb system, and the actual delivery date recorded by 

external reporters with scanners capable of reading IMbs.”320 However, the difference 

between the last mail processing scan and the final delivery scan includes transportation as 

well as delivery time. Because the Postal Service does not currently have comprehensive 

insight as to the frequency that flats miss their transportation window, the cause of delayed 

service cannot be pinpointed. For flats that miss their transportation windows, additional 

later trips may be necessary in order to attempt to meet service standards, and these 

additional trips require additional cost.

The Postal Service could leverage existing data in order to gain better insight into the 

problems facing its transportation of flats. The Postal Service continues to implement the 

Surface Visibility technological platform to develop insights and operational understanding 

for transportation cost and service issues.

321 The Postal Service has also developed a 

program called “Informed Visibility,” which is the next generation platform for visibility of 

transportation, mail processing, and delivery. The purpose of these programs is to provide 

the Postal Service with an understanding of what mail is going on to surface and air 

transportation, when it is both leaving and arriving at facilities, and how much volume of 

each class is moving between facilities.

The current evolution of transportation visibility from the Surface Visibility technological 

platform to the Informed Visibility platform should improve the Postal Service’s ability to 

develop an understanding of flats transportation, track both service and cost, and report on 

said service and cost.

6. Last Mile/Delivery

The sixth pinch point for flats’ cost and service issues is delivery, which encompasses last 

mile operations. There are two components of city carrier delivery operations,322 in-office 

and street time.323 In-office cost largely reflects the amount of cost incurred by carriers 

while casing. Street time reflects the amount of time, and thus cost, city carriers spend 

delivering the mail. Id. As described above in the transportation section, the Postal Service’s 

 

320 Docket No. PI2008-1, Order No. 140, Order Concerning Proposals for Internal Service Standards Measurement Systems, November 25, 2008, 

at 9.

321 See United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Audit Report – Evaluation of Major Transportation Technology Initiatives, 

Report No. NL-AR-11-008, September 27, 2011; United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Audit Report – Surface Visibility –

Transportation Operations – Suncoast District, Report No. NO-AR-14-004, May 5, 2014; Steve Dearing, Internal Measurement through Informed 

Visibility, March 18, 2015, http://www.prc.gov/sites/default/files/uspsreports/USPS_Presentation.pdf.

322 City carriers deliver 71 percent of all flats and account for 77 percent of delivery costs. Flats are also delivered by rural carriers and delivered 

to PO Boxes. Rural and PO Box delivery account for 23 percent of all flats costs. See PRC-LR-ACR2015/9.

323 See Docket No. RM2015-7, Order No. 2792, Order Approving Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal Thirteen), October 29, 

2015, at 6 n.9.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 178 -

service performance system uses a last mile delivery factor to determine how much 

delivery impacts the on-time performance of flats. As discussed in Chapter 5, Table VI-6 

below contains the last mile factor for Standard Mail Carrier Route Destination-Entry from 

FY 2012 to FY 2015.

Table VI-6

Standard Mail Carrier Route

Destination-Entry Last Mile Factors, FY 2012–FY 2015

 

Source: See Chapter 5, supra, at 113, Table V-9.

As shown in the table, and further discussed in Chapter 5, delivery operations were the 

primary pinch point for on-time service for Standard Mail Carrier Route in FY 2015.

The unit costs for city carrier in-office processing (casing) were higher in FY 2015 than FY 

2008 for the five different flats products as detailed in Table VI-7 below and as reported in 

cost segment 6. In addition to increased costs related to casing, this increased casing 

workload can cause delays in service. One of the intended benefits of FSS is that it 

decreases casing costs in FSS zones. February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 7. 

Despite deployment of FSS, as discussed in “Manual Processing,” supra, and increases in 

worksharing, the average unit casing cost increased by 18 percent from FY 2008 to FY 

2015, as detailed in Table VI-7.

Table VI-7

Cost Segment 6: City Delivery Carriers – Office Activity 

Unit Costs FY 2008–FY 2015

Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

CS 6 Flat Costs ($ in millions) 1,549 1,519 1,513 1,442 1,274 1,196 1,139 1,143

Flats Volumes (millions) 34,356 28,773 26,524 25,719 24,081 23,559 22,162 21,489

Unit Costs (cents) 4.51 5.28 5.71 5.61 5.29 5.08 5.14 5.32

Source: PRC-LR-ACR2015/9.

The Postal Service spent a total of $1.1 billion in city carrier in-office costs, which include 

casing costs for flats in FY 2015. See Table VI-7. When the additional mail processing costs 

associated with the FSS are added to the city carrier in-office costs,324 the Postal Service 

 

324 As detailed in Table VI-7, the segment 6 in-office cost for flats was $1.143 billion. As detailed in Library Reference USPS-FY15-26, Excel file 

“shp15.prc.xls,” tab “Flats(2),” columns “F” and “AX,” the mail processing cost for the FSS was $202 million.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 179 -

spent over $1.3 billion processing flats to DPS in FY 2015. 325 This is nearly the amount 

spent casing flats in FY 2008, when volume was 60 percent higher than FY 2015.326 In FY 

2008, the Postal Service had to manually case all flats because there were no FSS machines. 

Despite the addition of 100 FSS machines and lower volume, the Postal Service spent 

nearly the same total amount in processing flats in FY 2015. The increasing cost of DPS for 

flats is not the only issue with the current mail processing environment as the DPS process 

for flats is an important function of meeting service performance targets. Specifically, the 

Postal Service did not clearly identify if it routinely tracks and quantifies service 

performance for FSS zones compared to non-FSS zones.327

The current data utilized by the Postal Service are reflected by MODS data for cost segment 

3, IOCS/Time and Attendance Collection System data for cost segment 6, and the FSS 

scorecard for DPS data. In-office cost is measured by the IOCS and reported in cost segment 

6 and street time is measured using a special study.

328 The current data systems do not 

provide visibility into the amount of FSS compatible volume by product that is unable to be 

finalized on the FSS at a facility level, nor does it quantify the cost increases resulting from 

mail not finalized on the FSS. These data systems are also unable to identify service 

performance data in FSS zones compared to non-FSS zones at a product level. Further, in 

FSS zones, the Postal Service did not provide visibility into the service performance results 

for mail that is finalized on the FSS and mail not finalized on the FSS. Without transparency 

and insight into issues relating to the cost and service performance of flats, the Postal 

Service will be unable to implement targeted and effective solutions to these problems.

For a comprehensive view of the FSS issues that are negatively affecting cost and service 

performance, the Postal Service should utilize all available data in order to identify 

strategic opportunities to improve the processing of flats. In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal 

Service briefly discusses the following operational initiatives, which appear to be targeted 

 

325 The cost of FSS processing in MODS and NDC facilities was over $202 million. See Library Reference USPS-FY15-26. In addition to mail 

processing operations, the FSS machines have a cost impact on delivery operations. When flats that destinate in FSS zones are not finalized via 

automation, they create additional work both in the mail processing facilities and in the delivery units. This additional work is often performed 

manually, reducing visibility for service performance measurement while increasing costs.

326 As detailed in Table VI-7, the cost segment 6 in-office cost for flats in FY 2008 was $1.549 billion, $131 million more than the combined FSS 

mail processing and in-office cost of $1.418 billion in FY 2015. As further detailed in Table VI-7, flat volume was 34.35 billion pieces in FY 2008 

and declined by 12.87 billion pieces to a volume of 21.48 billion pieces in FY 2015. The decline of 12.87 billion pieces represents a 37.5-percent 

decline.

327 See February 8, 2016, Responses to CHIR No. 7, question 9 (“Service data is not available below the 3-digit level and, therefore, service 

comparison between FSS and non-FSS is not possible.”).

328 In-Office Activity costs are reported in cost segment 6 and Street Activity costs are reported in cost segment 7. See Library Reference USPSFY15-2, December 29, 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 180 -

at improving the productivity of the FSS: (1) FSS Scorecard329; (2) High Speed Flats Feeder 

(HSFF)330; and (3) FSS Mail Preparation.

331 FY 2015 ACR at 19-27. However, the Postal 

Service has not quantified savings related to these initiatives. The Postal Service has the 

ability to leverage IMb data by facility in order to determine opportunities to increase 

productivity. By optimizing its data and evaluating the FSS as a whole, the Postal Service 

can gain better visibility into cost and service issues. Increased visibility into these issues 

relating to FSS may allow the Postal Service to develop and implement solutions designed 

to resolve those cost and service issues that are problematic for the processing of flats.

C. Commission Directive

1. Introduction

As detailed in this chapter, as well as supra in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5, the Postal Service has 

long term difficulties processing and delivering flats in a timely and cost effective manner. The 

Postal Service developed and implemented a series of operational initiatives designed to 

improve these issues but, to date, has not measured the impact. As described above, the 

Commission identified components of the flats mail flow that appear to represent pinch points 

that significantly impact flats’ costs and service. While the current data provided by the Postal 

Service are sufficient to identify the global issues related to flats, they are insufficient to 

identify the root causes of the problems. Moreover, the Postal Service did not demonstrate it is 

using its data systems to identify solutions or measure whether its operational initiatives are 

effective. The Postal Service needs to utilize systems to analyze granular data from its various 

tracking platforms. Without the ability to measure or identify the root causes of the problems 

effecting flats cost and service performance issues, there can be little hope for identifying 

solutions to these issues.

At this juncture, due to the lack of comprehensive data, the Postal Service cannot measure the 

impact or success of its initiatives designed to improve cost and service issues for flats. The 

Commission finds that the Postal Service’s ability to assess both whether it has identified the 

root causes of the issues facing flats and whether its efforts to address those issues are 

successful depends on the development of appropriate metrics.

 

329 The FSS Scorecard tracks throughput per hour (pph), the percentage of mail that is in DPS, and Mail Pieces At-Risk. FY 2015 ACR at 19. The 

Postal Service uses these metrics “to develop a list of specific sites with the greatest opportunity of improvement.” Id.

330 The Postal Service asserts that the HSFF improves processing efficiencies by optimizing bin capacities and consolidating sort programs. Id. at 

23. In addition, the Postal Service represents that the HSFF allows mailers to produce higher density pallets and reduce mixed pallets, which 

reduces bundles processing, bundle breakage, and manual handling. Id.

331 In January 2014, the Postal Service began requiring Standard Mail Flats and Periodicals destined for FSS ZIP Codes to be prepared as FSS 

Scheme bundles. Id. at 25. The Postal Service asserts that FSS Scheme Bundles reduce attributable mail processing costs. Id. In addition, the 

Postal Service instituted a 250-pound minimum for FSS Scheme pallets. Id. The Postal Service explains that these pallets bypass bundle 

distribution, which leads to less handling and bundle breakage. Id. at 26. The Postal Service asserts that these pallets are entered at FSS sites, 

which reduce Postal Service transportation expenses and improve service. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 181 -

2. Postal Service Report

In order to understand what can be done to improve cost and service efficiency for flats, the 

Commission directs the Postal Service to provide a report on flats issues within 120 days of 

issuance of this ACD. This report shall address, at a minimum, each of the pinch points 

described above. If the Postal Service identifies additional operational areas where it has 

developed, or intends to develop, measurement systems to comprehensively identify and 

resolve cost and service efficiency issues for flats, it shall provide such additional details. The 

Commission recognizes the importance of striking a balance between the value of utilizing 

systems to analyze granular data and the cost of using or developing systems to analyze said 

data. Where the Postal Service cannot leverage its current data systems to generate and 

analyze granular data, it should explain the process and expense involved to acquire and 

analyze such data.

For each pinch point, the report shall identify a method to measure, track, and report the cost 

and service performance issues relating to the individual pinch point at the most granular 

level practicable. As part of this method, the Postal Service shall identify the service 

performance impact of the individual pinch point at the most granular level practicable. In 

order to increase transparency, the report shall contain the following information regarding 

the Postal Service’s data systems for each pinch point:

 Identify all information related to each pinch point operation that is generated by 

current data systems. Include all relevant existing data systems, such as IMb Service 

Performance Diagnostics System (SPD), Seamless Acceptance and Service Performance 

(SASP), Informed Visibility (IV), the Intelligent Mail Accuracy and Performance System 

(IMAPS), and any other systems not identified herein.

 Provide a detailed analysis of the cost to produce and aggregate such data in a way 

capable of quantifying the cost and service impacts of each pinch point at the most 

granular level practicable. The cost analysis should include all development costs, as 

well as ongoing data maintenance and analysis costs, and include specific estimates of 

workhours required and the cost of those workhours.

 Identify relevant information, in addition to current data, that could be developed by 

adjusting or expanding existing data systems and provide a detailed analysis of the 

cost involved for any adjustments or expansions needed to generate the information.

 Identify all information that would be necessary to develop, implement, monitor, and 

quantify results for a comprehensive plan to improve flats service performance and 

cost coverage if an ideal data system were available.

If, as a result of the Postal Service’s analysis, it finds the type of information requested cannot 

be developed using existing data systems, the Postal Service shall provide a detailed 

explanation why, supported by examples, for each pinch point the Postal Service contends is 

not measurable using existing data systems. The Postal Service shall also provide a detailed 

description of the type of data collection/modifications to existing systems that would be 

required and associated costs.
Docket No. ACR2015 - 182 -

3. Conclusion

The Commission will evaluate the Postal Service report and may use the information 

provided to form the basis of a new proceeding or other appropriate action.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 1 of 18

Appendix A: Special Study of Delivery 

Performance in Remote Locations

Every 2 years, the Commission evaluates a special study conducted by a third party 

contractor on behalf of the Postal Service concerning final delivery service performance to 

the remote locations of the Alaska, Honolulu, and Caribbean Districts.332 These districts 

serve remote locations less populated than the average continental district, and large 

portions of these districts are located far from mail processing facilities.333 Each of these 

districts also serves more populated areas, called Gateway cities. The Gateway city for the 

Alaska District is Anchorage; the Gateway city for the Honolulu District is Honolulu; and the 

Gateway city for the Caribbean District is San Juan.

The purpose of the Offshore Special Study FY 2015 Report (2015 Study) is to evaluate 

service performance results for remote locations compared to the area’s Gateway city.

334

The 2015 Study compares the performance results between the Gateway and remote areas 

to determine statistically significant differences between service performance results. Id. at 

5-6.

The Postal Service measures performance for 119 remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes and mail class 

groupings. Id. at 23. Of these 119 groups, the Gateway had better service performance 

results than the remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes 58 percent of the time. Id. at 23. There were 19 

instances where the remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes had better service performance results than 

the Gateway, and 31 instances where there was no statistically significant difference 

between the Gateway and the remote 3-Digit ZIP Code. Id. The 2015 Study uses samplingrelated margins of error to determine if score differences were statistically significant at a 

95-percent confidence level. Due to sample size differences for each measured region, the 

margins of error will differ for each comparison.

335

 

332 Library Reference USPS-FY15-29, December 29, 2015, “Special Study of Off-Shore Service Performance FY15.pdf,” at 1 (2015 Study). 

See also, e.g., Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS-FY13-29, December 27, 2013, “Special Study of Off-Shore Service 

Performance FY13.pdf” (2013 Study); Docket No. ACR2014, Library Reference USPS-FY11-29, December 29, 2011, “Special Study of OffShore Service Performance FY11.pdf” (2011 Study).

333 2015 Study at 1. When referring to non-Gateway ZIP Codes, the 2015 Study uses the terms “remote” and “rural” interchangeably. This 

Appendix uses the term “remote” to refer to non-Gateway ZIP Codes.

334 Id. Each offshore district has several processing facilities that serve the more remote areas. Alaska has six different primary postal 

facilities. Caribbean has two postal facilities for all postal processing. Honolulu has three primary postal facilities to process their 

destinating mail. Id. at 3.

335 The 2015 Study notes that it used “sampling related margins of error to determine if score differences were statistically significant.” 

Id. at 6, 22. Sample size and margin of error are inversely related, such that as sample sizes increase, margins of error decrease. The 2015 

Study states that “the goal was to have a minimum of approximately 400 pieces for the fiscal year.” Id. at 5. This volume would achieve a 

95-percent confidence interval and margin of error of +/- 4.0. Id. However, margins of error were adjusted across regions, products, and 

service standards because sample sizes deviated from the 400-piece target. In these cases, statistical significance was determined by the 

newly adjusted margin of error. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 2 of 18

The results of the 2015 Study highlight the difficulties the Postal Service has in achieving 

similar service performance in remote locations as in the Gateway. The Postal Service notes 

“most of the largest score differences were with ZIP Codes Areas that were both extremely 

isolated and have low mail volumes....” Id. at 23.

The 2015 Study also compares the FY 2015 results for each 3-Digit ZIP Code to the FY 2013 

results.336 Service performance results for First-Class Mail and Periodicals generally 

declined from FY 2013 to FY 2015, whereas service performance for Standard Mail and 

Package Services improved during the same period.337

The following sections discuss service performance comparisons between the Gateway 

cities and remote areas and between FY 2013 and FY 2015 by class and product.

A. First-Class Mail

In FY 2015, service performance results for both Single-Piece and Presorted First-Class 

Mail for Gateway cities and most remote areas decreased compared to FY 2013. In 

particular, service performance for mail with a 3-5-Day service standard declined 

considerably in the Caribbean and Honolulu Districts. Id. at 17-18.

1. Single-Piece Letters/Postcards/Flats

Table A-1 shows service performance results for Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

Letters/Postcards and Flats by service standard, Gateway, and remote regions.

 

336 There are 151 comparisons for all 3-Digit ZIP Codes by mail class. Id. at 24. Of the 151 comparisons, the Postal Service states that the 

FY 2015 results improved over the FY 2013 result 68 times, or 45 percent. Id. There were 64 instances (42 percent) where the FY 2015 

results declined from the FY 2013 results. Id. There was no statistically significant difference for the remaining 19 instances (13 percent).

Id.

337 The Postal Service improved its Standard Mail service performance in slightly more than 50 percent of the 3-Digit ZIP Codes 

compared to FY 2013. Id. Similarly, the Postal Service improved its Package Services service performance in 11 of the 12 measured 

instances. Id. Conversely, the Postal Service’s service performance with respect to First-Class Mail declined in slightly less than 50 

percent of the 3-Digit ZIP Codes. Id. The Postal Service also reported declines in Periodicals in 15 of the 28 instances (53 percent). Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 3 of 18

Table A-1

Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards/Flats

Service Performance Results, FY 2011, FY 2013, and FY 2015

Overnight338 2-Day 3-5-Day

FY 

2011

FY 

2013

FY 

2015

FY 

2011

FY 

2013

FY 

2015

FY 

2011

FY 

2013

FY 

2015

Alaska

995 Gateway 96.3 97.4 96.6 99.3 99.4 99.6 90.5 87.6 82.8

995 Remote NSS NSS NSS 97.9 97.8 97.5 93.7 95.0 91.8

996 NSS NSS NSS 98.1 98.0 96.6 95.3 94.5 90.4

997 NSS NSS NSS 92.9 93.4 88.0 92.9 93.4 92.2

998 NSS NSS NSS 96.5 90.3 94.5 87.6 82.8 84.3

999 NSS NSS NSS 98.5 95.4 93.7 89.1 85.0 84.8

Caribbean

009 Gateway 94.4 95.1 95.0 97.2 98.6 96.3 85.6 82.6 65.4

006 93.7 93.7 95.4 96.4 98.2 93.7 84.5 83.1 65.1

007 93.6 94.3 93.8 94.7 98.5 95.0 85.7 82.6 65.9

008 87.7 92.4 89.4 96 98.8 96.9 91.8 94.3 88.0

Honolulu

968 Gateway 97.7 97.2 97.3 NSS 12.4 97.4 86.3 86.5 70.5

96700-96798 

Hawaiian Islands 97.5 97.4 96.9 NSS NSS 97.5 96 95.6 88.3

96799 American 

Samoa - NSS NSS - 12.4 7.8 - 18.7 8.0

969 Guam 91.5 95.5 93.4 NSS NSS 97.8 82.8 56.4 21.1

NSS = No Service Standard

Source: 2015 Study at 6; 2013 Study at 8; 2011 Study at 7.

a. FY 2015 Results: Gateway versus Remote

The 2015 Study summarizes the statistical differences in service performance results 

among the Gateway and remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes. 2015 Study at 22. Table A-2 shows how 

many statistically significant differences there were between the remote regions and the 

corresponding Gateway for Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats.

 

338 In FY 2015, the Postal Service eliminated the Overnight service standard for all classes; therefore, the analysis of Overnight results is 

based on mail received between October 1, 2014, and January 4, 2015. Id. In addition, the service standard for local mail (i.e., mail that is 

entered and delivered within the same 3-Digit ZIP Code) changed on January 5, 2015, from Overnight to 2-Day.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 4 of 18

Table A-2

Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards/Flats

Statistically Significant Differences Between Gateway and Remote Performance in FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 10 9 8 27

Number Significantly Higher 3 1 1 5

Number Significantly Lower 3 1 3 7

Number Not Significantly Different 4 7 4 15

Source: 2015 Study at 22.

In the discussion that follows, the Commission highlights service performance results 

between the Gateway and remote locations.

(1) Alaska

Overnight. There were no service standards for remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes in Alaska. See

supra, Table A-1.

2-Day. For Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats with a 2-Day service

standard, the service performance result for the Gateway portion of 3-Digit ZIP Code 995 

were higher than all of the remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes. The 2015 Study attributes the 

statistically significant lower service performance results to the size of the ZIP Code, noting 

that it is the largest 3-Digit ZIP Code in the United States in terms of square mileage. Id. In 

addition, the nearest Automated Area Distribution Center (AADC) is in Anchorage, which 

the 2015 Study notes is 360 miles from Fairbanks and significantly further from other 

towns falling within 3-Digit ZIP Code 997. Id.

3-5-Day. For Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats with a 3-5-Day 

service standard, the service performance result for the Gateway were lower than the 

service performance results of 3 of the remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes (995, 996, and 997) and 

not statistically different for 2 of the remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes (998 and 999).

(2) Caribbean

Overnight. The service performance results for overnight mail in the Caribbean District 

were not statistically different between the Gateway and the remote regions.

2-Day. For Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats with a 2-Day service 

standard, the service performance result for the Gateway portion of 3-Digit ZIP Code 009

was higher than 3-Digit ZIP Code 006 but not statistically different than 3-Digit ZIP Codes 

007 and 008.

3-5-Day. For Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats with a 3-5-Day 

service standard, service performance results for the Gateway portion of 3-Digit ZIP Code 

009 was lower than 3-Digit ZIP Code 008, but not statistically different than 3-Digit ZIP 

Codes 006 and 007. The 2015 Study notes that “for 3-5-Day Mail, the three ZIP Codes Areas 
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 5 of 18

in Puerto Rico (006, 007, and 009) performed similarly with scores between 65.1-65.9 

percent on time. 3-Digit ZIP Code 008 performed significantly better than the Gateway,

likely benefitting from the additional day for processing.” Id.

(3) Honolulu

Overnight. The service performance results for overnight mail in the Honolulu District were 

not statistically different between the Gateway and the remote regions.

2-Day. For Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats with a 2-Day service 

standard, the service performance result for the Gateway portion of 3-Digit ZIP Code 968 

was not statistically different than the Hawaiian Islands or 3-Digit ZIP Code 969. However, 

service performance results for American Samoa were much lower than both the Gateway 

and the other remote ZIP Codes. The 2015 Study attributes the very low service 

performance result for American Samoa to its extreme isolation and very low mail volume. 

Id. at 23.

3-5-Day. For Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats with a 3-5-Day 

service standard, the service performance result for the Gateway was higher than for 

American Samoa and 3-Digit ZIP Code 969 but lower than the service performance results 

for the Hawaiian Islands.

b. Comparing FY 2015 Performance Results to FY 2013

Table A-3 summarizes the number of statistically significant observations for each region 

when comparing FY 2015 to FY 2013 results.

Table A-3

Single-Piece First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards/Flats

Statistically Significant Differences Between FY 2013 and FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 13 12 8 33

Number Significantly Higher 2 1 0 3

Number Significantly Lower 5 7 4 16

Number Not Significantly Different 6 4 4 14

Source: 2015 Study at 24.

The 2015 Study notes that most service performance results in Alaska declined, compared 

to FY 2013. Id. at 17. Specifically, “three ZIP Code Areas had statistically significant declines 

compared to [FY 2013] including [the Gateway, 995, and 997].” Id. For the Caribbean and 

Honolulu Districts, results for First-Class Single-Piece Mail Letters/Postcards and Flats 

with a 3-5-Day service standard declined significantly for all ZIP Codes. This decline in 

service performance results corresponds with the decline in service performance 

throughout the contiguous United States. See supra Chapter 5.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 6 of 18

2. Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards

Measurement for Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards used documented arrival 

times to start-the-clock and an IMb scan by external reporters to stop-the-clock. The 2015 

Study states that “[m]ail piece tracking from IMb in-process scans was used in conjunction 

with the external data to estimate results for the entire volume of mail measured.” Id. at 8. 

The Postal Service calculates results for commercial mail using two separate legs: start-theclock to the final processing scan and last mile. Id. at 8. Table A-4 shows the service 

performance results for Presorted First-Class Mail destinating to the 3-Digit ZIP Codes of 

the offshore districts for FY 2011, FY 2013, and FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 7 of 18

Table A-4

Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards

Service Performance Results, FY 2011, FY 2013, and FY 2015

Overnight 2-Day 3-5-Day

FY 

2011

FY 

2013

FY 

2015

FY 

2011

FY 

2013

FY 

2015

FY 

2011

FY 

2013

FY 

2015

Alaska 

995 Gateway 96.6 97.9 98.7 98 97.7 No 

Data 93.5 93 88.6

995 Remote 96.6 97.9 NSS No 

Data

No 

Data 98.2 92.9 92.4 94.2

996 NSS NSS NSS 98 97.9 98.3 96 96.7 94.4

997 NSS NSS NSS 98 97.7 97.5 95.9 96.5 93.5

998 NSS NSS NSS No 

Data 95.2 98.9 94.4 95.2 83.6

999 NSS NSS NSS No 

Data

No 

Data

No 

Data 89.5 82.1 78.3

Caribbean

009 Gateway No 

Data

No 

Data 95.0 No Data

No 

Data

No 

Data 85.3 90.2 80.5

006 No 

Data

No 

Data 92.1 No Data

No 

Data

No 

Data 85.7 90.2 79.3

007 No 

Data

No 

Data 92.6 No Data

No 

Data

No 

Data 83.7 89.4 79.9

008 No 

Data

No 

Data

No 

Data

No 

Data

No 

Data 97.9 84.2 89.7 91.8

Honolulu

968 Gateway 96.3 99.3 93.6 NSS No 

Data

No

Data 93.9 94.4 83.5

96700-96798 Hawaiian Islands 97 99.2 95.8 NSS NSS NSS 90.5 93.5 94.2

96799 American Samoa 95.9 99.3 NSS NSS NSS No 

Data 95.9 97.9 12.4

969 Guam - NSS 93.3 -

No 

Data NSS - 45.8 53.8

NSS = No Service Standard

Source: 2015 Study at 8; 2013 Study at 11-12; 2011 Study at 10-11.

a. FY 2015 Results: Gateway versus Remote

Table A-5 shows how many statistically significant differences there were between the 

remote regions and the corresponding Gateway for Presorted First-Class Mail 

Letters/Postcards.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 8 of 18

Table A-5

Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards

Statistically Significant Differences Between Gateway and Remote Performance in FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 5 5 5 15

Number Significantly Higher 3 1 2 6

Number Significantly Lower 2 1 2 5

Number Not Significantly Different 0 3 1 4

Source: 2015 Study at 22.

In the discussion that follows, the Commission highlights statistically significant service 

performance results between the Gateway and remote locations.

(1) Alaska

Overnight and 2-Day. Due to missing data, meaningful comparisons between the Gateway 

and remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes for Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards with an 

Overnight service standard or a 2-Day service standard cannot be made. See id. at 9.

3-5-Day. For 3-5-Day Presorted First-Class Mail Letters, the Gateway ZIP Code had a service 

performance result of 88.6 percent. Id. 3-Digit ZIP Codes 998 and 999 had lower service 

performance results than the Gateway. Id. The 3-Digit ZIP Codes 995, 996, and 997 had 

higher service performance results than the Gateway. Id.

(2) Caribbean

Overnight. For Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards with an Overnight service 

standard, service performance results for the Gateway were higher than the results for 3-

Digit ZIP Code 006 and not statistically different than 3-Digit ZIP Code 007. Id. No data 

were available for 3-Digit ZIP Code 008. Id.

2-Day. Meaningful comparisons for Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards with a 2-

Day service standard were not made due to missing data. Id.

3-5-Day. Service performance results for Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards with 

a 3-5-Day service standard in 3-Digit ZIP Code 008 were significantly higher than the 

Gateway. Id. Service performance results for the other 3-Digit ZIP Codes were not 

significantly different from the Gateway. Id.

(3) Honolulu

Overnight. For Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards with an Overnight service 

standard, the service performance result for the Gateway was lower than the Hawaiian 

Islands and not statistically different than the results for 3-Digit ZIP Code 969. Id. There 

were no service standards for American Samoa. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 9 of 18

2-Day. The Postal Service was unable to generate service performance results for the 

Gateway ZIP Code 968. Id.

3-5-Day. Both 3-Digit ZIP Code 969 and American Samoa performed significantly worse 

than the Gateway, while the Hawaiian Islands scored better. Id.

b. Comparing FY 2015 Performance Results to FY 2013

Table A-6 shows that 75 percent of the total FY 2015 remote observations were 

significantly worse than FY 2013 Presorted First-Class Mail results.

Table A-6

Presorted First-Class Mail Letters/Postcards

Statistically Significant Differences Between FY 2013 and FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 10 4 6 20

Number Significantly Higher 5 0 0 5

Number Significantly Lower 5 4 6 15

Number Not Significantly Different 0 0 0 0

Source: 2015 Study at 24.

The Postal Service was unable to generate estimates of service performance results for

Presorted First-Class Mail with a 2-Day service standard; therefore, the number of 

comparisons with FY 2013 performance was limited.

B. Standard Mail

In FY 2014, the Postal Service implemented the load leveling initiative, which changed

service standards for Standard Mail entered at a destination sectional center facility 

(DSCF). The revisions added a day to the service standard for Standard Mail entered at a 

DSCF on Fridays or Saturdays. Id. at 4.

For Destination Entry Mail, each of the Alaska ZIP Codes had a 3- or 4-Day service standard 

from the DSCF (depending on entry day for load leveling) to and from itself and a 3-5-Day 

service standard from other ZIP Codes in Alaska. Id. at 11. There was a 14-Day service 

standard from the destination network distribution center (DNDC) in Seattle, Washington 

to all Alaska ZIP Codes. Id.

Destination Entry Mail in Caribbean 3-Digit ZIP Codes 006, 007 and 009 had a 3- or 4-Day 

service standard (depending on entry day for load leveling) from the DSCF and a 4- or 5-

Day service standard to the 3-Digit ZIP Code 008. Id. There was a 12-Day service standard 

from the DNDC in Jacksonville, Florida to all Caribbean ZIP Codes. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 10 of 18

For Destination Entry Mail, all of the Honolulu ZIP Codes had a 3- or 4-Day service standard 

(depending on entry day for load leveling) from the DSCF, excluding American Samoa, 

which had an additional day. Id. at 12. In addition, all Honolulu ZIP Codes had a 3- or 4-Day 

service standard (depending on entry day for load leveling) from the DNDC, excluding 

American Samoa, which had an additional day. Id. There was a 13-Day service standard 

from the DNDC in San Francisco, California with the exception of American Samoa, where it 

was 14 days. Id.

Table A-7 shows service performance results for Destination Entry and End-to-End 

Standard Mail Letters and Flats.

Table A-7

Standard Mail Letters and Flats

Service Performance Results, FY 2011–FY 2015

Letters Flats

Destination Entry End-to-End Destination Entry End-to-End

FY

2011

FY

2013

FY 

2015

FY

2011

FY

2013

FY

2015

FY 

2011

FY

2013

FY

2015

FY

2011

FY

2013

FY

2015

Alaska

995 Gateway 80.3 97.8 98.1 31.5 84.7 86.1 46.1 92.8 96.4 27.8 76.3 80.7

995 Remote 75.3 97.7 97.8 31.6 86.5 86.3 36.8 92.9 92.1 18 77 75.3

996 66.8 96.9 97.3 28.1 84.2 84.6 41.4 92.1 91.7 14 77.1 75.6

997 65 96.8 97.5 36.4 87 87.2 32.6 93.1 93.5 21.9 79.9 79.1

998 42.4 80.5 90.1 22.1 71.3 80.1 N/A 96.3 83.4 N/A 79.7 62.4

999 54.3 76.1 89.3 31.7 62.2 76.7 N/A 94.7 73.8 N/A 75 44.2

Caribbean

009 Gateway 59.9 89.1 89.6 34.1 71.6 72.8 54.9 80.8 87.3 32.4 59.7 61.7

006 78.4 91.5 92.1 31.7 72.9 74.6 57.2 81.4 87.4 24.5 66.2 67.1

007 70.3 88.6 91.1 34.7 71.2 74.8 57.9 84.6 84.9 30 67.1 63.9

008 57.9 87.5 87.3 42.7 69.6 56.9 59.4 76 81.5 29 54.0 51.8

Honolulu

968 Gateway 14.2 67.4 95.9 7.4 33.1 69.1 7.1 56.6 91.6 2.6 39.0 61.9

96700-96798 Hawaiian Islands 15.1 67.5 96.5 5.7 35.3 69.2 2.7 44.4 80.3 1 31.6 53.3

96799 American Samoa - 25.1 13.0 - 14 11.0 - 11.7 10.0 - 8.5 6.2

969 0.3 24.9 27.3 4.8 21.9 27.6 1.2 18.3 19.9 1.2 24.1 16.1

Source: 2015 Study at 19; 2013 Study at 13; 2011 Study at 12.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 11 of 18

1. FY 2015 Results: Gateway versus Remote

Table A-8 shows that service performance in most remote areas was significantly lower 

than the Gateway cities.

Table A-8

Standard Mail Letters and Flats

Statistically Significant Differences Between Gateway and Remote Performance in FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 20 12 12 44

Number Significantly Higher 1 5 1 7

Number Significantly Lower 12 5 10 27

Number Not Significantly Different 7 2 1 10

Source: 2015 Study at 22.

In the discussion that follows, the Commission highlights statistically significant service 

performance results between the Gateway and remote locations. Instances where the 

differences between the Gateway and the remote 3-Digit ZIP Codes are not statistically 

significant are not discussed.

a. Alaska

For Destination Entry Letter Mail, service performance results for all but one remote ZIP

Codes were worse than the results for the Gateway. End-to-End Letters in 3-Digit ZIP Code 

997 had an on-time result of 87.2 percent, which was higher than the 86.1 on-time 

percentage for the Gateway. Id. at 11.

b. Caribbean

Both Destination Entry and End-to-End Letters service performance results in 3-Digit ZIP

Codes 006 and 007were better than the Gateway. Id. at 11-12. For Destination Entry Flats, 

service performance results from remote areas 007 and 008 were lower than the Gateway. 

Id. For all Standard Mail Letters and Flats, service performance results for 3-Digit ZIP Code 

008 were lower than the Gateway. Id.

c. Honolulu

The service performance results for the Honolulu Gateway were higher than the results for

all but one of the remote ZIP Codes for all Standard Mail. Id. at 12. Service performance for 

Destination Entry Standard Letters in the remote ZIP Codes of 96700-96798 were better 

than the results for the Gateway. Id. at 12.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 12 of 18

2. Comparing FY 2015 Performance Results to 

FY 2013

The 2015 Study shows that the Postal Service has improved its on-time performance for 

Standard Mail. Table A-9 shows that over 65 percent of all comparisons were higher than 

FY 2013 results.

Table A-9

Standard Mail Letters and Flats

Statistically Significant Differences Between FY 2013 and FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 24 16 16 56

Number Significantly Higher 14 12 11 37

Number Significantly Lower 8 4 5 17

Number Not Significantly Different 2 0 0 2

Source: 2015 Study at 24.

With few exceptions, service performance improved for both Destination Entry and End-toEnd Standard Mail Letters. Performance also improved for Destination Entry Standard Mail 

Flats. Of the 17 instances where FY 2015 results were statistically significantly lower than 

FY 2013 results, 9 (a majority) were for End-to-End Standard Mail Flats.

C. Periodicals

During the 2015 Study, there was a 10-Day service standard for Destination Entry 

Periodicals to Alaska 3-Digit ZIP Codes 995, 996, and 997 and an 11-Day service standard 

to 3-Digit ZIP Codes 998 and 999. Id. at 13. The End-to-End service standards varied 

significantly depending on the origin of the mail. Id.

For Destination Entry Mail in the Caribbean, San Juan served as the DSCF and DADC.339 In 

the Honolulu District, there was an Overnight service standard from the DSCF to 967 and 

968 with the exception of American Samoa; 2-Day service standard to 969; and 10-Day 

service standard from the DNDC in San Francisco to 967, 968, and 969 (except for 

American Samoa, which had an additional day). Id.

In FY 2013, service performance results showed significant improvements from FY 2011 

after the Postal Service implemented service standard changes. See 2013 Study at 24-25.

 

339 Id. at 14. For DSCF entered mail, there was an Overnight service standard to 006, 007, and 009 and a 3-Day service standard to 3-Digit 

ZIP Code 008. Id. For DADC entered mail, the only change from the DSCF mail was that 008 had a 4-Day service standard. Id. Likewise, it 

was an 8-Day service standard from the DNDC in Jacksonville to 3-Digit ZIP Codes 006, 007, and 009 and a 10-Day service standard to 3-

Digit ZIP Code 008. Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 13 of 18

In contrast, Table A-10 shows that service performance results reported this year have 

significantly declined as compared to FY 2013.

Table A-10

Periodicals

Service Performance Results, FY 2011, FY 2013, and FY 2015

FY 2011340

Destination Entry End-to-End

FY 2013 FY 2015 FY 2013 FY 2015

Alaska

995 Gateway 68.7 89.7 89.0 82.1 76.4

995 Remote 57.2 92.0 88.2 81 74.6

996 71.4 90.0 86.7 80.6 74.3

997 63.7 87.1 77.9 74.9 71.9

998 56.7 84.5 59.0 84.9 62.2

999 48.2 73.9 66.7 78.4 64.0

Caribbean

009 Gateway 41.8 66.9 75.6 65 71.6

006 34.1 70 71.4 67.6 67.9

007 43.7 72.3 69.9 71.4 65.9

008 16.7 76.2 78.4 57.5 63.3

Honolulu

968 Gateway 73.8 61 76.2 40.1 54.9

96700-96798 Hawaiian Islands 63 66.1 69.9 39.2 53.5

96799 American Samoa - 4.4 2.0 9.6 6.0

969 80.4 16.5 13.9 24.2 13.9

Source: 2015 Study at 20; 2013 Study at 16; 2011 Study at 17.

1. FY 2015 Results: Gateway versus Remote

Table A-11 shows that service performance for most remote areas was significantly lower 

than the Gateway.

 

340 In FY 2011, service performance results for Periodicals were not disaggregated by Destination Entry or End-to-End measurement.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 14 of 18

Table A-11

Periodicals

Statistically Significant Differences Between Gateway and Remote Performance in FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 22

Number Significantly Higher 0

Number Significantly Lower 20

Number Not Significantly Different 2

Source: 2015 Study at 22.

As detailed in Table A-11, there were no instances where the service performance results 

in remote areas were higher than the service performance results for the Gateway and only 

two instances where there was no statistically significant difference. In the discussion that 

follows, the Commission highlights statistically significant service performance results 

between the Gateway and remote locations.

a. Alaska

Service performance results for the Gateway were higher than all but one remote ZIP Code 

for both Destination Entry and End-to-End measured mailpieces. Destination Entry service 

performance was not significantly different between 3-Digit ZIP Code 995 Gateway and 3-

Digit ZIP Code 995 remote. Id. at 13.

b. Caribbean

For Destination Entry Periodicals, the service performance result for the Gateway was 

below 3-Digit ZIP Code 008, but was better than 3-Digit ZIP Codes 006 (71.4 percent) and 

007 (69.9 percent). Id. at 13-14. Although the service performance estimate for 3-Digit ZIP

Code 008 was higher, the results were not significantly different. Service performance 

results for End-to-End Periodicals at the Gateway were higher than all the remote ZIP

Codes. Id.

c. Honolulu

The service performance result for the Gateway was significantly higher than the results 

for all remote ZIP Codes for both Destination Entry and End-to-End measured mailpieces. 

Id.

2. Comparing FY 2015 Performance Results to 

FY 2013

The 2015 Study shows that on-time service performance improved for Periodicals in one 

district, declined in another district, and both improved and declined in the third district.

Table A-12 shows that over 53 percent of all comparisons were lower than FY 2013 results.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 15 of 18

Table A-12

Periodicals

Statistically Significant Differences Between FY 2013 and FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 12 8 8 28

Number Significantly Higher 1 7 4 12

Number Significantly Lower 10 1 4 15

Number Not Significantly Different 1 0 0 1

Source: 2015 Study at 24.

All service performance results for 3-Digit ZIP Codes in Alaska (except 999) declined 

significantly compared with FY 2013 for both Destination Entry and End-to-End

Periodicals. For Honolulu, significant declines for Destination Entry and End-to-End were 

reported in Guam and American Samoa. However, in the Honolulu District, service 

performance results improved for the Gateway 3-Digit ZIP Code 009 and the Hawaiian 

Islands. Periodicals service performance results for the Caribbean District significantly

improved since the 2013 Study.

D. Package Services

For the Alaska District, a 2-Day service standard was in place for mail from the DSCF to all 

Alaska ZIP Codes during the 2015 Study. Id. at 15. From the DNDC in Seattle, the service 

standard was 12 days to all Alaska ZIP Codes. Id. In the Caribbean District, there was a 2-

Day service standard from the DSCF to the 006, 007, and 009 ZIP Codes and a 3-Day service 

standard to the 008 3-Digit ZIP Code. Id. at 16. For the Caribbean DNDC in Jacksonville,

there was an 11-Day service standard to all ZIP Codes in the Caribbean District. Id. The 

Honolulu District had a 2-Day service standard from the DSCF to 3-Digit ZIP Codes 967, 

968, and 969 (American Samoa, which had an additional day). In addition, there was an 11-

Day service standard from the DNDC in San Francisco, California. Id.

Table A-13 shows that service performance results for Package Services have generally 

improved from FY 2011 to FY 2015.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 16 of 18

Table A-13

Package Services

Service Performance Results, FY 2011, FY 2013, and FY 2015

FY 2011 FY 2013 FY 2015

Alaska 

995 Gateway 31.3 89.5 90.8

995 Remote 21.9 70.3 79.7

996 25.9 77 83.6

997 21.5 71.7 83.2

998 21.2 72 80.4

999 21.7 59.9 79.5

Caribbean

009 Gateway 19.8 53.6 70.5

006 23.9 51.5 71.6

007 24.4 53.2 48.6

008 7.7 28.5 44.1

Honolulu

968 Gateway 6.9 45.9 64.7

96700-96798 Hawaiian Islands 6 29.2 42.5

96799 American Samoa - 9.7 25.2

969 8 17.1 19.8

Source: 2015 Study at 15; 2013 Study at 21; 2011 Study at 19.

In the discussion that follows, the Commission highlights statistically significant service 

performance results between the Gateway and remote locations.

1. FY 2015 Results: Gateway versus Remote

a. Alaska

The service performance result for the Anchorage Gateway was significantly higher than

the results for all remote areas.

b. Caribbean

Results for 3-Digit ZIP Code 006 were significantly higher than the Gateway results. For 3-

Digit ZIP Codes 007 and 008, service performance was significantly lower than the 

Gateway.

c. Honolulu

Service performance results for the Honolulu Gateway were higher than all remote ZIP

Codes.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 17 of 18

Table A-14 shows that service performance was significantly lower in the remote areas 

than the Gateway for most measured non-contiguous areas of the United States.

Table A-14

Package Services

Statistically Significant Differences Between Gateway and Remote Performance in FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 5 3 3 11

Number Significantly Higher 0 1 0 1

Number Significantly Lower 5 2 3 10

Number Not Significantly Different 0 0 0 0

Source: 2015 Study at 22.

2. Comparing FY 2015 Performance Results to 

FY 2013

Service performance results improved significantly as compared to FY 2013 for many 

remote areas. Table A-15 summarizes these improvements.

Table A-15

Package Services

Statistically Significant Differences Between FY 2013 and FY 2015

Remote ZIP Code Metric Alaska Caribbean Honolulu Total

Total Number of Remote Comparisons 6 4 4 14

Number Significantly Higher 4 3 4 11

Number Significantly Lower 0 1 0 1

Number Not Significantly Different 2 0 0 2

Source: 2015 Study at 24.

The 2015 Study shows that in FY 2015 the Postal Service improved its service performance 

results for the Gateway and remote areas from FY 2013.

E. Conclusion

In conclusion, service performance results for First-Class Mail and Periodicals declined 

from FY 2013 to FY 2015, and service performance results for Standard Mail and Package 

Services improved from FY 2013 to FY 2015.

In addition, 58 percent of service performance results from the Gateway cities were 

significantly higher than the remote areas. Id. at 23. Further, there were “26 cases where 

the Gateway’s score was more than 20 points higher than the [remote] ZIP Code Area.” Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix A

Page 18 of 18

The 2015 Study notes that most discrepancies between Gateway and remote service 

performance scores involved ZIP Codes that were both extremely isolated and had low mail 

volumes. Id. The 2015 Study suggests “reviewing processing operations, transportation and 

service standards in many of these situations given the extremely difficult logistics to these 

very remote areas.” Id.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 1 of 13

Appendix B: Key Commission Findings 

and Directives Requiring Postal Service 

Action for Annual Compliance Reports

KEY COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DIRECTIVES REQUIRING POSTAL SERVICE ACTION 

FOR FUTURE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (FY 2015 ACD) 

Periodicals Pricing Directive:

 The Commission finds that the Postal Service failed to meaningfully address the FY 

2014 ACD directive that it report the cost and contribution impact of the worksharing 

incentives offered for 5-Digit and Carrier Route presortation and on its progress in 

improving pricing efficiency. The Commission therefore directs the Postal Service 

within 120 days of issuance of this ACD to file a report which:

o Discusses whether the 5-Digit, Carrier Route, and FSS workshare discounts are the 

proper economic incentives and send efficient pricing signals to mailers.

o Reports the cost, contribution, and revenue impact of the pricing changes made by 

the Postal Service in FY 2015.

o Provides a detailed quantitative analysis of the progress made in leveraging the 

Postal Service’s pricing flexibility to improve the efficiency of Periodicals pricing in 

FY 2015.

o Identifies any obstacles to providing the requested analysis as well as the Postal 

Service’s strategy and timeframe for addressing those obstacles. The Postal Service 

must provide steps it has taken towards overcoming the obstacles identified.

 The Commission also directs the Postal Service to include an updated version of the 

report in its FY 2016 ACR. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 2 at 23-24.

Inbound Letter Post:

 The Commission finds that FY 2015 revenue for Inbound Letter Post was not sufficient 

to cover attributable cost. Under current circumstances, the Commission does not 
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 2 of 13

recommend any remedial action. However, it does recommend continued efforts to 

develop a more compensatory UPU terminal dues formula for the next rate cycle 

(CY 2018 through CY 2021). The Commission also recommends that the Postal Service 

continue to pursue bilateral agreements that result in an improved financial position 

for the Postal Service relative to default UPU rates. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 3 at 70.

 The Commission directs the Postal Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this 

ACD on further progress in its plans to improve on-time service performance scores for 

Inbound Letter Post. The Postal Service shall specifically address its progress in 

improving sacks processing, in negotiating at the UPU for adjustments to the sacked 

mail service performance standard, and the Lean Six Sigma Black Belt project.

FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 3 at 72.

Competitive NSAs:

 The Commission finds that Priority Mail Contract 135 and Parcel Return Service 

Contract 8 are not in compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) in FY 2015. The Postal 

Service stated that it will either amend or terminate the contracts as appropriate. The 

Commission directs the Postal Service to report within 30 days of issuance of this ACD 

on the result of the Postal Service’s evaluation and the corrective action the Postal 

Service intends to take. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 4 at 82.

 For those Competitive domestic NSAs that are not active or are paying published rates, 

the Postal Service should file a notice of termination to remove the agreement from the 

competitive product list. Furthermore, the Commission directs the Postal Service to 

identify each NSA product that had no mailpieces shipped under the respective 

contracts when it files future ACRs. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 4 at 83.

IMTS—Outbound and IMTS—Inbound Products:

 The Commission finds that the IMTS—Outbound and IMTS—Inbound products were

not in compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) in FY 2015. The Commission directs the 

Postal Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on the obstacles to 

exiting or renegotiating the agreements that comprise the IMTS—Inbound product. 

The Postal Service must discuss the impact of the FY 2016 price change for cost 

coverage of IMTS—Outbound in the FY 2016 ACR. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 4 at 85.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 3 of 13

Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) Products: 

 The Commission finds that the Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) product was not in 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) in FY 2015. The Commission directs the Postal 

Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on the status of its negotiations 

to remove the need to secure signatures upon delivery. The Commission also 

recommends that the Postal Service enter into bilateral agreements with foreign 

postal operators with rates that are above default UPU rates to improve the net 

financial position of the Postal Service. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 4 at 86-87.

International Ancillary Services:

 The Commission directs the Postal Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this 

ACD on the results of its examination of pricing solutions for Outbound Competitive 

International Registered Mail and what steps it plans to take to improve cost coverage.

FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 4 at 87.

Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) Products:

 The Commission concludes that the entry of inbound air parcels from EPG-member 

countries was inconsistent with 39 U.S.C. § 407(a)(2). The Commission directs the 

Postal Service to inform the Commission when it has formally exited the EPG 

Agreement. By July 31, 2016, the Postal Service must inform the Commission of the 

date it formally exited the EPG Agreement or must explain why it has not exited the 

EPG Agreement. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 4 at 91-92.

Service Performance:

 The Commission is particularly concerned with the recent dramatic decline of service 

performance for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day service 

standard and determines that First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards is not in 

compliance.

 The Commission directs the Postal Service to improve service for First-Class Mail 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in FY 2016. The Postal Service must provide an 

explanation in the FY 2016 ACR detailing specific efforts targeted to improve service 

performance results for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in FY 2016. 

Further, it must provide a detailed, comprehensive plan to improve service 
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 4 of 13

performance for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards within 90 days of 

issuance of this ACD.

 In addition, the Postal Service must provide the following data, disaggregated by 

district level and service standard, in conjunction with its plan: percent of First-Class 

Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards that missed collection box pickups; percent of 

First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards where First Processing Operations 

(FPO) occurred one day after collection box pickup; percent of First-Class Mail SinglePiece Letters/Postcards that missed processing windows due to ground transportation 

constraints; percent of First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards that missed 

processing windows due to air transportation constraints; average WIP cycle time; 

facilities with above average WIP cycle time; and percent of First-Class Mail SinglePiece Letters/Postcards that have already missed service standard by Last Processing 

Operation (LPO). FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 5 at 137-138.

Post Office Suspensions:

 The Commission previously recommended that the Postal Service proceed 

expeditiously in either discontinuing offices under suspension or reopening them.341 It 

reiterates that recommendation in this proceeding. The Commission expects the Postal 

Service to reduce the number of facilities under suspension in FY 2016. If it is unable to 

do so, the Postal Service shall include a detailed explanation of why it was unable to do 

so in the FY 2016 Annual Compliance Report. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 5 at 150.

Flats Cost and Service Issues:

 In order to understand what can be done to improve cost and service efficiency for 

flats, the Commission directs the Postal Service to provide a report on flats issues 

within 120 days of issuance of this ACD. This report shall address, at a minimum, each 

of the pinch points described above and repeated below. If the Postal Service identifies 

additional operational areas where it has developed, or intends to develop, 

measurement systems to comprehensively identify and resolve cost and service 

efficiency issues for flats, it shall provide such additional details. The Commission 

recognizes the importance of striking a balance between the value of utilizing systems 

to analyze granular data and the cost of using or developing systems to analyze said 

data. Where the Postal Service cannot leverage its current data systems to generate 

 

341 See FY 2014 ACD at 121.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 5 of 13

and analyze granular data, it should explain the process and expense involved to 

acquire and analyze such data.

 For each pinch point, the report shall identify a method to measure, track, and report 

the cost and service performance issues relating to the individual pinch point at the 

most granular level practicable. As part of this method, the Postal Service shall identify 

the service performance impact of the individual pinch point at the most granular level 

practicable. In order to increase transparency, the report shall contain the following 

information regarding the Postal Service’s data systems for each pinch point:

o Identify all information related to each pinch point operation that is generated by 

current data systems. Include all relevant existing data systems, such as IMb 

Service Performance Diagnostics System (SPD), Seamless Acceptance and Service 

Performance (SASP), Informed Visibility (IV), the Intelligent Mail Accuracy and 

Performance System (IMAPS), and any other systems not identified herein.

o Provide a detailed analysis of the cost to produce and aggregate such data in a way 

capable of quantifying the cost and service impacts of each pinch point at the most 

granular level practicable. The cost analysis should include all development costs, 

as well as ongoing data maintenance and analysis costs, and include specific 

estimates of workhours required and the cost of those workhours.

o Identify relevant information, in addition to current data, that could be developed 

by adjusting or expanding existing data systems and provide a detailed analysis of 

the cost involved for any adjustments or expansions needed to generate the 

information.

o Identify all information that would be necessary to develop, implement, monitor, 

and quantify results for a comprehensive plan to improve flats service performance 

and cost coverage if an ideal data system were available.

 If, as a result of the Postal Service’s analysis, it finds the type of information requested 

cannot be developed using existing data systems, the Postal Service shall provide a 

detailed explanation why, supported by examples, for each pinch point the Postal 

Service contends is not measurable using existing data systems. The Postal Service 

shall also provide a detailed description of the type of data collection/modifications to 

existing systems that would be required and associated costs. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 6 

at 181.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 6 of 13

STATUS OF KEY COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DIRECTIVES REQUIRING POSTAL 

SERVICE ACTION FOR FUTURE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (FY 2014 ACD) 

Periodicals Pricing Efficiency:

 In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service shall provide a detailed analysis of the cost and 

contribution impact of the worksharing incentives offered for 5-Digit and Carrier 

Route presortation. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 2 at 16.

o In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service explains the design of Periodicals 

workshare discounts without providing any quantitative analysis of the cost and 

contribution impact. See FY 2015 ACR at 46.

 In the FY 2015 ACR, the Postal Service shall provide a report on its progress in 

improving Periodicals pricing efficiency. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 2 at 17.

o In the FY 2015 ACD, the Commission finds that the Postal Service failed to 

meaningfully address the FY 2014 ACD directive that it report the cost and 

contribution impact of the worksharing incentives offered for 5-Digit and 

Carrier Route presortation and on its progress in improving pricing 

efficiency. The Commission therefore directs the Postal Service to file a 

report within 120 days of issuance of this ACD. FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 2 

at 23-24.

Inbound Letter Post Service Performance:

 The Commission directs the Postal Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this 

ACD on its plans to improve on-time service performance scores for Inbound Letter 

Post. In its report, the Postal Service shall identify systemic problems preventing ontime service performance scores from achieving the UPU quality-of-service target each 

year and its plans to address these problems. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 3 at 55.

o The Postal Service identified numerous systemic problems preventing on-time 

service performance. The most significant problems include: insufficient time to 

process sacked letters prior to dispatch; increasing percentages of test letter and 

flat mail arriving from foreign posts in sacks versus trays; ground handler 
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 7 of 13

backlog causing induction delays; and timing issues related to the transportation 

of letters and flats due to traffic.342

o The Postal Service plans to address these problems by: working within UPU to 

ensure that service expectations for inbound mail are consistent with actual 

practice; working to develop amendments to the Letter Post Regulations to 

require that posts use proper receptacles; adding an additional day of service for 

sacked letter and flat volume; changing its transportation schedules to account 

for traffic; piloting several initiatives at the JFK International Service Center to 

(ISC) expedite the handling of sacks; and continuing to work with the Port 

Authority, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), airlines, and ground handlers to 

alleviate backlog and improve induction of mail at the JFK ISC.343

Valassis NSA Collection Fee:

 Accordingly, the Postal Service shall report the information required by Order No. 

1448 to be filed within 60 days of the end of each contract year. That information 

includes, but is not limited to, information regarding the payment of the $100,000 

transaction fee/penalty. Order No. 1448 at 41; FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 3 at 62.

o The Postal Service collected the $100,000 transaction fee on 

September 21, 2015. FY 2015 ACR at 54. The Valassis NSA has completed its final 

contract year; therefore, no action is necessary.

Royal PostNL NSA:

 The Commission finds that the NSA with Royal PostNL did not comply with 39 U.S.C. 

§ 3622(c)(10)(A). The Commission directs the Postal Service to report within 90 days

of issuance of this ACD on the following: the factors that caused the Royal PostNL NSA 

cost coverage at the UPU terminal dues to exceed the cost coverage at the negotiated 

rates; the extent to which the Postal Service incorporated knowledge of these factors 

into its financial model for the successor NSA that was the subject of Docket No. 

R2015-3; and whether the successor NSA with Royal PostNL will improve the Postal 

Service’s net financial position during FY 2015. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 3 at 57.

 

342 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Commission Requests for Additional Information in the FY 2014 

Annual Compliance Determination, June 25, 2015, question 1 (June 25, 2015, Responses to FY 2014 ACD).

343 June 25, 2015, Responses to FY 2014 ACD, question 1.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 8 of 13

o On June 25, 2015, the Postal Service filed Library Reference USPS-FY14-NP42 

under seal showing its analysis of the Royal PostNL NSA. The Postal Service

represents that compared to the respective 2013 and 2014 UPU terminal dues 

rates, the cost coverage of the negotiated rates actually exceeded the cost 

coverage of the UPU rates in FY 2014.344

o The Postal Service states that the successor NSA will improve the Postal 

Service’s net financial position and filed a financial model in Docket No. R2015-3 

showing this.345

 The Commission finds that the Royal PostNL NSA (Docket No. CP2013-24) did not 

satisfy 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2). Moreover, the negotiated rates do not comply with 39 

U.S.C. § 407(a) because such rates distort competition. For the successor NSA with 

Royal PostNL in Docket No. CP2015-18, the Commission directs the Postal Service to 

report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on the financial model’s projected change 

in cost compared with the actual change in cost for mail processing, delivery, and 

other costs, and whether the successor NSA is expected to cover costs during FY 2015. 

The Postal Service shall provide financial workpapers to support any statements or 

analysis in its report. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 4 at 82.

o On June 25, 2015, the Postal Service filed Library Reference USPS-FY14-NP42 

under seal, which contains an updated financial model for the Royal PostNL NSA 

filed in Docket No. CP2015-18.346 With respect to cost coverage, the Postal 

Service contends the model reflects current expectations based on FY 2014 costs 

rather than the initial FY 2013 costs. The Commission finds that all Inbound 

Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 satisfied 

39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2) in FY 2015. See FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 4 at 90.

IMTS—Outbound and IMTS—Inbound Products:

 For FY 2014, the Commission finds that the IMTS—Outbound and IMTS—Inbound 

products do not comply with 39 U.S.C. § 3633(a)(2). The Commission directs the Postal 

Service to report within 90 days of issuance of this ACD on the feasibility of developing 

attributable costs for both products based on alternatives to the IOCS methodology. In 

 

344 June 25, 2015, Responses to FY 2014 ACD, question 2.

345 See Docket No. R2015-3, United States Postal Service Notice of Type 2 Rate Adjustment, Notice Filing Functionally Equivalent 

Agreement and Application for Nonpublic Treatment, November 14, 2014.

346 June 25, 2015, Responses to FY 2014 ACD, question 3.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 9 of 13

its report, the Postal Service should discuss the feasibility of conducting engineering 

studies or utilizing costs from other Special Services with similar functions, such as 

domestic Money Orders. In addition, the Commission considers a price increase for the 

IMTS—Outbound product to be one option the Postal Service may want to implement 

to reduce current losses. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 4 at 76.

o In Docket No. RM2015-13, the Commission approved a revised costing 

methodology for IMTS—Outbound and IMTS—Inbound.

347

o The Postal Service explained in its response that it continues to have difficulties 

with meeting this Commission Directive.348 It stated that the “difficulties are not 

confined to the nature of the estimation method used to develop the estimates of 

costs for Inbound IMTS and Outbound IMTS separately, but also encompass the 

lack of information related to the very volumes of transactions associated with 

the three types of transactions comprising IMTS: outbound paper money orders, 

inbound paper money orders, and the wire transfer service of Dinero Seguro. 

Without reliable estimates of volumes, even the use of unit costs from the 

possible sources that the Commission recommended -- engineering studies or 

other Special Services with similar functions – would not result in reliable costs 

for IMTS.” Id. The Postal Service proposed using Federal Reserve Board data to 

improve the volume estimates. Id.

Inbound Air Parcel Post:

 The Commission concludes that the entry of inbound air parcels post from EPG 

member countries is inconsistent with 39 U.S.C § 407(a)(2). The Commission therefore 

recommends that the Postal Service pursue additional improvements in on-time 

service performance through implementation of the EPG continuous improvement 

plan so as to improve the financial results for Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU 

rates) during FY 2015. The Commission directs the Postal Service to negotiate 

compensatory rates within the EPG-Agreement or extricate itself from the Agreement. 

FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 4 at 81.

o The Postal Service provided notice to the EPG members prior to June 30, 2015,

of its withdrawal from the Agreement.

 

347 See Docket No. RM2015-13, Order No. 2825.

348 Docket No. ACR2014, Responses of the United States Postal Service to Commission Requests for Additional Information in the FY 2014 

Annual Compliance Determination, June 30, 2015, question 4 (June 30, 2015, Responses to FY 2014 ACD).
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 10 of 13

o Termination of the agreement for the Postal Service will enter into force on 

June 30, 2016.349

First-Class Mail Flats Service Performance:

 This is the fourth consecutive year that First-Class Mail Flats did not meet service 

performance targets. In addition, service performance has not improved since FY 2011. 

The Commission directs the Postal Service to improve service for First-Class Mail Flats 

in FY 2015 or to provide an explanation in the FY 2015 ACR for why efforts to improve 

service performance results for First-Class Mail Flats have been ineffective and detail

what changes it plans to make to improve service performance. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 

5 at 104.

o The Postal Service did not improve service for First-Class Mail Flats in FY 2015. 

The Postal Service was also required to detail what changes it plans to make to 

improve results. The Postal Service’s response merely stated that it would 

emphasize the processing of First-Class Mail Flats and increase standardization 

of the handling of special sort assignments. Library Reference USPS-FY15-29 at 

9. Given that special sort assignments make up only 3.2 percent of First-Class 

Mail Flats volume, this response was inadequate to show that the Postal Service 

has plans in place to successfully address First-Class Mail Flats’ service 

performance.

o The Postal Service’s responses to CHIRs did provide more detail but mostly did 

not differentiate its FY 2016 plan from its ineffective FY 2015 actions. Stating it 

will largely take the same approach to improving First-Class Mail Flats service in 

FY 2016, the Postal Service did not adequately explain why these changes will be 

more effective in FY 2016 after 4 years of not meeting targets. Instead, it 

proposed a vague network-wide mitigation plan, which substantially overlapped 

with FY 2015 efforts and did not offer comprehensive insight to its corrective 

actions by, for example, providing information at the district and facility levels.

o For these reasons, the Commission takes further action in accordance with these 

findings in Chapter 6 of the FY 2015 ACD. See FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 5 at 109; id.

Chapter 6 at 162-163, 180-181.

Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Letters, High Density and Saturation 

Flats/Parcels, and Letters

 

349 June 30, 2015, Responses to FY 2014 ACD, question 5.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 11 of 13

 The Commission commends the Postal Service for making significant strides in service 

performance results for Standard Mail High Density and Saturation Letters, High 

Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels, and Letters. In FY 2014, these products met, 

exceeded, or were near annual service performance targets. Although Standard Mail 

Parcels represent only 0.1 percent of all Standard Mail, the Postal Service is required 

by statute to report service performance results for all products. The Commission 

directs the Postal Service to provide these results in the FY 2015 ACR. FY 2014 ACD, 

Chapter 5 at 109.

o The Postal Service provided service performance results for all of these products 

as part of Library Reference USPS-FY15-29.

Standard Mail Carrier Route and Flats Service Performance:

 Standard Mail Carrier Route and Flats continue to fall well short of intended annual 

performance targets. The Commission directs the Postal Service to improve service for 

these products in FY 2015 or to explain in the FY 2015 ACR why efforts to improve 

results have been ineffective and what changes it plans to make to improve service 

performance. FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 5 at 109.

o Although the service performance result for Standard Mail Carrier Route 

improved slightly in FY 2015, it remained 9 percentage points below target.

Because the results for Standard Mail Carrier Route remain substantially below 

target, further action is necessary. Further action for Standard Mail Carrier 

Route is discussed in Chapter 6 of the FY 2015 ACD. See FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 5 

at 114; id. Chapter 6 at 162-163, 180-181.

o The Postal Service did not improve service for Standard Mail Flats in FY 2015. 

Although the Postal Service discussed some changes it plans to make to improve 

performance for Standard Mail Flats, the Commission finds the response 

insufficient to address consecutive years of failure to meet Standard Mail Flats 

service performance targets. Similar to the response provided to the First-Class 

Mail Flats directive, the response proposed is a vague network-wide mitigation 

plan, which does not offer comprehensive insight to planned Postal Service 

corrective actions at the district and facility levels. As further explained in 

Chapter 6 of the FY 2015 ACD, the Postal Service’s current mitigation plans are 

insufficient and inadequate to repair systemic problems facing flats mailpieces.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 12 of 13

o Consequently, because service performance did not improve in FY 2015, the 

Commission finds further action is necessary. See FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 5 at 

122; id. Chapter 6 at 162-163, 180-181.

Periodicals Service Performance:

 The Postal Service again did not meet its delivery performance targets for its 

Periodicals product. The Commission directs the Postal Service to improve service for 

Periodicals in FY 2015 or to explain in its FY 2015 ACR why efforts to improve results 

have been ineffective and what changes it plans to make to improve performance. 

FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 5 at 111-12.

o The Postal Service did not improve service for Periodicals in FY 2015. In the 

ACR, the Postal Service mentions several plans, including employee training, 

revising of processing procedures, and utilization of WIP cycle time, but does not 

provide further detail. In responses to CHIRs, the Postal Service discusses 

several other plans, but for the most part, does not differentiate its FY 2016 plan 

from its ineffective FY 2015 actions.

o Stating it will largely take the same approach to improving Periodicals service in 

FY 2016, the Postal Service does not adequately explain why these changes 

would be more effective in FY 2016. Instead, it proposes a vague network-wide 

mitigation plan, which substantially overlaps with FY 2015 efforts and does not 

offer insight to its corrective actions by, for example, providing information at 

the area and facility levels. For these reasons, the Commission takes further 

action in accordance with these findings in Chapter 6 of the FY 2015 ACD. See

FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 5 at 128; id. Chapter 6 at 162-163, 180-181.

BPM Flats Service Performance:

 Results for BPM Flats remain the lowest among Package Service products and have 

decreased since FY 2013. The Commission views the Postal Service’s previous 

strategies to increase performance results as largely ineffective. It directs the Postal 

Service to improve performance for BPM Flats in FY 2015 or include a discussion of its 

FY 2015 strategies to increase results and measureable volume in its FY 2015 ACR. 

FY 2014 ACD, Chapter 5 at 114.

o The Postal Service did not improve service for BPM Flats in FY 2015. The 

Commission acknowledges the unique characteristics of BPM Flats mail and the 
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix B

Page 13 of 13

challenges these characteristics create during processing. The Postal Service’s 

mitigation plan relies heavily on the strategy proposed for other flats and its 

successful implementation. Nonetheless, the service performance results for 

BPM Flats did not improve in FY 2015 and was 44.8 percentage points from the 

target. As a result, the Commission directs further action in Chapter 6 of the 

FY 2015 ACD. See FY 2015 ACD, Chapter 5 at 131; id. Chapter 6 at 162-163, 

180-181.

 

STATUS OF KEY COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DIRECTIVES REQUIRING POSTAL 

SERVICE ACTION FOR FUTURE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (FY 2013 ACD) 

 

Further Derivation of Elasticity for Standard Mail Products:

 The Commission appreciates the Postal Service’s efforts to derive elasticity estimates 

as recommended in the FY 2012 ACD. Having these elasticity estimates would provide 

for a more realistic assessment of the impact of price changes on volume and total 

contribution. Therefore, the Postal Service should continue its efforts to derive 

elasticity estimates for Standard Mail products. FY 2013 ACD, Chapter 3 at 55.

o The Commission closed Docket No. RM2014-5 on February 26, 2016.350

o The Postal Service, in its FY 2015 Market Dominant Demand Analysis filed with 

the Commission on January 20, 2016, implemented a number of changes to its 

demand and forecasting methodology.351

 

350 See Docket No. RM2014-5, Order No. 3100, Order Closing Docket, February 26, 2016.

351 See Market Dominant - United States Postal Service’s Demand Equation Estimation and Volume Forecasting Methodologies, January 

2016, January 20, 2016.
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix C

 Page 1 of 2

Appendix C: Commenters

2015 Annual Compliance Determination

Commenter Comment Citation Citation Short Form

Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. 

(AFSI)

Reply Comments of Amazon Fulfillment 

Services, Inc., February 12, 2016 Amazon Reply Comments

American Catalog Mailers 

Association (ACMA)

Initial Comments of the American Catalog 

Mailers Association, February 2, 2016

ACMA Comments

Reply Comments of the American Catalog 

Mailers Association, February 12, 2016 ACMA Reply Comments

American Consumer Institute 

Center for Citizen Research (ACI)

Comments of the American Consumer 

Institute Center for Citizen Research, 

February 2, 2016

ACI Comments

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Comments on Annual Compliance Report, 

February 2, 2016 ATR Comments

Association for Postal Commerce 

(PostCom)

Initial Comments of the Association for Postal 

Commerce, February 2, 2016 PostCom Comments

Reply Comments of the Association for Postal 

Commerce, February 12, 2016 PostCom Reply Comments

Association of Magazine Media 

(MPA)

Initial Comments of the Association of 

Magazine Media, February 2, 2016 MPA Comments

Reply Comments of MPA—The Association of 

Magazine Media, February 12, 2016 MPA Reply Comments

Greeting Card Association (GCA) Reply Comments of the Greeting Card 

Association, February 12, 2016 GCA Reply Comments

National Association of Presort 

Mailers (NAPM)

Comments of the National Association of 

Presort Mailers, February 2, 2016 NAPM Comments
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix C

 Page 2 of 2

Commenter Comment Citation Citation Short Form

National Postal Policy Council 

(NPPC)

Comments of the National Postal Policy 

Council, February 2, 2016 NPPC Comments

Pitney Bowes Inc. (Pitney Bowes) Comments of Pitney Bowes Inc., February 2, 

2016 Pitney Bowes Comments

Reply Comments of Pitney Bowes Inc.,

February 12, 2016

Pitney Bowes Reply 

Comments

Public Representative (PR)

Public Representative Comments, February 2, 

2016 (REVISED February 17, 2016). See 

Notice of Errata to Public Representative 

Comments Filed February 2, 2016, February 

17, 2016.

PR Comments

Stamps.com Reply Comments of Stamps.com, 

February 12, 2016 Stamps.com Reply Comments

Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) Comments on Annual Compliance Report, 

February 1, 2016 TPA Comments

United States Postal Service (USPS) Reply Comments of the United States Postal 

Service, February 12, 2016 USPS Reply Comments

Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, 

Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, 

Inc. (Valpak)

Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and 

Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. Initial 

Comments on the United States Postal 

Service FY 2015 Annual Compliance Report, 

February 2, 2016

Valpak Comments

Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and 

Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. Reply 

Comments on the United States Postal 

Service FY 2015 Annual Compliance Report, 

February 12, 2016

Valpak Reply Comments
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix D

 Page 1 of 2

Appendix D: Acronyms and 

Abbreviations

Acronym/Abbreviation Meaning

AADC Automated area distribution center

ACD Annual Compliance Determination

ACMA American Catalog Mailer Association 

ACR Annual Compliance Report 

ADC Area distribution center

AFSM Automated Flats Sorting Machine

APWU American Postal Workers Union

BPM Bound Printed Matter 

BSN Business Service Network

CAGU Citizens Against Government Waste

Carlson Douglas F. Carlson

CEM Customer Experience Measurement

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CHIR Chairman’s Information Request 

CI Customer Insights

CPI Consumer price index

CPI-U Consumer price index for all urban consumers 

CPO Community Post Office 

CPU Contract postal unit

CRA Cost and Revenue Analysis 

DDU Destination delivery unit 

DFSS Destination Flats Sequencing System

Discover Discover Financial Services

DNDC Destination network distribution center

DSCF Destination sectional center facility 

ECSI Educational, cultural, scientific or informational (value) 

EMS Express Mail Service 

EPG E-Parcel Group

EXFC External First-Class Measurement

FedEx Federal Express Corporation

FSS Flats Sequencing System 

FY Fiscal Year

GCA Greeting Card Association

GEPS Global Expedited Package Service
Docket No. ACR2015 Appendix D

 Page 2 of 2

Acronym/Abbreviation Meaning

GREPS Global Reseller Expedited Package Service

ICRA International Cost and Revenue Analysis 

iMAPS Intelligent Mail Accuracy and Performance System

IMb Intelligent Mail barcode 

IMMS International Mail Measurement System 

IMTS-Inbound International Money Transfer Service-Inbound 

IMTS-Outbound International Money Transfer Service-Outbound 

Mixed ADC Mixed area distribution center

MPA & ANM Magazine Publishers of America, Inc., and Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers

IOCS In-Office Cost System 

NAPM National Association of Presort Mailers 

NDC Network distribution center 

NPPC National Postal Policy Council

NSA Negotiated service agreement 

NTU National Taxpayers Union

PAEA Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 

PHI PHI Acquisitions, Inc.

Pitney Bowes Pitney Bowes Inc.

POS Point of Sale

PostCom Association for Postal Commerce

PTS Product Tracking System

PR Public Representative

Progressive Progressive Direct Mail Advertising

QBRM Qualified Business Reply Mail 

SASP Seamless Acceptance and Service Performance

SFS Stamp Fulfillment Services

TPA Taxpayers Protection Alliance

UFSM Upgraded Flats Sorting Machine

UHCC Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

U.S.C. United States Code

UPS United States Parcel Service

UPU Universal Postal Union 

Valassis Valassis Direct Mail, Inc.

Valpak Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc.

VPO Village Post Office
HELP US IMPROVE THIS REPORT

In connection with Section 2 of the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the Postal 

Regulatory Commission is committed to providing communications that are 

valuable to our readers.

We would like to hear your comments on what you find useful about our Annual 

Compliance Determination report and how we can improve its readability and 

value.

Please contact the Commission’s Office of Public Affairs and Government 

Relations to provide your feedback.

Postal Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs and Government Relations

901 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 200

Washington, DC 20268

Phone: 202-789-6800

Fax: 202-789-6891

Email: PRC-PAGR@prc.gov