11452 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Docket No. MC2008–1, Review of Nonpostal 

Services Under the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act, December 19, 2008, at 27–38, 

63–64 and Appendix 1 (Order No. 154). Order No. 

154 was issued in proceedings instituted to fulfill 

the Commission’s responsibilities under 39 U.S.C. 

404(e)(3) to determine which services offered by the 

Postal Service were nonpostal services and which, 

if any, of those nonpostal services should be 

continued. 

2Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Postal Products to the Mail Classification 

Schedule in Response to Order No. 154, March 10, 

2009 (Request). 

3Supplemental information regarding 

International Money Transfer Service-Inbound and 

International Money Transfer Service-Outbound 

was subsequently provided by the Postal Service. 

See Supplemental Response of the United States 

Postal Service to Order No. 154, July 15, 2009. 

4PRC Order No. 198, Notice and Order 

Concerning Request to Add Seven Postal Services 

to the Mail Classification Schedule Product Lists, 

March 30, 2009 (Order No. 198). 

5Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Amendment to Its Request to Add Postal Products 

to the Mail Classification Schedule in Response to 

Order No. 154, May 8, 2009 (Amended Request). 

6More specifically, two services previously 

offered as stand-alone components of Address 

Management Services (i.e., FASTforward MLOCR 

service and FASTforward Move Update 

Notification) were being combined under the name 

FASTforward MLOCR service. The charge for 

FASTforward MLOCR service remained unchanged 

and there was no longer to be a separate charge for 

FASTforward Move Update Notification service. 

column add in numerical sequence 

‘‘021641’’. 

Dated: March 8, 2010. 

William T. Flynn, 

Acting Director, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5224 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

Docket No. MC2009–19; Order No. 391 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adding 

special postal services to the product 

lists. This action is consistent with 

changes in a postal reform law. 

Republication of the product lists is also 

consistent with a statutory provision. 

The Commission also has prepared a 

supporting library reference. 

DATES: Effective March 11, 2010 and is 

applicable beginning January 13, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6824 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 74 FR 15784 (April 7, 2009). 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction and Summary 

II. Procedural History 

III. Commission Analysis 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction and Summary 

In Docket No. MC2008–1, the 

Commission found that six previously 

stated unclassified services were postal 

services.1 It directed the Postal Service 

to make an appropriate filing to add 

those services to the Mail Classification 

Schedule (MCS) product lists. In this 

proceeding, the Postal Service seeks to 

add seven postal services to the product 

lists. Based upon a review of the record, 

the Commission approves the addition 

of two products to the Market Dominant 

Product List and five products to the 

Competitive Product List as follows: 

Market Dominant Product List: Address 

Management Services (to replace 

Address List Services) and Customized 

Postage and [to the] Competitive 

Product List: Address Enhancement 

Service; Greeting Cards and Stationery; 

Shipping and Mailing Supplies; and 

International Money Transfer ServiceOutbound and International Money 

Transfer Service-Inbound (to replace 

International Money Transfer Service). 

The Commission also confirms its 

finding in Order No. 154 that Stamp 

Fulfillment Services is a postal product 

and directs the Postal Service to make 

an appropriate filing within 60 days to 

add Stamp Fulfillment Services to the 

MCS. 

In addition, the Commission revises 

the draft MCS product descriptions for 

Greeting Cards and Stationery and for 

Shipping and Mailing Supplies. Product 

descriptions for these and other services 

covered by the Postal Service’s request 

in this proceeding are set forth in a PRC 

Library Reference being filed in this 

docket. PRC-MC2009–19–LR1. Subject 

to further possible modifications, these 

product descriptions are to be 

incorporated into the draft MCS at the 

time of its future publication. Finally, 

the Commission directs that the Postal 

Service file draft product descriptions 

for eight existing items that are to be 

included in Address Management 

Services. 

II. Procedural History 

Background. In Order No. 154, the 

Commission ruled that six previously 

unclassified services were postal 

services. Those six services were 

Address Management Services; 

Customized Postage; Stamp Fulfillment 

Services; Greeting Cards; ReadyPost; 

and International Money Transfer 

Service. Because the Postal Service had 

not complied with the requirements of 

39 U.S.C. 3642(d) and 39 CFR 3020.30 

et seq. the Commission did not address 

whether these six services should be 

added to the MCS product lists. Instead, 

the Commission classified each of these 

services as either a market dominant or 

competitive product pending the 

outcome of classification proceedings 

that the Commission directed the Postal 

Service to institute within 60 days. Id. 

at 27–29, 89. 

Postal Service Requests. On March 10, 

2009, the Postal Service filed a request 

to add seven products to the MCS 

product lists: Address Management 

Services; Customized Postage; Address 

Enhancement Service; Greeting Cards, 

Stationery, and Related Items; Shipping 

and Mailing Supplies; International 

Money Transfer Service-Inbound; and 

International Money Transfer ServiceOutbound.2

One of the six products classified as 

a postal service by Order No. 154, 

Stamp Fulfillment Services, was 

intentionally omitted from the March 

10, 2009 filing. That omission was based 

upon the Postal Service’s view that 

Stamp Fulfillment Services was no 

longer a postal service because of 

planned modifications to the service. 

Of the remaining five services 

classified as postal services by Order 

No. 154, two, Address Management 

Services (AMS) and International 

Money Transfer Service, were split into 

narrower services. Address Management 

Services was subdivided into a market 

dominant product called ‘‘Address 

Management Services’’ and a 

competitive product, ‘‘Address 

Enhancement Service.’’ International 

Money Transfer Service was separated 

into an inbound service, ‘‘International 

Money Transfer Service-Inbound’’ and 

an outbound service, ‘‘International 

Money Transfer Service-Outbound.’’3 As 

a result of the foregoing changes, the 

March 10, 2009 filing proposed the 

addition of seven products to the MCS 

product lists in place of the six products 

discussed in Order No. 154. 

Commission Order No. 198 provided 

formal notice of the Request, established 

the captioned docket to consider the 

Request, appointed an officer of the 

Commission to represent the interests of 

the general public, and set April 30, 

2009 as the deadline for comments.4

Thereafter, on May 8, 2009, the Postal 

Service filed a notice of an amendment 

to its March 10, 2009 filing.5 The 

amendment was made to reflect the 

manner in which one of the components 

of Address Management Services would 

be offered.6 Commission Order No. 215 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11453 

7PRC Order No. 215, Notice and Order 

Concerning Amendment to Request to Add Seven 

Postal Services to the Mail Classification Schedule 

Product Lists, May 12, 2009 (Order No. 215). 8Comments of National Association of Retail 

Ship Centers, April 30, 2009 (NARSC Comments); 

Comments of United Parcel Service in Response to 

Notice and Order Concerning Request to Add Seven 

Postal Services to the Mail Classification Schedule 

Product Lists, April 30, 2009 (UPS Comments); 

Comments of Associated Mail and Parcel Centers, 

May 1, 2009 (AMPC Comments); Comments of the 

Public Representative, April 30, 2009 (Public 

Representative Comments); and Supplemental 

Comments of the Public Representative in Response 

to Commission Order No. 215, May 19, 2009 (Public 

Representative Supplemental Comments). 9Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, May 21, 

2009 (CHIR No. 1). 10Responses of the United States Postal Service 

to Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, May 29, 

2009 (Response to CHIR No. 1). 11Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, August 

5, 2009 (CHIR No. 2). 12Responses of the United States Postal Service 

to Chairman’s Information Request No. 2, August 

13, 2009 (Response to CHIR No. 2). 13Comments of the Public Representative on the 

Postal Service’s Legal Authority to Set Fees for 

Postal Services Without Commission Approval, 

June 9, 2009 (Public Representative Additional 

Comments); Comments of the Greeting Card 

Association, May 29, 2009 (GCA Comments); 

Response of the United States Postal Service to 

Intervenor and Public Representative Comments, 

June 11, 2009 (Postal Service Reply Comments); and 

Comments of National Association of Retail Ship 

Centers, June 17, 2009 (NARSC Additional 

Comments). 14Two of the parties, GCA and the Public 

Representative, sought leave to file these additional 

comments. See GCA Motion for Leave to Submit 

Comments Out of Time, May 29, 2009; and Motion 

for Leave to File Comments on the Postal Service’s 

Legal Authority to Set Fees for Postal Services 

Without Commission Approval, June 9, 2009. These 

motions are granted. With respect to the remaining 

filings, the Commission is persuaded that the 

additional information provided by these filings 

will clarify the record. Accordingly, these 

additional submissions are accepted for filing. The 

parties are, however, cautioned that failure to seek 

leave to file future untimely submissions, or 

submissions not otherwise authorized by the rules 

of practice, may result in their rejection. 

15 Docket No. RM2007–1, Order Establishing 

Ratemaking Regulations for Market Dominant and 

Competitive Products, October 29, 2007 (Order No. 

43). Those services were Correction of Address 

Lists; Change-of-Address Information for Election 

Boards and Registration Commissions; ZIP Code 

Sortation of Address Lists; and Address 

Sequencing. See also Docket No. RM2007–1, United 

States Postal Service Submission of Initial Mail 

Classification Schedule in Response to Order No. 

26, September 24, 2007, Appendix at 79. 

16Compare Request, Attachment A, at 1–12 (AMS 

Product Descriptions) with Amended Request at 1– 

2 (incorporation of FASTforward Move Update 

Notice (FFMUN) into FASTforward MLOCR). 

17Address Management Services differs from the 

competitive product, Address Enhancement 

Service, discussed, infra. Whereas Address 

Management Services consists of address update 

services and address data files originated by the 

Postal Service, such as ZIPCode + 4 data, the 

competitive product, Address Enhancement 

Service, consists of three address matching services 

that compete with services provided by private 

address management software developers. 

18The Public Representative also commented on 

the absence of any financial information for the 

Address Management Services product. Public 

Representative Comments at 5–6; and Public 

Representative Supplemental Comments at 4. 

Historically, the Postal Service has not been 

required to produce detailed cost data for AMS. 

Consequently, financial information for this 

product does not exist. However, by adding the 

Address Management Services product to the MCS, 

the Postal Service will be required to develop a cost 

methodology for this product. See section III.B., 

Reporting Procedures for Approved Market 

Dominant Products, infra, or a discussion on 

reporting financial information for this product. 

was issued on May 12, 2009, providing 

formal notice of the Amended Request 

and allowing additional comments.7

Comments. The following parties filed 

comments in response to Order No. 198 

and Order No. 215: the National 

Association of Retail Ship Centers 

(NARSC); United Parcel Service (UPS); 

Associated Mail and Parcel Centers 

(AMPC); and the Public Representative.8

The points raised in their respective 

comments are addressed in section III., 

Commission Analysis, below. 

Chairman’s information requests. On 

May 21, 2009, the Chairman issued an 

information request to the Postal 

Service.9 The Postal Service submitted 

its response on May 29, 2009.10

Thereafter, on August 5, 2009, the 

Chairman issued a second information 

request,11 to which the Postal Service 

responded on August 13, 2009.12

Additional comments. Following the 

Postal Service’s filing of its response to 

CHIR No. 1, a series of additional 

comments and responses were filed by 

several parties: the Public 

Representative; the Greeting Card 

Association (GCA); NARSC; and the 

Postal Service.13 While the rules of 

practice do not provide for such filings, 

the Commission will accept each of 

these filings in order to ensure that all 

arguments and comments of the 

participants are considered.14 A 

discussion of the points raised in these 

comments can be found in section III., 

Commission Analysis, below. 

III. Commission Analysis 

The Postal Service requests the 

addition of seven services to the product 

lists specified in the MCS. For the 

reasons given below, the Commission 

concludes that the following seven 

postal services should be included in 

the MCS and, as appropriate, be added 

to the product lists: Address 

Management Services; Customized 

Postage; Address Enhancement Service; 

Greeting Cards and Stationery; Shipping 

and Mailing Supplies; International 

Money Transfer Services-Outbound; and 

International Money Transfer ServicesInbound. For the reasons given below, 

the Postal Service is directed to make an 

appropriate filing within 60 days to add 

Stamp Fulfillment Services to the 

Market Dominant Product List. 

A. Market Dominant Products 

1. Address Management Services 

Address Management Services (AMS) 

is the new name given by the Postal 

Service to the market dominant product 

previously called ‘‘Address List 

Services’’. See Request, Attachment A, at 

1. Address List Services (ALS) was 

added to the MCS product lists by Order 

No. 43 and contained only four 

services.15 As amended, the Postal 

Service’s Request in this proceeding 

would increase the number of services 

from 4 to 27.16 The AMS product 

consists of a number of value-added 

services that enable bulk business 

mailers to better manage the quality of 

their mailing lists. The AMS product 

also includes diagnostic and other 

services that evaluate address 

management software for accuracy.17

No party opposes adding Address 

Management Services to the Market 

Dominant Product List within the 

Special Services class. Request at 2, n.3. 

However, in his initial and 

supplemental comments, the Public 

Representative observes that the Postal 

Service’s Request fails to provide an 

adequate discussion of statutory factors 

and objectives.18 Id. The Postal Service 

responds by providing a more complete 

discussion of the following objectives 

and factors: Objective No. 1 

(maximization of incentives to reduce 

costs and increase efficiency); Objective 

No. 3 (maintenance of high quality 

service standards established under 

section 3691); Factor No. 5 (the degree 

of mail preparation by mailers for 

delivery into the postal system and its 

effect on cost reduction); and Factor No. 

12 (the need to increase efficiency, 

reduce costs, and maintain high quality, 

affordable services). Response to CHIR 

No. 1, Question 4. Upon consideration 

of the information provided in the 

Request and in the subsequent response 

to CHIR No. 1, the Commission 

concludes that the AMS product should 

be added to the Market Dominant 

Product List. 

The Public Representative also 

questions whether the changes proposed 

in the Amended Request to 

FASTforward MLOCR and FASTforward 

Move Update Notification constitute a 

rate change requiring prior notice and 

compliance with other applicable 

provisions of 39 CFR part 3010. Public 

Representative Supplemental Comments 

at 2–3. Alternatively, the Public 

Representative acknowledges that the 

Amended Request could be construed as 

a proposal to add new products to the 

Market Dominant Product List and that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11454 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

19 Initially, the Postal Service argued that the 

‘‘postal services’’ were ‘‘postal activities’’ that were 

designed to ‘‘minimize, rather than maximize’’ 

revenue and, as such, did not need to be added to 

the MCS. See id. 

20See Response to CHIR No.1, Questions 2 and 

3; and Postal Service Reply Comments at 10–12. 

21The Commission rejects the Public 

Representative’s suggestion that the Postal Service 

be required ‘‘to provide a full accounting of all 

’postal services’ not listed on the draft MCS.’’ Public 

Representative Additional Comments at 2. In Order 

No. 154 at 35, the Commission recognized that ‘‘it 

is possible for something to be inadvertently 

omitted when attempting to compile a complete list 

of activities ... [and that] ... any omitted activities 

can be explored in the next phase of this case.’’ See 

Docket No. MC2008–1, Review of Nonpostal 

Services Under the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act, December 19, 2008 (Order No. 

154). Accordingly, in instituting Phase II of the 

proceedings in Docket No. MC2008–1, the 

Commission directed the Postal Service to file a 

sworn statement providing ‘‘details of each retail 

program for which information may have been 

inadvertently omitted in response to Order No. 74 

and which the Postal Service seeks to have 

classified as a postal service or, alternatively, to 

continue to offer as a nonpostal service.’’ Docket No. 

MC2008–1 (Phase II), Notice and Order Initiating 

Phase II Proceedings, January 9, 2009, at 4. The 

Postal Service made no such filing in that 

proceeding. Thus, the Commission views the record 

as complete in that regard. 

22The Postal Service has stated its willingness to 

provide information in this form. Response to CHIR 

No. 1, Question 2. 

23See www.usps.com for information on the 

respective vendors (keyword search: Customized 

Postage). 

without approved rates in effect, the 

Amended Request would not, by 

definition, produce a rate change. Id. 

Under the unique circumstances 

presented in this case, the Commission 

finds the latter characterization more 

persuasive and that the Amended 

Request does not present a rate change 

proposal. 

Finally, the Public Representative 

asserts that the Postal Service has failed 

to include additional value-added 

services in its Request. Public 

Representative Comments at 6–7. The 

services referred to by the Public 

Representative are: Advance 

Notification and Tracking System; MAC 

Batch System Certification; MAC Gold 

System Certification; MAC System 

Certification; Mailpiece Quality Control 

Certification; PAGE System 

Certification; PAVE System 

Certification; and Z4INFO. The Public 

Representative argues that all ‘‘postal 

services’’ must be listed in the MCS 

under a particular product, and that it 

appears the Postal Service is attempting 

to set fees for ‘‘postal services’’ without 

Commission review and approval. 

Public Representative Additional 

Comments at 2–3. 

The Postal Service argues that the 

omission from its Request of the 

services at issue is not an attempt to 

take advantage of a regulatory ‘‘no man’s 

land’’ by offering services not included 

in the MCS, as alleged by the Public 

Representative. Response to CHIR No. 1, 

Question 2; and Postal Service Reply 

Comments at 10. The Postal Service 

agrees that these value-added services 

are, in fact, postal services, but explains 

that these services are designed to 

‘‘minimize, rather than maximize’’ 

revenue and thus, do not necessarily 

need to be added to the MCS. Response 

to CHIR No.1, Question 2(b). The Postal 

Service further argues that the 

Commission has the authority to 

‘‘forbear’’ from regulating these services 

as ‘‘products’’ and thereby omit these 

services from the MCS.19 Id.; and Postal 

Service Reply Comments at 10–12. In 

lieu of adding the services to the MCS, 

the Postal Service offers to provide the 

Commission with annual fee and 

revenue information on these services 

with the understanding that the 

Commission might, in the future, decide 

to regulate these services as ‘‘products’’ 

if the information provided by the 

Postal Service were to suggest that such 

regulation were necessary. CHIR No.1, 

Question No. 2(b). In total, AMS will 

include 36 services. 

As the Postal Service recognizes, 

Congress has given the Commission 

jurisdiction over the postal services at 

issue. While the Postal Service asserts 

that the Commission has the authority 

to ‘‘forbear’’ from exercising that 

jurisdiction, it cites no clear legal 

authority for exercising such 

forbearance. Instead, the Postal Service 

advances several policy arguments to 

support the reasonableness of 

forbearance.20

The Commission is not persuaded by 

these policy arguments. Without clear 

authority to forbear from exercising 

jurisdiction, the Commission will follow 

its jurisdictional mandate from Congress 

and direct that these services be added 

to the Market Dominant Product List as 

elements of Address Management 

Services. In addition, the Postal Service 

will be required to file draft MCS 

language within 30 days of the date of 

this order for those services.21

While the Commission is legally 

obligated to exercise its jurisdiction, it 

also possesses discretionary authority to 

determine how that jurisdiction will be 

exercised. Given the small and 

intermittent revenues produced by these 

services and the current lack of reliable 

costing methodologies, the Commission 

will not subject them to the full range 

of regulatory review. Instead, the 

Commission will require only that the 

Postal Service report fee and revenue 

information (if any) for those services 

annually as part of its Annual 

Compliance Report. The information to 

be filed shall be in a form similar to 

Appendix A to Docket No. MC2008–1, 

Response of the United States Postal 

Service to PostCom et al. Motion to 

Sever From This Proceeding the 

Consideration of Those Previously 

Unregulated Services That the Postal 

Service Asserts are ‘‘Postal Services,’’ 

December 12, 2008.22 If the need for 

more extensive regulatory reporting 

becomes apparent, the Commission may 

revisit the issue. 

2. Customized Postage 

The Postal Service proposes to add 

the Customized Postage program to the 

Market Dominant Product List as a 

stand-alone Special Services product. 

The Customized Postage program 

authorizes vendors to provide their 

customers with Postal Service 

authorized postage consisting of 

customer-selected images. There are 

currently four vendors participating in 

the Customized Postage program.23

No party objects to adding 

Customized Postage to the Market 

Dominant Product List. However, the 

Public Representative observes that the 

Postal Service’s Request provided only 

a minimal discussion as to how the 

proposed Customized Postage product 

achieved the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 

3622(b), while taking into account the 

factors of 39 U.S.C. 3622(c). Public 

Representative Comments at 4–5. In its 

response to CHIR No. 1, the Postal 

Service provided a more complete 

discussion of the following objectives 

and factors: Objective No. 2 (rate 

predictability and stability) and 

Objective No. 5 (assurance of adequate 

revenues to maintain financial stability); 

and Factor No. 8 (relative value to the 

people of the kinds of mail matter and 

the desirability and justification for 

special mail classifications). Response 

to CHIR No. 1, Question 4. 

Upon review of the information 

submitted, the Commission concludes 

that the Customized Postage program 

satisfies the requirements of sections 

3622(b) and (c). The Commission, 

therefore, approves the addition of the 

Customized Postage program to the 

Market Dominant Product List. 

3. Stamp Fulfillment Services 

Stamp Fulfillment Services (SFS) 

provide shipping and handling for all 

orders placed with the Stamp 

Fulfillment Services office in Kansas 

City, Missouri. Orders for postage 

stamps, personalized stamped 

envelopes, and philatelic sales can be 

placed by fax, mail, online, or 

telephone; orders for Officially Licensed 

Retail Products (OLRP) can be placed 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11455 

24Request at 12, n.13. The use of customized 

software enables online OLRP orders to be ‘‘shipped 

at [the] actual postage rates for the zone and weight 

of the shipment. Such an approach would not be 

workable for mail and fax orders.’’ Id. Consequently, 

shipping prices for OLRP orders are not at issue in 

this proceeding. 

25 In making this determination, the Commission 

observed that if fees for handling and shipping 

services ‘‘were incurred solely in connection with 

philatelic sales, classifying such services as 

nonpostal would be reasonable.’’ Id. However, the 

Commission found that the Postal Service ‘‘often 

can not distinguish philatelic from regular stamp 

purchases ... ‘‘ citing the Initial Response of the 

United States Postal Service to Order No. 74, June 

9, 2008, at 14. Id. 26This selective use of rates published in a tariff 

schedule does not constitute the application of tariff 

rates as those rates were intended to be applied. 

27The Address Enhancement Service product is 

different from the market dominant Address 

Management Services product. For a more detailed 

discussion of Address Management Services, see 

section III.A.1., Address Management Services, 

supra. 

only online.24 Currently, the Postal 

Service imposes a $1.00 charge for 

fulfilling postage stamp, philatelic, and 

stamped envelope orders. Id. at 10. The 

Postal Service maintains that the $1.00 

charge ‘‘is more like a handling charge 

intended to recover SFS costs for 

preparing orders for shipment, rather 

than shipping costs.’’ Id. at 11. For 

personalized stamped envelopes, the 

Postal Service also imposes an 

additional and higher shipping and 

handling charge. In its Request, the Postal Service 

states that it ‘‘is not requesting the 

addition of SFS to the MCS.’’ Id. at 10. 

Instead, it plans to eliminate the $1.00 

handling charge and implement an 

alternative fee structure for shipping. In 

doing so, the Postal Service argues that 

the alternative fee structure, which 

would utilize existing postage prices, 

eliminates the justification for adding 

SFS to the MCS. Id. at 12–13. 

In conceptual terms, the Postal 

Service’s alternative fee structure would 

‘‘recover postage for SFS shipments 

directly, while recovering handling 

costs through the prices charged for the 

items.’’ Id. at 11. The Postal Service 

proposes this alternative pricing 

structure because customers who mail 

or fax their SFS orders often find it 

difficult to calculate the zone and 

weight for their orders, particularly 

larger orders, using the existing fee 

schedules. Thus, the Postal Service 

wants to ensure that customers can 

‘‘readily determine and pay the total 

charge for an order, including shipping, 

at the time the order is placed.’’ Id. at 

12. 

The Postal Service offers several 

examples to illustrate how an 

alternative fee structure might work. Id. 

The four examples reference existing 

market dominant and competitive 

postage prices, i.e., First-Class Mail and 

Priority Mail prices, as shipping charges 

for hypothetical SFS orders. However, 

the Postal Service states that the 

shipping charge for any particular SFS 

order: 

would not always be the actual postage 

that would otherwise be charged based on 

the zone and weight for the mail piece being 

shipped. Instead, existing postage prices will 

be selected, for application to shipments that 

fall within specified parameters. 

Id. The Postal Service states that it is 

‘‘still working on the specific postage 

prices that it will charge for shipments, 

but plans to complete the process soon.’’ 

Id. at 13. 

The Postal Service’s alternative 

pricing structure for shipping SFS 

orders raises concerns. More 

specifically, the Public Representative 

states that the four examples provided 

by the Postal Service ‘‘imply that there 

are situations where the Postal Service 

is altering the ordinary tariff rate 

postage for SFS orders.’’ Public 

Representative Comments at 15. The 

Public Representative further states that 

if the Postal Service’s alternative pricing 

structure for SFS orders alters the 

ordinary tariff rate then ‘‘the Postal 

Service should be required to add this 

product to the Market Dominant 

Product List and to obtain Commission 

approval for these special rates for SFS 

services.’’ Id. 

Additionally, in Order No. 154, the 

Commission determined that ‘‘handling 

and shipping fees associated with stamp 

purchases and personalized stamped 

envelopes represent fees for postal 

services.’’25 (Order No. 154 at 63, 

emphasis added.) The planned 

elimination of the handling charge 

would address only one of the bases for 

requiring the addition of SFS to the 

MCS product list. The Postal Service’s 

proposed use of ‘‘alternative’’ shipping 

fees would still require the Commission 

to classify SFS as a market dominant 

postal product since, as the Public 

Representative points out the four 

pricing examples offered by the Postal 

Service suggest that ‘‘the Postal Service 

will not be charging tariff rates for 

certain fulfillment orders ... .’’ Id. at 15. 

Rather, the Postal Service intends to use 

rates from a tariff schedule that are 

weight- and distance-related and apply 

those rates as shipping charges without 

regard to the weight of the item or the 

zone to which it is actually being sent.26

Id. 

The Commission is sensitive to the 

Postal Service’s efforts to improve the 

ordering process for customers, 

particularly for mail and fax customers. 

A simplified fee structure derived from 

existing tariff rates could achieve the 

result the Postal Service desires. The 

Postal Service can, if it desires, propose 

simplified SFS shipping prices. In doing 

so, the Postal Service has an 

opportunity to develop simplified 

pricing for shipping of SFS orders that 

improves the likelihood customers will 

complete the ordering process and 

increase postal revenues. Should the 

Postal Service propose the use of 

simplified shipping fees as an 

alternative to tariff postage that would, 

of course, itself require the Postal 

Service to file an appropriate request to 

add SFS to the MCS product lists. 

Pending receipt of any such proposal, 

the Commission reaffirms its findings in 

Order No. 154, and the Postal Service is 

authorized to continue to charge a $1.00 

handling fee. The continued collection 

of the handling fee, however, requires 

the filing of a request to add SFS to the 

Market Dominant Product List. That 

filing is due within 60 days from the 

date of this order. 

B. Reporting Procedures for Approved 

Market Dominant Products 

With the exception of the eight 

Address Management Services which 

the Postal Service is directed to add to 

the MCS as elements of Address 

Management Services (section III.A.1, 

Address Management Services, supra), 

the Commission expects the Postal 

Service to submit cost, revenue, and 

volume data at the product level for all 

remaining market dominant products. 

Previously, the Postal Service has not 

reported detailed cost data for Address 

Management Services, Customized 

Postage, and Stamp Fulfillment 

Services. Cost methodologies were not 

developed for these services, and the 

Commission recognizes that the existing 

data systems may not provide adequate 

cost, revenue, and volume data for many 

of the separate services within certain 

products such as Address Management 

Services. The Postal Service is currently 

‘‘reviewing all its internal reporting 

systems consistent with its plans to 

collect and report cost, revenue, and 

volume data in the next [Annual 

Compliance Report]....’’ Response to 

CHIR No. 1, Question 3. The Postal 

Service further states that ‘‘cost 

methodologies will be developed (and 

submitted to the Commission for prior 

review) to generate additional 

information.’’ Id. The Commission 

expects the Postal Service to report on 

the status of its efforts prior to the next 

Annual Compliance Report. 

C. Competitive Products 

1. Address Enhancement Service 

The Postal Service proposes to add 

Address Enhancement Service (AES) to 

the Competitive Product List as a standalone product.27 Address Enhancement 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11456 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

28AMS API includes the following six market 

dominant databases within the Address 

Management Services product: City State, Delivery 

Point Validation, eLot, LACSLink, Five-Digit ZIP, 

and ZIP+4. 

29The Commission’s ruling in ordering paragraph 

1 refers solely to ‘‘Greeting Cards.’’ However, it is 

clear from the Commission’s discussion of the 

greeting card status issue that the Commission used 

the term ‘‘Greeting Cards’’ to refer not only to 

greeting cards, per se, but to other stationery items. 

Id. at 34–35. One of the purposes of the instant 

proceeding is to determine the appropriate scope of 

the product. 

Service is the name given to several 

separate services: Address Element 

Correction (AEC), Address Matching 

System Application Program Interface 

(AMS API), and Topographical 

Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

Referencing (TIGER/ZIP + 4). Each 

service is designed around one or more 

software packages that improve address 

quality and reduce undeliverable-asaddressed mail. 

In its Request, the Postal Service 

proposes MCS language that contains 

descriptions and prices for each of the 

separate services within the proposed 

Address Enhancement Service product. 

The Postal Service’s Request also 

provides a Statement of Justification 

that includes confidential FY 2008 cost 

and revenue figures that were filed 

under seal for the proposed product. In 

response to CHIR No. 1, the Postal 

Service supplemented its Request with 

supporting financial worksheets that 

were also filed under seal. Response to 

CHIR No. 1, Question 1. 

The Public Representative raised 

concerns regarding the AMS API 

service, contending that it appears to be 

a bundle of six market dominant 

Address Management Services 

databases that could potentially be 

priced anti-competitively, i.e., at less 

than the sum of the prices for each 

database in the bundle. Public 

Representative Comments at 13. If 

priced in this way, the Public 

Representative alleges ‘‘there would be 

no meaningful competition since a 

competitor could not purchase the 

individual unbundled market dominant 

products at a price that would allow it 

to repackage those services and compete 

with the Postal Service’s competitive 

bundled service on price.’’ ld., n.19. 

In response to the Public 

Representative’s comments, the Postal 

Service further describes the features of 

the AMS API service and its proposed 

pricing. Postal Service Reply Comments 

at 6. According to the Postal Service, the 

AMS API service is not merely six 

bundled market dominant Address 

Management databases. ¥The AMS API 

service provides a ‘‘core set of compiled 

address-matching software instructions 

(computer code), developed by the 

Postal Service’’ that interpret data from 

the six market dominant Address 

Management databases.28 Id. at 5. The 

AMS API address-matching software 

package is offered to address 

management vendors to incorporate in 

and thereby enhance their Address 

Management software when applied to 

the data from the market dominant 

databases. Id. 

The Postal Service also explains that 

the price for AMS API is greater than 

the sum of the prices for the six market 

dominant databases combined. Address 

Management software vendors who 

want to incorporate AMS API into their 

own Address Management software 

must pay a reseller license fee of 

$16,700, as well as separate annual fees 

for additional licenses in order to 

distribute the databases to multiple 

customers along with their software. 

Consequently, the reseller license fee 

plus the annual fees for additional 

database licenses are greater than the 

sum of the individual price of each of 

the six market dominant databases. Id. 

The Postal Service has submitted 

revised MCS language to clarify the 

pricing of the AMS API service. See id. 

at 6. 

The Commission approves the 

addition of Address Enhancement 

Service to the Competitive Product List 

based upon the revised MCS language 

provided by the Postal Service. The 

Postal Service’s further explanation of 

the AMS API service and the six market 

dominant Address Management 

databases clarifies that the price 

relationships would not have an anticompetitive effect. 

2. Greeting Cards and Stationery 

In Order No. 154, the Commission 

concluded that the sale of greeting cards 

and stationery (Greeting Cards) was a 

postal service and directed the Postal 

Service to file a request to add Greeting 

Cards to the MCS. Order No. 154 at 89.29

In Attachment A to its Request, the 

Postal Service proposes the following 

classification language: 

2XXX Greeting Cards, Stationery, and 

Related Items 

2XXX.1 Description 

Greeting Cards, Stationery, and Related 

Items include items designed to be used 

to mail personal messages. 

Greeting cards—Greeting cards include 

cards with envelopesand may be sold 

individually or as sets. 

Stationery—Stationery includes paper, 

envelopes, postcards, note cards, and 

note pads and are sometimes packaged 

as sets[.] 

Parties’ comments. NARSC objects to 

any and all retail sales of greeting cards, 

stationery, and related items by the 

Postal Service on several grounds, 

including the following: that these 

products are nonpostal products; that 

the Postal Service enjoys a competitive 

advantage due to its size, purchasing 

power, and exemption from local sales 

tax laws; that the addition of 32,000 

Postal Service retail outlets to the 

existing 64,000 retail outlets of private 

firms would overburden an already 

crowded marketplace; that the Postal 

Service has failed to document 

projected expenses and revenues; and 

that the sale of such items will interfere 

with the performance of core Postal 

Service responsibilities. See NARSC 

Comments and NARSC Additional 

Comments. 

AMPC takes issue with the scope of 

the ‘‘Greeting Card’’ description in the 

Postal Service’s proposed MCS 

language, alleging that the sale of a full 

line of greeting cards would constitute 

a nonpostal service and should be 

precluded. See AMPC Comments. 

Instead, AMPC requests that the 

definition of ‘‘greeting cards’’ in the MCS 

be limited to ‘‘those cards which relate 

directly to specific stamps or Official 

Licensed Retail Product programs.’’ Id. 

The Public Representative supports 

adding Greeting Cards, Stationery, and 

Related Items to the MCS as a 

competitive product, subject to certain 

limitations. Public Representative 

Comments at 10. First, the Public 

Representative notes that the term 

‘‘Related Items’’ had no definition and 

that it should either be defined or 

excluded from the MCS. Id., n.12. 

Second, the Public Representative 

submits that the availability of all of 

these items should be limited to postal 

retail locations. Id. at 10–11. Third, the 

Public Representative takes the position 

that the Postal Service should be 

required to provide adequate financial 

data to support the addition of these 

products to the MCS, or should be 

required to incorporate into the MCS its 

pricing policies with respect to these 

items. Id. at 11–12. 

In its June 11, 2009 response to the 

comments of NARSC, AMPC, and the 

Public Representative, the Postal 

Service argues that the Commission 

already found greeting cards and 

stationery to be postal services in Order 

No. 154; these products will be a 

valuable addition to the market; the sale 

of these products is not a ‘‘non-core’’ 

activity; all greeting cards, not just 

postal themed cards, foster use of the 

mails; and the fact that the sales of these 

products will compete with sales by 

others does not provide a basis for 

rejecting the proposed addition of these 

products to the Competitive Product 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11457 

30NARSC responded to GCA’s comments by 

filing additional comments on June 17, 2009, in 

which it opposed Commission acceptance of GCA’s 

comments because of their untimeliness; challenged 

the adequacy of the Postal Service’s response to 

CHIR No.1 regarding costs and cost coverage; and 

elaborated further on the points raised in its initial 

comments. As stated in n.14, supra, and 

accompanying text, the Commission is granting 

GCA’s motion for leave to file out of time and is 

accepting all additional comments not otherwise 

authorized by the Commission’s rules of practice, 

including the NARSC Additional Comments. 

31This cost information must be presented in the 

Postal Service’s Annual Compliance Report as 

required by 39 U.S.C. 3652, and is reviewed by the 

Commission in issuing its Annual Compliance 

Determination, as required by 39 U.S.C. 3653. 

32See library reference USPS-MC2009–19/NP–2, 

Nonpublic Supporting Materials Filed in Response 

to CHIR No.1, Relating to Competitive Products. 

This information was on file at the time the NARSC 

Additional Comments were filed. NARSC 

incorrectly states that the Postal Service failed to 

address the Commission’s request for this 

information. NARSC Additional Comments at 1. 

33CHIR No. 2 was prompted, in part, by a Postal 

Service solicitation issued as part of an 

investigation of the possibility of offering an 

expanded line of greeting cards. Federal Business 

Opportunities (FedBizOpps.com), Solicitation 

Number 2B–09–A–0018, posted May 21, 2009 

(Solicitation). 

34For example, the Postal Service states that it 

‘‘does not intend to offer a ’full line’ of greeting 

cards’’ and that a ‘‘full line’’ at standard greeting 

card stores ‘‘ is ‘‘displayed on well over 200 linear 

feet of fixtures with additional space allocated for 

Stationery and Related items,’’ whereas the Postal 

Service intends to provide ‘‘an average of 4–8 feet 

of display space’’ and that a ‘‘full line’’ of greeting 

cards ‘‘includes all seasonal cards and various 

specialty lines to target ethnic and geographic 

patterns,’’ whereas the Postal Service could offer 

only ‘‘a very limited holiday selection’’ of cards. 

List. Postal Service Reply Comments at 

2–3. The Postal Service also takes issue 

with the Public Representative’s 

proposal to prohibit the availability of 

greeting cards at nonpostal retail 

locations. Id. at 3–4. Notwithstanding 

this opposition to the Public 

Representative, the Postal Service 

suggests that the issue need not be 

decided at this time since the Postal 

Service’s current plan is to offer greeting 

card products only through Postal 

Service retail channels. Id. at 4. 

On May 29, 2009, GCA filed 

comments supporting the proposed 

addition of greeting cards, stationery, 

and related items to the MCS. GCA 

Comments at 2. GCA asserts that the 

proposal will benefit its members, 

consumers, and the Postal Service by 

giving consumers convenient and 

additional opportunities to purchase 

greeting cards that will be sent through 

the mail. Id. at 1. GCA claims that the 

effect of the Postal Service’s proposal 

will be to increase the total use of 

greeting cards, not to simply reallocate 

greeting card sales among retail outlets. 

Id.30

Commission analysis. While the 

Postal Service is correct that Order No. 

154 determined that greeting cards and 

stationery were postal services, the issue 

of whether to add them to the 

Competitive Product List was not before 

the Commission in that proceeding. The 

issue is now pending, and section 

3642(b)(3) requires the Commission to 

give due consideration to ‘‘the 

availability and nature of enterprises in 

the private sector engaged in the 

delivery of the product involved’ and to 

‘‘the likely impact of the proposed 

action on small business concerns ....’’ 

NARSC’s argument that the Postal 

Service enjoys certain competitive 

advantages is countered, in part, by the 

Postal Service’s response that it has 

been selling greeting cards and 

stationery as a part of its retail product 

mix for over a decade. Request, 

Attachment E, at 4. As NARSC itself 

points out, there are already other large 

retail outlets that sell greeting cards and 

stationery. NARSC Comments at 1. 

Against this history, NARSC’s general 

allegations of harm are not persuasive, 

particularly, as discussed below, given 

the limitations imposed on the sale of 

such items. Furthermore, the 

Commission can not simply assume that 

sales of greeting cards and stationery by 

the Postal Service will necessarily 

decrease sales by other retailers, large or 

small. See GCA Comments at 1. 

A related, but separate, aspect of 

NARSC’s allegation of unfair 

competitive advantage relates to the 

Postal Service’s pricing of greeting cards 

and stationery. NARSC suggests that in 

selling such items, the Postal Service 

may not have been recovering its costs. 

NARSC Comments at 1–2. In that 

connection, NARSC questions whether 

the Postal Service has adequately 

determined the costs attributable to the 

sale of these items. NARSC Additional 

Comments at 1. The Public 

Representative raises similar concerns, 

arguing that the Postal Service should 

either file adequate financial data to 

support the addition of greeting cards 

and stationery to the MCS, or 

alternatively, file a narrative description 

of its pricing policies. Public 

Representative Comments at 12. 

The Postal Service argues that any 

danger that these items will not cover 

their costs or will unfairly compete in 

the marketplace has been eliminated 

because they are now subject to 

regulation by the Commission. Postal 

Service Reply Comments at 2. In that 

connection, the Postal Service states 

that its policy will, in general, be to 

price greeting cards and stationery with 

‘‘at least a 50 percent mark-up over the 

wholesale price’’ and that as part of its 

effort to comply with the PAEA, it has 

already begun to track costs of greeting 

cards and stationery products.31

Request, Attachment E, at 2. The Postal 

Service therefore believes that this 

product will be able to generate 

revenues that cover its attributable costs 

and will not undermine the contribution 

of competitive products to the coverage 

of institutional costs. Id. at 2–3. The 

Postal Service’s contentions are 

supported by information provided 

under seal in response to CHIR No.1.32

The information provided by the Postal 

Service convinces the Commission that 

the proposed sale of greeting cards and 

stationery is likely to cover attributable 

costs and should not undermine the 

ability of competitive products overall 

to contribute to the coverage of 

institutional costs. 

AMPC suggests that the sale of 

greeting cards be limited to those 

‘‘which relate directly to specific stamps 

or Official Licensed Retail Product 

programs.’’ AMPC Comments. In Order 

154, however, the Commission 

expressly recognized that not all 

greeting cards identified by the Postal 

Service in its response to Order No. 74 

were directly related to specific stamps 

or OLRP programs, when it stated that 

‘‘[i]ntellectual property, however, is not 

featured on every card.’’ Order No. 154 

at 34, n.72. 

Nevertheless, AMPC is correct in 

stating that the activities determined to 

be postal services were those described 

by the Postal Service in its response to 

Order No. 74. Id. at 35. That response 

included a representation that the Postal 

Service had no plans to offer a full line 

of greeting cards. Id. at 34. By contrast, 

the Request in this proceeding includes 

the broadly worded MCS product 

description quoted above that could be 

read as encompassing a full line of 

greeting cards. 

To obtain a more current statement of 

the Postal Service’s intentions, CHIR 

No. 2 requested that the Postal Service 

provide information regarding its future 

plans to sell greeting cards. CHIR No. 2, 

Question 2(d).33 In its response, the 

Postal Service describes the range of 

greeting card formats that it anticipates 

offering. Response to CHIR No. 2, 

Questions 2(a).34 In addition, the Postal 

Service, once again, states that it does 

not intend to offer a full line of greeting 

cards. Id. This commitment confirms 

the Postal Service’s previous position in 

Docket No. MC2008–1 and appears to be 

responsive to AMPC’s concerns. 

The Public Representative suggests 

that the sale of greeting cards and 

stationery be limited to retail postal 

locations. The Public Representative 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11458 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

35 ‘‘Related items could include boxed note cards, 

stationery sets, and boxed greeting cards for 

everyday occasions or holidays.’’ Response to CHIR 

No. 2, Question 1(a). 

states that the availability of these 

products at such retail locations was 

understood to be the basis on which 

Order No. 154 was issued. Public 

Representative Comments at 10–11. The 

Postal Service opposes the suggestion, 

but indicates that the issue need not be 

addressed because it has no plans to 

offer these items through any other 

retail channels and does not object to 

the limitation requested by the Public 

Representative. Postal Service Reply 

Comments at 4. 

The Postal Service’s proposed MCS 

language includes the term ‘‘Related 

Items.’’ The term is not defined. The 

Public Representative objects to its 

inclusion in the MCS. Public 

Representative Comments at 10, n.12. In 

its response to CHIR No. 2, the Postal 

Service offers a possible definition of 

‘‘Related Items,’’ 35 but notes that it was 

‘‘in the process of discontinuing all 

’related items’ in both retail channels 

[i.e., retail lobbies and usps.com].’’ Id., 

Question 1(b). The Postal Service also 

states that it ‘‘might offer boxed 

stationery or note cards to promote the 

use of First-Class Mail, but has not 

developed plans to do so at this time.’’ 

Id., Question 1(c). (Emphasis added.). 

The Commission approves adding 

sales of Greeting Cards and Stationery to 

the Competitive Product List. However, 

the proposed draft MCS language will 

be revised to limit the availability of this 

product to retail postal locations and the 

Postal Service’s Web site. In view of the 

uncertain status of, and future for, 

Related Items, it will not be included in 

the MCS at this time. If the Postal 

Service wishes to offer Related Items, it 

must make an appropriate filing with 

the Commission. 

3. Shipping and Mailing Supplies 

The Postal Service proposes to add 

Shipping and Mailing Supplies to the 

Competitive Product List as a standalone product. Shipping and Mailing 

Supplies consist of packaging materials 

that are used to package, seal, protect, 

and label items for mailing, including 

mailing cartons, specialty boxes, 

mailing tubes, mailing envelopes, a 

variety of packaging tapes, and other 

shipping accessories. Request, 

Attachment F, at 1. The Postal Service 

offers these packaging supplies through 

its retail channels. See id. at 1 and 4. 

In Docket No. MC2008–1, the 

Commission reviewed the Postal 

Service’s request to classify ReadyPosta Postal Service-branded line of 

packaging supplies, as a postal service. 

Order No. 154 at 27. Based upon that 

review, the Commission found 

ReadyPost to be a postal service. Id. at 

34. In this proceeding, however, the 

Postal Service combines ReadyPost with 

other packaging supplies to form 

Shipping and Mailing Supplies. 

Request, Attachment F, at 1. 

With its Request in this proceeding, 

the Postal Service proposes MCS 

language that contains descriptions and 

prices for Shipping and Mailing 

Supplies. The Postal Service also 

provides a Statement of Justification 

that includes confidential FY 2008 cost 

and revenue figures that were filed 

under seal for the proposed product. 

The Public Representative argues that 

the Request fails to include any 

financial information or spreadsheets to 

determine whether the new product 

complies with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), 39 

U.S.C. 3642(d)(1), or 39 CFR 3015.7. 

Public Representative Comments at 10– 

11. The Commission concludes, upon 

review, that the financial information 

concerning Shipping and Mailing 

Supplies, provided under seal in 

Response to CHIR No. 1, Question 1, 

satisfies the applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements. 

The Public Representative supports 

the addition of Shipping and Mailing 

Supplies to the Competitive Product 

List ‘‘with appropriate constraints.’’ Id. 

at 10. In this regard, the Public 

Representative asserts that the Postal 

Service’s proposed MCS language 

appears to permit the sale of Shipping 

and Mailing Supplies at retail locations 

other than postal retail locations, such 

as department stores and mass 

merchandisers. Id. The sale of Shipping 

and Mailing Supplies at other retail 

locations ‘‘does not foster the use of the 

mails and is not a ‘function ancillary’ ’’ 

to the delivery of mailable matter. Id. at 

10–11. Accordingly, the Public 

Representative argues that availability of 

Shipping and Mailing Supplies should 

be limited to postal retail locations and 

the Postal Service’s Web sites. Id. at 11. 

The Postal Service opposes this 

limitation, but suggests that this issue 

does not need to be decided in this 

docket. The Postal Service’s ‘‘current 

plans with regard to the Shipping and 

Mailing Supplies product (as well as, 

incidentally, the Greeting Cards 

product), is to sell such materials 

through Postal Service retail channels.’’ 

Postal Service Reply Comments at 4. 

The Commission approves the 

addition of Shipping and Mailing 

Supplies to the Competitive Product 

List. However, the proposed MCS 

language does not accurately describe 

what the Postal Service is selling as 

Shipping and Mailing Supplies or in 

what retail channels. In this regard, 

‘‘related material’’ offered for sale as 

shipping supplies and the sales 

channels in which Shipping and 

Mailing Supplies may be offered must 

be clarified. Accordingly, in recognition 

of the positions of both the Public 

Representative and the Postal Service, 

the draft MCS language will be revised 

to limit the sale of Shipping and Mailing 

Supplies to postal retail locations and 

the Postal Service’s Web site. The draft 

MCS language will also be revised to 

change ‘‘related material’’ to ‘‘related 

packaging materials used to prepare 

items for entry into the mailstream’’ to 

clarify the limited nature of the related 

materials. 

4. International Money Transfer 

Services 

In Docket No. MC2008–1, the Postal 

Service sought to have International 

Money Transfer Service (IMTS) 

classified as a postal service. In this 

proceeding, the Postal Service proposes 

to bifurcate IMTS into an outbound 

product (IMTS-Outbound) and an 

inbound product (IMTS-Inbound). 

Request at 6–10; Attachment A at 12; 

and Attachment G. The IMTS-Outbound 

product features prices of ‘‘general 

applicability’’ for postal money orders 

and the electronic transfer of money that 

can be cashed or accessed, respectively, 

in a number of foreign countries. The 

separate IMTS-Inbound product consists 

of 10 agreements with foreign postal 

administrations that govern Postal 

Service payment of foreign money 

orders presented to post offices in the 

United States. Request at 6. The Postal 

Service states that the agreements are 

‘‘functionally equivalent’’ having many 

similar cost and market characteristics. 

Id. at 9. As part of its Request, the Postal 

Service proposes MCS text consisting of 

descriptive information concerning the 

IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound 

products. Request, Attachment A, at 13– 

15. 

The Public Representative raises two 

concerns with respect to the addition of 

IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound to 

the Competitive Product List. First, the 

Postal Service failed to provide any 

financial information in support of its 

Request, thereby precluding any 

determination as to whether IMTSOutbound and IMTS-Inbound comply 

with various provisions of the PAEA. 

Public Representative Comments at 7. 

Second, the Public Representative 

reports the Commission’s finding, in its 

FY 2008 Annual Compliance 

Determination (ACD) that IMTSOutbound and IMTS-Inbound combined 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11459 

36 In this regard, the Postal Service’s FY 2008 

Annual Compliance Report (ACR) stated that IMTS 

as a whole did not cover its attributable costs. In 

addition, the Postal Service was unable to report the 

financial results of IMTS-Outbound and IMTSInbound separately. FY 2008 International Cost and 

Revenue Analysis (ICRA) Report (Non-Public), A 

Pages (c), at page A–2, n.5. 

37Supplemental Response of the United States 

Postal Service to Order No. 154, July 15, 2009, 

Attachment A, Statement of Supporting 

Justification, at 6. 

38 In Docket No. RM2010–4, filed during the 

pendency of the instant proceeding, the Postal 

Service proposed to change the volume variability 

of window service costs for IMTS. This change only 

applies to the combined inbound and outbound 

services and does not address the development of 

separate costs for the IMTS-Inbound and IMTSOutbound products requested by the Postal Service 

in this proceeding. 

39Bracketed text in previous Product Lists, which 

has been used to reserve entries for class, product 

and group descriptions, is being eliminated to 

improve readability, foster consistency of 

presentation, conform the Lists more closely to 

long-term expectations about format, and to reduce 

costs associated with publication. 

did not cover its attributable costs.36 Id. 

at 8. The Public Representative suggests 

that until accurate cost and revenue data 

are provided, the Commission should 

defer action on these products or, 

alternatively, add them as experimental 

products. Id. at 9. If, however, the 

Commission decides to add IMTSOutbound and IMTS-Inbound to the 

Competitive Product List, the Public 

Representative recommends that the 

Commission require a greater 

commitment from the Postal Service to 

produce reliable cost estimates with 

sufficient time to review any new 

methodologies. Id. 

The Public Representative’s concerns 

are well founded. At the time of its 

Request in this proceeding, the Postal 

Service stated ‘‘it is not possible to say 

with confidence that either IMTSOutbound or IMTS-Inbound is or is not 

covering its attributable costs.’’ Request, 

Attachment G, at 3. Moreover, the Postal 

Service further acknowledged it was 

without ‘‘sufficiently reliable 

information upon which [to] draw 

conclusions concerning the corrections 

that would be required properly to 

address the shortfall in cost coverage.’’ 

Id. at 2. Consequently, during FY 2009, 

the Postal Service proposed to further 

study the ‘‘basic information needed to 

analyze the cost coverage of both IMTS 

products and to report again to the 

Commission by July 15, 2009l.’’ Id. at 

3. The Postal Service’s subsequent 

report detailed recent efforts and 

difficulties associated with obtaining 

data to estimate IMTS costs and stated 

that the Postal Service was returning to 

the ‘‘task of accumulating enough 

observations of IMTS transactions to 

determine more reliably the costs 

attributable to them.’’37 However, the 

July 15, 2009 report does not indicate 

when the Postal Service intends to 

complete its ‘‘further study.’’ 

The Postal Service’s request to add 

IMTS-Outbound and IMTS-Inbound as 

separate products to the Competitive 

Product List is approved. However, it is 

imperative that the Postal Service 

continue its work to develop reliable 

cost estimates for both products.38

D. Miscellaneous Issues 

UPS states that the Commission 

should consider the impact of adding 

products to the Competitive Product 

List on the overall contribution of 

competitive products to the Postal 

Service’s institutional costs. UPS 

Comments at 2. UPS does not oppose 

the addition of any product to the 

Competitive Product List, but urges the 

impact of adding new competitive 

products to the list be evaluated, 

particularly as regards their contribution 

to institutional costs. 

The Commission agrees with UPS that 

the cumulative impact of adding 

products to the Competitive Product 

List must be evaluated. The next 

opportunity for that evaluation will be 

in the 2010 ACD proceedings. 

In conclusion, the Commission 

approves the Postal Service’s Request to 

add products to the Market Dominant 

Product List and Competitive Product 

List as discussed in this order.39 The 

revisions to the Market Dominant and 

Competitive Product Lists are shown 

below the signature on this order and 

are effective upon issuance of the order. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Postal Service’s request to add 

postal products to the Market Dominant 

Product List and Competitive Product 

List is approved as set forth in the body 

of this order. 

2. Address Management Services and 

Customized Postage are added to the 

Market Dominant Product List as 

products under Special Services. 

Address List Services is replaced by 

Address Management Services. 

3. Address Management Services shall 

contain the following elements: Address 

Sequencing; Advance Notification and 

Tracking System; AEC II (Address 

Element Correction II) Service; AIS 

(Address Information Service) Viewer; 

Barcode Certification; CRIS (Carrier 

Route Information Service); CASS 

(Coding Accuracy Support System) 

Certification; Change-of-Address 

Information for Election Boards and 

Registration Commissions; City State; 

CDS (Computerized Delivery Sequence); 

Correction of Address Lists; Delivery 

Statistics; Delivery Type; DMM 

(Domestic Mail Manual) Labeling Lists; 

DPV (Domestic Point Validation) 

System; DSF2 (Delivery Sequence File– 

2nd Generation) Service; eLOT 

(enhanced Line of Travel) Service; 

FASTforward MLOCR (Multi-line 

Optical Character Reader); Five-Digit 

ZIP; LACSLink (Locatable Address 

Conversion Service); Mailpiece Quality 

Control Certification; MAC (Manifest 

Analysis and Certification) Batch 

System Certification; MAC Gold System 

Certification; MAC System Certification; 

MASS (Multiline Accuracy Support 

System) Certification; NCOALINK

(National Change of Address) Service; 

NCOALINK (National Change of Address) 

Service-ANKLink (Addressee Not 

Known) Service Option; Official 

National Zone Charts; PAGE (Presort 

Accuracy, Grading, and Evaluation) 

System Certification; PAVE (Presort 

Accuracy, Validation, and Evaluation) 

System Certification; RDI (Residential 

Delivery Indicator) Service; 

Z4CHANGE; Z4INFO; ZIP+4 Service; 

ZIPMove; and ZIP Code Sortation of 

Address Lists. 

4. The Postal Service shall within 30 

days of the date of this order file 

appropriate draft product descriptions 

for the following: Address Management 

Services: Advance Notification and 

Tracking System; Mailpiece Quality 

Control Certification; MACTM Batch 

System Certification; MACTM Gold 

System Certification; MACTM System 

Certification; PAGE System 

Certification; PAVETM System 

Certification; and Z4INFO. 

5. The Postal Service shall file an 

appropriate request to add Stamp 

Fulfillment Services to the Mail 

Classification Schedule Market 

Dominant Product List within 60 days 

of the date of this order, as discussed in 

the body of this order. 

6. Address Enhancement Service is 

added to the Competitive Product List. 

Address Enhancement Service shall 

contain the following elements: AEC 

(Address Element Correction); AMS API 

(Address Matching System Application 

Program Interface); TIGER/ZIP + 4 

(topological Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing). 

7. Greeting Cards and Stationery and 

Shipping and Mailing Supplies are 

added to the Competitive Product List. 

8. International Money Transfer 

Service is replaced by International 

Money Transfer Service-Outbound and 

International Money Transfer ServiceInbound as products on the Competitive 

Product List. 

9. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
11460 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020 

Administrative practice and 

procedure; Postal Service. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Postal Regulatory 

Commission amends chapter III of title 

39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 3020—PRODUCT LISTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3020 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 

3631; 3642; 3682. 

■ 2. Revise Appendix A to Subpart A of 

Part 3020–Mail Classification Schedule 

to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 

3020—Mail Classification Schedule 

Part A—Market Dominant Products 

1000 Market Dominant Product List 

First-Class Mail 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards 

Bulk Letters/Postcards 

Flats 

Parcels 

Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

International 

Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

International 

Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit) 

High Density and Saturation Letters 

High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels 

Carrier Route 

Letters 

Flats 

Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels 

Periodicals 

Within County Periodicals 

Outside County Periodicals 

Package Services 

Single-Piece Parcel Post 

Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU 

rates) 

Bound Printed Matter Flats 

Bound Printed Matter Parcels 

Media Mail/Library Mail 

Special Services 

Ancillary Services 

International Ancillary Services 

Address Management Services 

Caller Service 

Change-of-Address Credit Card Authentication 

Confirm 

Customized Postage 

International Reply Coupon Service 

International Business Reply Mail 

Service 

Money Orders 

Post Office Box Service 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

HSBC North America Holdings Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement 

Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement 

Bank of America Corporation Negotiated Service Agreement 

The Bradford Group Negotiated Service 

Agreement 

Inbound International 

Canada Post—United States Postal 

Service Contractual Bilateral 

Agreement for Inbound Market 

Dominant Services (MC2010-12 

and R2010-2) 

Market Dominant Product Descriptions 

First-Class Mail 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards 

Bulk Letters/Postcards 

Flats 

Parcels 

Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

International 

Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail 

International 

Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit) 

High Density and Saturation Letters 

High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels 

Carrier Route 

Letters 

Flats 

Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels 

Periodicals 

Within County Periodicals 

Outside County Periodicals 

Package Services 

Single-Piece Parcel Post 

Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU 

rates) 

Bound Printed Matter Flats 

Bound Printed Matter Parcels 

Media Mail/Library Mail 

Special Services 

Ancillary Services 

Address Correction Service 

Applications and Mailing Permits 

Business Reply Mail 

Bulk Parcel Return Service 

Certified Mail 

Certificate of Mailing 

Collect on Delivery 

Delivery Confirmation 

Insurance 

Merchandise Return Service 

Parcel Airlift (PAL) 

Registered Mail 

Return Receipt 

Return Receipt for Merchandise 

Restricted Delivery 

Shipper-Paid Forward 

Signature Confirmation 

Special Handling 

Stamped Envelopes 

Stamped Cards 

Premium Stamped Stationery 

Premium Stamped Cards 

International Ancillary Services 

International Certificate of Mailing 

International Registered Mail 

International Return Receipt 

International Restricted Delivery 

Address List Services 

Caller Service 

Change-of-Address Credit Card Authentication 

Confirm 

International Reply Coupon Service 

International Business Reply Mail 

Service 

Money Orders 

Post Office Box Service 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

HSBC North America Holdings Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement 

Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement 

Bank of America Corporation Negotiated Service Agreement 

The Bradford Group Negotiated Service 

Agreement 

Part B—Competitive Products 

2000 Competitive Product List 

Express Mail 

Express Mail 

Outbound International Expedited 

Services 

Inbound International Expedited Services 

Inbound International Expedited 

Services 1 (CP2008–7) 

Inbound International Expedited 

Services 2 (MC2009–10 and 

CP2009–12) 

Inbound International Expedited 

Services 3 (MC2010–13 and 

CP2010–12) 

Priority Mail 

Priority Mail 

Outbound Priority Mail International 

Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU 

rates) 

Royal Mail Group Inbound Air 

Parcel Post Agreement 

Inbound Air Parcel Post (at UPU rates) 

Parcel Select 

Parcel Return Service 

International 

International Priority Airlift (IPA) 

International Surface Airlift (ISAL) 

International Direct Sacks—M—Bags 

Global Customized Shipping Services 

Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at nonUPU rates) 

Canada Post—United States Postal 

Service Contractual Bilateral 

Agreement for Inbound Competitive Services (MC2010–14 and 

CP2010–13—Inbound Surface 

Parcel post at Non-UPU Rates 

and Xpresspost-USA) 

International Money Transfer Service— 

Outbound 

International Money Transfer Service— 

Inbound 

International Ancillary Services 

Special Services 

Address Enhancement Service 

Greeting Cards and Stationery 

Premium Forwarding Service 

Shipping and Mailing Services 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

Domestic 

Express Mail Contract 1 (MC2008– 

5) 

Express Mail Contract 2 (MC2009– 

3 and CP2009–4) 

Express Mail Contract 3 (MC2009– 

15 and CP2009–21) 

Express Mail Contract 4 (MC2009– 

34 and CP2009–45) 

Express Mail Contract 5 (MC2010– 

5 and CP2010–5) 

Express Mail Contract 6 (MC2010- 

–6 and CP2010–6) 

Express Mail Contract 7 (MC2010- 

–7 and CP2010–7) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 11461 

Express Mail Contract 8 (MC2010- 

–16 and CP2010–16) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2009–6 and CP2009– 

7) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009–12 and 

CP2009–14) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009–13 and 

CP2009–17) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009–17 and 

CP2009–24) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009–18 and 

CP2009–25) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009–31 and 

CP2009–42) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009–32 and 

CP2009–43) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009–33 and 

CP2009–44) 

Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 1 (MC2009–11 and 

CP2009–13) 

Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 2 (MC2009–40 and 

CP2009–61) 

Parcel Return Service Contract 1 

(MC2009–1 and CP2009–2) 

Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2008– 

8 and CP2008–26) 

Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009– 

2 and CP2009–3) 

Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009– 

4 and CP2009–5) 

Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009– 

5 and CP2009–6) 

Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009– 

21 and CP2009–26) 

Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009– 

25 and CP2009–30) 

Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009– 

25 and CP2009–31) 

Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009– 

25 and CP2009–32) 

Priority Mail Contract 9 (MC2009– 

25 and CP2009–33) 

Priority Mail Contract 10 

(MC2009–25 and CP2009–34) 

Priority Mail Contract 11 

(MC2009–27 and CP2009–37) 

Priority Mail Contract 12 

(MC2009–28 and CP2009–38) 

Priority Mail Contract 13 

(MC2009–29 and CP2009–39) 

Priority Mail Contract 14 

(MC2009–30 and CP2009–40) 

Priority Mail Contract 15 

(MC2009–35 and CP2009–54) 

Priority Mail Contract 16 

(MC2009–36 and CP2009–55) 

Priority Mail Contract 17 

(MC2009–37 and CP2009–56) 

Priority Mail Contract 18 

(MC2009–42 and CP2009–63) 

Priority Mail Contract 19 

(MC2010–1 and CP2010–1) 

Priority Mail Contract 20 

(MC2010–2 and CP2010–2) 

Priority Mail Contract 21 

(MC2010–3 and CP2010–3) 

Priority Mail Contract 22 

(MC2010–4 and CP2010–4) 

Priority Mail Contract 23 

(MC2010–9 and CP2010–9) 

Priority Mail Contract 24 

(MC2010–15 and CP2010–15) 

Outbound International 

Direct Entry Parcels Contracts 

Direct Entry Parcels 1 

(MC2009–26 and CP2009– 

36) 

Global Direct Contracts (MC2009– 

9, CP2009–10, and CP2009–11) 

Global Direct Contracts 1 

(MC2010–17 and CP2010–18) 

Global Expedited Package Services 

(GEPS) Contracts 

GEPS 1 (CP2008–5, CP2008– 

11, CP2008–12, CP2008–13, 

CP2008–18, CP2008–19, 

CP2008–20, CP2008–21, 

CP2008–22, CP2008–23, and 

CP2008–24) 

Global Expedited Package 

Services 2 (CP2009–50) 

Global Plus Contracts 

Global Plus 1 (CP2008–8, 

CP2008–46 and CP2009–47) 

Global Plus 2 (MC2008–7, 

CP2008–48 and CP2008–49) 

Inbound International 

Inbound Direct Entry Contracts 

with Foreign Postal Administrations 

Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal 

Administrations (MC2008–6, 

CP2008–14 and MC2008–15) 

Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal 

Administrations 1 (MC2008– 

6 and CP2009–62) 

International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 1 

(MC2009–14 and CP2009–20) 

Competitive Product Descriptions 

Express Mail 

Express Mail 

Outbound International Expedited 

Services 

Inbound International Expedited 

Services 

Priority 

Priority Mail 

Outbound Priority Mail International 

Inbound Air Parcel Post 

Parcel Select 

Parcel Return Service 

International 

International Priority Airlift (IPA) 

International Surface Airlift (ISAL) 

International Direct Sacks—M– 

Bags 

Global Customized Shipping Services 

International Money Transfer Service 

Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at 

non-UPU rates) 

International Ancillary Services 

International Certificate of Mailing 

International Registered Mail 

International Return Receipt 

International Restricted Delivery 

International Insurance 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

Domestic 

Outbound International 

Part C—Glossary of Terms and Conditions 

[Reserved] 

Part D—Country Price Lists for International Mail [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2010–5212 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0369; FRL–9125–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a sitespecific revision to the Minnesota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

particulate matter less than 10 microns 

(PM10) for Aggregate Industries Yard A 

Facility in Saint Paul, Ramsey County, 

Minnesota. On May 19, 2009, the 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(MPCA) requested that EPA approve 

certain portions of a joint Title I/Title V 

document into the Minnesota PM10 SIP 

for this facility. The State is also 

requesting in this submittal that EPA 

rescind the Administrative Order (AO) 

issued to J.L. Shiely Company which is 

currently included in Minnesota’s SIP 

for PM10. The emissions units 

previously owned by J.L. Shiely 

Company are now owned by Aggregate 

Industries. Because the PM10 emission 

limits are being reduced, the air quality 

of Ramsey County will be protected. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective May 10, 2010, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 12, 

2010. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0369, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 385–5501. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES