Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70753 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Market Test of Experimental Product—Alternative 

Postage Payment Method for Greeting Cards, 

November 8, 2010 (Notice). 

Are there inconsistencies in audit 

processes and audit results? If so, 

what kinds and why? What are 

current specific examples? 

How do NERC and the Regional Entities 

set priorities of what to audit, and are 

they doing a good job setting 

priorities? 

Do audits focus too much on 

documentation? Would alternative 

auditing methods also demonstrate 

compliance and improve reliability? 

Possible improvements or solutions 

• Event Analysis and Compliance 

Focus on the potential tension between 

event analysis/lessons learned and 

NERC/RE compliance and 

enforcement activities 

• How can the Commission, NERC and 

the Regional Entities help create a 

culture of compliance? 

III. Break (2:45–3:00) 

IV. Panel 2: Violation Processing and 

Penalties (3:00–4:30) 

Panelists: 

Gerry W. Cauley, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, NERC 

Stacy Dochoda, General Manager, SPP 

Regional Entity 

Al Fohrer, Chief Executive Officer, 

Southern California Edison Company 

David Mohre, Executive Director, 

Energy and Power Division, National 

Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association 

John DiStasio, Chief Executive Officer, 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

Stephen T. Naumann, Vice President for 

Wholesale Market Development, 

Exelon Corporation 

Topics 

• Streamlining processes to reduce 

compliance violation backlogs and 

minimize future backlogs 

Regional Entity and NERC levels of 

review 

Appropriate Notice of Penalty records 

Development of ‘‘traffic tickets,’’ 

‘‘parking tickets’’ and ‘‘warning 

tickets’’ 

• How effective are the NERC Sanction 

Guidelines, and are they applied 

consistently? What changes may be 

warranted to improve effectiveness 

and/or consistency of the Sanction 

Guidelines? 

• Do current enforcement and 

compliance processes provide 

proactive approaches and improve 

reliability by reducing future 

reliability standard violations and 

system disturbances? 

What metrics are currently utilized for 

compliance-based reliability 

improvement? 

What do these metrics show? 

How can the Commission, NERC and 

the Regional Entities promote 

transparency of results and 

dissemination of lessons learned? 

V. Questions from the Audience (4:30– 

4:50) 

VI. Closing Statement 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–29068 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. MT2011–1; Order No. 584] 

Market Test Involving Greeting Cards 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service proposal to 

conduct a market test involving greeting 

cards. A key feature of the market test 

is an alternative arrangement for 

payment of postage. Under this 

alternative, participating companies 

would be responsible for paying 

applicable postage, rather than having 

the sender of the card affix postage. This 

document describes the proposal, 

addresses procedural aspects of the 

filing, and invites public comment. 

DATES: Comment deadline: December 8, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Notice of Filing 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On November 8, 2010, the Postal 

Service filed a notice, pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 3641(c)(1), announcing its intent 

to initiate a market test beginning on or 

about January 1, 2011, of an 

experimental market dominant product, 

Alternate Postage Payment Method for 

Greeting Cards.1 The market research 

test will consist of providing a means 

for individuals to mail greeting cards 

without affixing postage. Id. at 1. 

II. Background 

The Postal Service states that FirstClass Mail single-piece correspondence 

has been a declining part of U.S. mail 

volume, and the communication 

alternatives, such as e-mail, use of the 

Internet, and cellular services, have had 

an impact on the mail volume of 

personal correspondence. Id. at 3–4. It 

proposes the instant market test as a 

convenient method for individuals to 

purchase a greeting card without the 

need to pay postage. Id. at 4. The Postal 

Service expects that the simplicity of 

the product design, which allows the 

customer to sign and address the card 

and place it in a collection box, will 

make greeting cards more likely to be 

purchased and mailed. Id. 

The Postal Service explains that 

under the proposed market test 

participating businesses will produce 

and distribute pre-approved envelopes 

according to specific design 

requirements which will be packaged 

for sale with greeting cards. Individuals 

can mail the greeting cards in the preapproved envelopes without affixing 

postage. Id. at 2. The Alternate Postage 

Payment Method has a two-stage 

process for businesses to pay postage. 

Id. at 1. First, at least 50 percent of the 

postage will be paid based on the 

company’s reports on the number of 

cards sold to customers or third-party 

vendors. Generally, this payment would 

be retained by the Postal Service 

regardless of whether the cards are also 

mailed. Second, the balance of the 

postage due will be collected based on 

scans of the cards that are mailed. Id. at 

1, 6. 

Statutory authority. The Postal 

Service indicates that its proposal 

satisfies the criteria of section 3641, 

which imposes certain conditions on 

experimental products. 39 U.S.C. 3641. 

For example, the Postal Service asserts 

that the Alternate Postage Payment 

Method for Greeting Cards is 

significantly different from all products 

offered by the Postal Service within the 

meaning of section 3641(b)(1). Notice at 

8–9. In addition, it contends that the 

market test will be limited to a small 

portion of the total greeting card volume 

and therefore does not create an unfair 

or inappropriate competitive advantage 

for the Postal Service or any mailer. Id. 

at 9; see also section 3641(b)(2). The 

Postal Service states that the Alternative 

Postage Payment Method for Greeting 

Cards is correctly classified as a market 

dominant product. Id. at 10–11; see also 

section 3641(b)(3). The Postal Service 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70754 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

states that the duration of the market 

test will not exceed 24 months. Id. at 8. 

The Postal Service does not anticipate 

that the annual revenues from the 

market test will exceed $50 million. 

However, it does anticipate that annual 

revenues will exceed $10,000,000 and 

therefore requests that the Commission 

exempt this market test from the annual 

revenue limitation under 39 U.S.C. 

3641(e)(2). Id. at 8, 12. 

Description and nature of market test. 

Pursuant to section 3641(c)(1)(B), the 

Postal Service provides a description of 

the nature and scope of the market test. 

The Postal Service explains that 

participating businesses will produce 

and distribute pre-approved envelopes 

with specific design requirements that 

will be included as a part of the greeting 

card packaging. The company 

producing the cards will add markings 

as defined by the Postal Service to 

identify the greeting cards in the 

mailstream and individuals can mail the 

greeting cards in the pre-approved 

envelopes without affixing postage. 

These markings are scanned to produce 

a count. Id. at 1. The Alternate Postage 

Payment Method derives part of the 

postage payment on sales data reported 

to the Postal Service by participating 

mailers. Id. at 2. The process involves 

the use of Intelligent Mail (IM ®) 

technology to identify and scan each 

unique item’s movement through the 

postal system which produces a count 

of the number during normal 

processing. Id. Each participating 

business will receive a unique Mailer ID 

only for this market test. Id. at 5. This 

count is used to debit the card 

producer’s Centralized Automated 

Processing System (CAPS) account for 

the portion of postage that was not 

based on the sales data. Id. at 2. 

Product description. Postage will be 

paid by the card producer based on 

sales information, along with the data 

captured during mail processing. The 

mailpieces include a combination of 

four elements: 

• Intelligent Mail Barcode (IMb) 

enables the recording of piece-level 

information for volume and revenue 

reporting; 

• Legend identifies the business 

customer responsible for paying the 

postage; 

• Facing Identification Mark (FIM) 

facilitates mail processing and allows 

separate identification of this mail for 

future use; and 

• Imprint: ‘‘No Postage Necessary if 

Mailed in the United States’’ will be 

printed in the upper right corner of the 

address side of the item. 

Id. at 5. 

Under the proposed market test, the 

Postal Service states that participating 

companies must meet specific mail item 

design requirements which must be 

approved prior to distribution. Id. The 

Postal Service also states that market 

test mail items will be processed and 

delivered according to single-piece 

First-Class Mail letter standards. Id. The 

Postal Service expects that greeting card 

companies will use the product to 

increase the sale of greeting cards, and 

customers will have a simpler manner 

of mailing the cards. Id. at 6. 

The Postal Service states that 

Alternate Postage Payment Method will 

be a premium product with a price 

above First-Class Mail single-piece 

postage. Id. The proposed price is 48 

cents for cards and envelopes with a 

combined weight of no more than one 

ounce for sales or scans completed 

during the first year. For mail and 

envelopes with a combined weight 

between one and two ounces, the price 

will be 48 cents plus the second ounce 

price for sales or scans during the first 

year of the market test. In the test’s 

second year, the Postal Service will 

determine how to modify the price 

based on market conditions and changes 

in the single-piece price. It also plans to 

test more than one postage rate during 

the second year. Thus, the Postal 

Service proposes a range of rates during 

the market test period. Id. at 7. 

The Postal Service contends that the 

benefits of the market test include 

reduction in the costs of selling stamps 

to the public, proportional increase in 

the mailing of greeting cards, 

convenience, and a cost effective 

product for customer. Id. Additionally, 

it asserts that the product should 

contribute to the financial stability of 

the Postal Service. 

The Notice also addresses the Postal 

Service’s plan to monitor performance 

and its data collection plan. Id. at 13. 

III. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. MT2011–1 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Notice. Interested 

persons may submit comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s filing in the 

captioned docket is consistent with the 

policies of 39 U.S.C. 3641. Comments 

are due no later than December 8, 2010. 

The filing can be accessed via the 

Commission’s Web site 

(http:www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints Katrina R. 

Martinez to serve as Public 

Representative in this docket. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. MT2011–1 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Notice. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katrina 

R. Martinez is appointed to serve as 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

3. Comments by interested persons 

are due no later than December 8, 2010. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29086 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. MC2011–5; Order No. 583] 

Postal Classification Changes 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request 

announcing a classification change 

affecting bundle and container charges 

for Outside County Periodicals pieces in 

combined mailings of Standard Mail 

and Periodicals. This notice addresses 

procedural steps associated with this 

filing. 

DATES: Comment deadline: November 

24, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot 

submit their views electronically should 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

by telephone for advice on alternatives 

to electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Additional Details 

III. Commission Analysis and Initial Action 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On November 5, 2010, the United 

States Postal Service, invoking 

Commission rules 3020.90 and 91, filed 

a Notice with the Commission 

announcing a classification change 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES