9

'/4 "b4

P 84-bo eog

90-2-4 STANDARDIZING THE SIZES OF MAIL

GOVERNMENI 

Storage (PART I)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON POSTAL RATES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

uat 

URRAR1ES

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

CSEICONASWESENTATIATES

NINETIETTr RagitY 

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 13, 1967

Serial No. 90-24

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

86-745 WASHINGTON : 1967
's4

• ..•

_Jo

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York, Chairman

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JOE R. POOL, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

JEROME R. WALDIE, California

RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas

WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan

LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana

FRANK J. BRASCO, New York

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

DANIEL E. BUTTON, New York

WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia

PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan

JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho

FLETCHER THOMPSON, Georgia

CHARLES E. JOHNSON, Staff Director

B. BENTON BRAY, Associate Staff Director

JOHN H. MARTINY, Counsel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

THEODORE J. KAZY, Senior Staff Assistant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTAL RATES

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana, Chairman

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JOE R. POOL, Texas

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

DANIEL E. BUTTON, New York

Ex Officio Voting Members

THADDEUS I. DULSKI, New York ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

4
CONTENTS

Statement of— Page

Nicholson, Hon. Ralph W., Assistant Postmaster General, Bureau of Finance and Administration, Post Office Department 4

Additional material submitted—

Letter from Hon. Lawrence F. O'Brien, Postmaster General, to Hon.

John W. McCormack, Speaker of the House of Representatives,

dated November 9, 1967, with accompanying suggested legislation 2

Excerpt on nonmachinable mail, from statement of Postmaster

General O'Brien before the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee 12

Letter from Howard W. Russell of Russell Distributing Co., Albany,

N.Y., to Hon. Arnold Olsen, letter dated November 7, 1967, with accompanying illustration 18

(DI)
RI,
STANDARDIZING THE SIZES OF MAIL

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTAL RATES OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 210,

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Arnold Olsen (subcommittee

chairman) presiding.

Mr. OLSEN. The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning the subcommittee begins hearings on the subject of

standardizing the sizes of mail. I want to emphasize, especially, the

fact that today's hearing is one of an exploratory nature. Today we

hope to learn from the Post Office Department witnesses the general

outline of their plans regarding standardization and the greater

utilization of machinery in the processing of mail.

However, while today's hearing is but an introductory one, the

subcommittee plans to hold extensive hearings during the second

session of the 90th Congress. At that time technicians from both the

Post Office Department and industry will be invited to testify.

One of our purposes today is to alert both the Department and

industry that the subcommittee has a deep interest in encouraging

standardizing the sizes of mail, and is prepared to examine all reasonable suggestions as to how this can be accomplished fairly and economically.

It might be recalled that when the postal rate increase bill, H.R.

7977, was considered by the subcommittee it contained a section

dealing with nonmachinable mail. Many of the subcommittee members

felt, at that time, that this was far too complex a subject to be dealt

with in H.R. 7977. Definite sentiment existed on the subcommittee

for holding separate hearings on standardization and nonmachinable

mail. As a result of this sentiment the nonmachinable mail section

was deleted from H.R. 7977.

These hearings on standardization are not being scheduled with any

particular legislation in mind. The subcommittee's approach is an

openminded approach. Its members realize that if the postal service

is to join the 20th century before the 21st begins then it must make a

giant step into the mechanical and electronic age. To do this the Department must call on the wisdom and experience of not only its own

technicians, but also those of industry. As I said earlier, the subcommittee will invite both to testify when hearings resume at a later

date.

When they have had their say we hope to be able to draft constructive and farsighted legislation that will help to enable the Post Office

Department to operate more efficiently and economically.

(1)
2

After having prepared the statement for today's session, we received

from the Post Office Department, transmitted through the Speaker,

Mr. McCormack, a proposed bill to fix additional postage charges for

certain nonstandard mail. Mr. Nix and I had not seen it before this

morning, and I don't suppose any other member had. Before opening

the hearing Mr. Nix and I came to an agreement that we would read

it over and come to a decision about introducing it. I am sure your

having sent a proposal of this kind will facilitate our hearings because

it puts industry on notice of what the Department feels necessary.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that we put in the record the

letter of the Postmaster General, Mr. O'Brien, and the accompanying

suggested bill. Without objection it is so ordered.

(The letter and draft of proposed bill follow:)

HOD. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of a proposed bill,

"To fix additional postage charges for certain nonstandard mail."

We recommend that this proposed bill be referred to the appropriate Committee

for consideration, and that it be enacted.

Except for the maximum size of 100 inches in length and girth for airmail,

no statute deals directly with the dimensional characteristics of first-class mail

and airmail. The Department has established minimum dimensions for these

classes under its regulatory authority. The minimum dimensions are as follows:

3 inches in width and 44 inches in length and in the case of cards, a thickness of

0.006 inches. In addition, the Department has rules that shapes other than

rectangular are nonmailable. (39 CFR 131.3(b), § 131.32, Postal Manual.) The

Department, however, has found that it cannot effectively regulate the maximum

dimensions of light-weight airmail and first-class mail without the provision of

penalty postage rates that depend on legislative action.

As a result of this inability the Department is faced with handling outsized

pieces of mail at substantially higher than normal costs for which it receives only

minimum postage. Mail processing machinery which could handle this mail does

not presently exist and would appear to be extremely complicated and prohibitively expensive to build and install. Accordingly, outsized mail is at present

processed manually, at additional cost to the postal service in labor and the space

needed for such operation. Moreover, mail with abnormal dimensions causes

additional costs even after it has passed from the office of mailing to the delivery

office.

The Postal Revenue Bill which I submitted to the Congress on April 5, 1967,

contained express dimensional standards and would have imposed a surcharge

on light-weight first-class mail, airmail, and third-class mail which failed to

conform to those standards. However, during the consideration of H.R. 7977 by

the Postal Rates Subcommittee of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee it became apparent that the matter should be given more study than was

possible during the Committee's deliberation on a general revision of postal rates.

The legislation which I am transmitting at this time would establish immediately the principle that mail of the classes discussed should be subject to higher

than normal minimum postage and would provide a means for establishing

appropriate standards.

Under the proposed legislation the Postmaster General would be authorized

and directed to conduct a comprehensive study of the handling of mail by mail

processing machinery and processes of automation and mechanization generally.

The Postmaster General's findings made as a result of the study and any regulations he might propose defining standard airmail and standard first-class mail

would be published in the Federal Register and subject to the requirements of

5 U.S.C. § 553. These regulations would not become effective until two years

after publication in the Federal Register and transmission to the Congress.

To implement any regulations proposed by the study the proposed legislation

would also add new section 4656 to title 39 of the United States Code, providing

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Washington, D.C., November 9, 1967.
3

an additional postage charge on each piece of nonstandard airmail or nonstandard

first-class mail weighing not more than two ounces.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this draft bill to the Congress from the standpoint of the Administration's

program.

Sincerely yours,

LAWRENCE F. O'BRIEN.

A BILL To fix additional postage charges for certain nonstandard mail

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, that Chapter 69 of title 39, United States Code,

is amended—

(1) by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

" § 4656. Nonstandard mail.

"(a) Each piece of nonstandard airmail or of nonstandard mail of the first

class, weighing not more than two ounces, is subject to an additional postage

charge of two cents a piece.

"(b) As used in this Section nonstandard mail means mail which does not

conform to all of the physical characteristics of standard mail as defined by the

Postmaster General in accordance with law."; and

(2) by adding to the table of contents thereof the following:

" § 4656. Nonstandard mail."

SEC. 2. (a) The Postmaster General is authorized and directed to conduct a

comprehensive study of the physical characteristics of mail handling in the Postal

Service, including among other matters—

(1) a review of present and anticipated mailing patterns which have or

may have an effect on present or future plans of the Post Office Department

for accelerated use of the processes of automation and mechanization in

connection with the handling of mail;

(2) a survey of the types of mail processing machinery currently in use in

order to determine (A) their capabilities, (B) their suitability to serve the

needs of the mailing public, and (C) their potential for improved efficiency

and greater adaptability to use in the processing of a broader range of mail

matter;

(3) a review of research and development programs, in the Federal Government and in private enterprise, which are directed toward, or may be utilized

in the development or improvement of machinery suitable for expeditious

and efficient mail processing, with particular reference and attention to the

potential for optimum use and performance of machinery in the processing

of mail matter of a variety of sizes, dimensions and other characteristics

sufficiently broad to serve the mailing needs of the general public;

(4) a review of the concept of establishing size and dimension limits and

other physical characteristics with respect to mail matter, in connection with

the processing thereof by automation and mechanization, as well as with the

delivery thereof, in order to determine whether and to what extent there are

practicable and reasonable size and dimension limits with respect to mail

which can and should be established in the public interest;

(5) the development and collection of comprehensive information and

evidence with respect to the impact of mail size and dimension limits on

(A) the users of the mails generally, (B) the various segments of business and

commerce

'

. and (C) postal operations; and

(6) the feasibility of adopting size and dimension limits and other physical

characteristics with respect to domestic mail matter consistent with those

which are in effect, or which have the status of executory propositions, under

the Convention of the Universal Postal Union.

(b) The Postmaster General shall publish in the Federal Register his findings

made as a result of the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section

and shall include therein proposed regulations defining standard airmail and

standard mail of the first class. Thereafter proceedings shall be had on such proposed regulations pursuant to Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, except

that standards prescribed pursuant to this section shall not become effective until

at least two years after the date the regulations in which they are set forth are

published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress by the Postmaster General.
4

Mr. OLSEN. It is a great pleasure to welcome you, gentlemen: Mr.

McMillan, Mr. Nicholson, Dr. Packer, Mr. May, and Mr. Riley.

Now, you may proceed in whatever order you wish.

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH W. NICHOLSON, ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUREAU OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. NICHOLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We welcome the interest of this committee in the subject of

standardization of mail. The Post Office is expected now to handle

some outlandish items such as this one recently mailed to the Postmaster General [indicating].

This is not a joke. This is the kind of material that the mailer says

he sends from time to time. In fact, this particular mailing was for

the purpose of thanking the Department for the good service that

had been given on previous mailings like this one.

Of course, we also get gadget-type mail and joke-type mail of all

sorts—but these "jokes" are really played on the taxpayer rather than

the Department. The extra cost of handling such mail simply increases

the deficit that everyone winds up paying.

Our purpose is not to bar such material from the mail—so long as

it is legally mailable—but rather to take steps so that "standard"

mailers pay standard postage rates, and mailers of expensive and hardto-handle pieces will be required to pay extra and not have their extra

costs saddled on other mailers or the taxpayers.

My purpose today is to give a general summary of the Department's

thinking on the subject and outline the means of arriving at solutions

to the problems involved. This will not be a technical discussion of the

problems themselves but rather a consideration of the procedures to

be followed in moving toward standardization.

Section 210 of Public Law 85-426, enacted May 27, 1958, reads in

part as follows:

INVESTIGATION AND STUDY BY POSTMASTER GENERAL OF DIMENSIONAL

CATEGORIES FOR FIRST- AND THIRD-CLASS MAIL ENVELOPES

SEC. 210. (a) The Postmaster General is authorized and directed to conduct a

thorough investigation and study of the feasibility and desirability of—

(1) the establishment, by regulation of the Postmaster General, of such

number of categories (but not less than two categories) of specified length

and width dimensions for envelopes to be used for the transmission of firstand third-class mail, as the Postmaster General may determine to be necessary or desirable to increase the efficient handling of the mail; and

(2) the establishment of an additional charge on any such mail transmitted in an envelope which does not conform in length and width to one of

such dimensional categories for envelopes.

Since passage of Public Law 85-426, the Department took a number

of steps, by regulations, including the establishment of minimum

sizes for letters, a maximum size and a minimum thickness for post

cards, and a number of other specific requirements.

Today, with mounting mail volume and consequent mail-processing

problems, the subject of standardization requires serious and prompt

attention.

The Department believes it should provide additional regulations

to promote standardization as directed by Public Law 85-426. How-
5

ever, we believe the establishment of additional charges as called for

in subparagraph (2) of section 210 is not a matter for departmental

action but rather requires legislation.

Our approach, therefore, involves a cooperative effort with the

Department establishing certain standards by regulation and the

Congress, if it agrees, providing for additional charges that may be

involved.

The discussion of standardization involves three areas:

1. Domestic letter mail.—An ever-increasing quantity of first-class

and airmail letters will be processed by machines. The cost of developing and purchasing machines capable of handling letters regardless

of size would obviously be far greater than if the machines are used

only to handle letters with more uniform characteristics. Our purpose

in the case of these letter mails, therefore, is to define "standard"

letters and to encourage usage of standard sizes by asking Congress

to provide a penalty in the form of additional postage for those users

who mail nonstandard sizes.

2. International letter mail.—The Universal Postal Union can be

expected to set international standards of size and shape at its next

congress, which will be in Tokyo in 1969. Although compliance with

international standards can be treated as a separate issue, I believe

we would be wise to consider what is taking place in the international

field during the consideration of standards for domestic mail.

3. Third-class bulk mail.—The use of the preferential bulk rate for

the distribution of samples has increased rapidly, particularly since

World War II. Other large- or odd-size pieces of bulk third-class mail

have appeared in increasing quantity, particularly since the elimination of a higher odd-size postage rate m 1962. In the case of these thirdclass mailings, the operating problem is centered in the delivery post

offices—not with mail-processing machinery. We must find ways to

rationalize the handling of these types of mailings if we are to maintain

and improve postal efficiency and avoid passing on to the public the

extra costs created by a relatively few mailers.

Our approach to solutions in each of these areas differs.

First, with respect to domestic first class and airmail:

I want to emphasize that here we are concerning ourselves only

with lightweight pieces—those pieces that weigh 2 ounces or less.

Our costs in handling letter mail are almost entirely piece related. The

cost of transportation for all letter mail is less than 4 percent of total

cost. In other words, it costs us almost as much to provide the collection, sorting, and delivery service for a 1-ounce letter as it does for a

5-ounce letter. As a result, the revenue we receive for 1- and 2-ounce

letters tends to be deficient and is certainly far less sufficient than

the revenue from a heavier piece. This relatively unfavorable costrevenue relationship on lightweight pieces is made still more unfavorable when the pieces involved do not lend themselves to ease of

handling and to machine handling. For those reasons we would propose assessing a premium charge in addition to the regular rate that

would apply to nonstandard first class and airmail weighing 2 ounces

or less.

Thus two steps are involved, the first by the Department, the second

by the Congress: (1) a definition of standard letters and (2) the assessment of a penalty postage rate to be charged on nonstandard letters

of 2 ounces or less.

86-745-67----2
6

The kind of comprehensive study we have in mind to arrive at a

definition of standard letter mail would include consideration of the

requirements of mailers, the characteristics of the manufacturing

industry involved in producing stationery and envelopes, the economics of purchase and operation of postal machinery, and the degree of

usage of various sizes at present.

We see such a study as requiring as much as a year's time, during

which period all interested parties would have an opportunity to

comment on the Department's tentative proposals at each step of

development. We visualize following the Administrative Procedure

Act throughout. At the conclusion of the process the Department

would promulgate the definition of standard mail. We propose the postage surcharges applicable to nonstandard mail would be effective 2

years followinc,the promulgation of standards. Thus the soonest such

surcharges could be effective is 3 years from now—and would apply

only to 1- and 2-ounce letters.

I believe such action is urgently necessary. Before we make the

ever more massive investments in mail-handling machinery required

by rapidly increasing mail volume, we should resolve this problem.

We are advised by some machine manufacturers that it is impossible

to develop a "universal" machine. But even assuming that machines

could be manufactured to handle all sizes and shapes of letters, the

cost of such machines would be prohibitive. Furthermore, even if

these excessively costly machines were developed, their speed of

operation and their reliability would be such that our hourly output

would be disadvantageous. We are now at the point of investing at a

far more rapid pace in all types of equipment. Obviously stepped-up

investments should be applied so as to produce the best possible

productive rate. This optimum return depends on designing machines

for some reasonable standard for the mail to be handled.

We have the draft legislation the chairman referred to which has

been entered in the record that provides for the setting of standards—

after study and consultation—by the Department and that sets

penalty postage rates for lightweight letters.

Just a word or two about the international mail situation. International mail is increasingly important in this interconnected world.

But domestic letters outnumber international letters by about 60 to 1.

I would not propose that 60 domestic customers of the post office be

required to use a certain size or type of envelope solely because the

one customer who mails abroad is held to a certain standard. However,

if the international and domestic standards could be conformed, the

merging of the two would provide useful simplification for the benefit

of both the public and the Department. I believe our purpose should

be, first, to analyze the domestic requirements in the way I outlined

earlier and then to check the domestic characteristics against the

pending international characteristics. If the two are close together,

there may be some opportunity of joining them in a single standard.

Finally, in the case of third-class bulk mail: The preferential bulk

rate was originally established because it was thought that mailers

with 200 or more identical pieces could so prepare their mail as to

relieve the postal system of part of the normal costs of processing.

This is generally the case today, although the qualifying minimum of

200 pieces no longer seems quite adequate in view of the growing

machine capability for reading addresses and sorting mail.
7

Thanks also to the ZIP code-sectional center program and the

excellent cooperation of mailers in the presort program, much of the

total quantity of bulk-rate, third-class mail bypasses the post office

of origin.

The economics of handling odd-size pieces of bulk mail—particularly samples—are seriously unfavorable at the delivery end.

The problem of casing the mail for delivery and the problem of

delivery itself is overwhelming our delivery service. I believe you

have only to look at the situation to appreciate the seriousness

of this problem.

I have a number of photographs made last week in Philadelphia

that show one sample mailing. The samples come in the cardboard

carton you see at the waist of the distributor, and this is a secondary

distribution point. The carton comes addressed to a five-digit ZIP

code which brings it to a carrier station, but each carrier station

has separate delivery routes. In this picture the distributor is taking

the samples out of the carton and sorting them by delivery routes.

Mr. OLSEN. These are to be delivered to household addresses rather

than names?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I don't know if these are addressed to names

or are occupant mail. It is quite probable that it is occupant mail.

However, each is specifically addressed to a specific household. It

would read "Occupant, 123 Elm Street, Philadelphia, Pa."

The next photograph is a longer view of this sorting process at the

secondary distribution point. Although the samples come in cartons,

by the time the distributor has begun to break out the pieces from the

carton and distribute them, his ledge becomes overfilled with pieces

and in this case they are spilling out on the floor.

Mr. OLSEN. Why do they spill out on the floor? Don't we have

enough bins?

Mr. NICHOLSON. The ledge, as you see, is quite full of cartons.

Mr. OLSEN. Or is he just doing that for photography? I mean that.

I am really serious, because if it was me I would leave them in the

cartons until I had room on the shelves. I think that is photography,

don't you?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It might be, although the housekeeping in the

secondary stations is very difficult to maintain because of the nature

of the materials.

When the bins fill up he sweeps the bins.

Mr. OLSEN. That is the third picture.

Mr. NICHOLSON. As the material for carrier route No. 12 fills up,

he pulls it out and moves it to the carriers' own distribution point.

The next photograph shows the carrier who has worked the mail,

mainly on his ledge, because as you can see over his left shoulder the

spaces for the carrier route are relatively narrow slots to sequence

the mail and the samples do not fit in them so he has to sequence them

and strap them and then he puts them, in sacks. These sacks are then

trucked out to the relay boxes along the carrier's route and as he

empties the sacks the first time he goes to the relay box to get additional samples. Even though they are strapped in sequence they break

apart and give him trouble.

I think this gives you some idea of what happens when very large

quantities of this material hit the post office for delivery.
8

Obviously this situation is not a joke to postal employees nor a

joke to be played on the taxpayers. It is our purpose to issue changed

regulations that prescribe conditions for mailing at bulk third-class

rates in order to assure that this mail can be tied out with other mails

in bundles for convenient handling. Thus mail that cannot be tied

out in bundles or merged with other mail in bundles would be subject

to the single-piece rate, which will be 6 cents for the first 2 ounces if

pending legislation is enacted.

Mr. Nix. What do you mean by "mail that cannot be tied out in

bundles or merged with other mail in bundles"?

Mr. NICHOLSON. In order for him to have all the mail for one address he needs to put the letters and magazines and samples all in

sequence for that address with a string or rubberband or strap of

some kind around it. Obviously, a 2- by 2- by 4-inch carton cannot

be merged with these other mailings. When he goes to the house he

must give first the letter mail that is sequenced together, and then

go and get the other mail for that same address.

Mr. OLSEN. That is not the way they delivered the toothpaste in

our neighborhood about a month ago. They had a second mailman

who delivered the Super Brite. It is very good toothpaste, by the way.

I am using the sample.

Mr. NICHOLSON. A separate trip for that delivery, though, means

utilizing another carrier.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Does it also include church envelopes?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I don't know how bulky church envelopes are.

Mr. OLSEN. My church envelopes are a little longer than that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They go third class.

Mr. OLSEN. Don't these samples go third class?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You are talking about samples, but there are

other things, like church envelopes, that go through the mails that

are this size.

Mr. OLSEN. Church envelopes are individually- addressed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is true, but that would make no difference

in the problem.

Mr. OLSEN. I think the problem would be the bulk. I think the

Methodist envelopes would come to the neighborhood on a different

day, whereas these samples come on the same day. Church envelopes

are so well spread out they don't cause this problem, is that right?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It would be a more irregular sequence of mailing

in the case of church envelopes, I would say.

Mr. OLSEN. They would not go to all households?

Mr. NICHOLSON. That is right.

Mr. Nix. The chairman does not know about the Baptist Church

mailings. They go to all.

Mr. NICHOLSON. This particular mailing was the mailing of a

deodorant, Mr. Cunningham. It would be our purpose that samples or

large-size pieces or envelopes of nonuniform thickness would thus be

excluded from the bulk mail and instead would pay a rate that probably

more nearly covers the extra costs imposed on the Department by

such pieces.

Any such regulations would be processed so as to provide full

opportunity for public comment; that is, the proposal would be
9

published in the Federal Register and all interested parties would have

an appropriate opportunity to present data, views, and arguments.

In the event that the committee has any question that the Department presently has authority to promulgate such regulations, or that

this authority should be clarified in order to remove any doubts, then

this committee may wish to consider legislation in this area as well.

Mr. OLSEN. On this subject, if I might interrupt you, I think

people who send out samples to a particular neighborhood send them

through the Post Office Department because of the reliability of

delivery, but it is more expensive than to send them by private carriers.

It is the reliability- of the Post Office Department that they lean upon

and I wondered if, instead of having such a thing as the occupant

and the address, if we could short circuit this proposition and hire

an extra carrier who would be required to deliver to every household

without address so the samples would not have to be tied up. We

would thus save the mailer some costs and save the Department some

costs but still give the mailer the reliability of the postal system, with

the mailer paying the whole cost but with some sort of cutting the

cost for both the mailer and the Department.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I do not think that the cost of delivering by the

postal service is more expensive than private delivery. I think just the

contrary may be true, although I don't know this for sure.

For 2% cents currently- the mailer of a sample may ship close to 3

ounces. I doubt if any private delivery service could deliver for 3 cents

a 3-ounce parcel, door to door; however, if a separate service for

samples were provided and the cost of that service were known, it

could be that we could price it out on a favorable basis. Perhaps

Mr. McMillan would want to comment.

The problem of finding a specific street number to which to deliver

a parcel is indeed part of the cost that we now find imposed on us.

There could very well be a lower-cost means for the Post Office

Department to handle the same material and I think this is one of the

kinds of technical or financial or cost-revenue questions that you will

want to go into when you get into the technical part of the hearings;

yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. I can see, too, it would be an administrative matter.

It would be one thing in one area and a different problem in another.

However, we ought to be able to price it out at a cheaper rate if you

didn't have to seek out the specific address. If you just gave a good

postal guarantee of delivery to households in that section, I would

think it would facilitate things for us, too.

I would like to hear from Mr. McMillan if he has any comment.

Mr. MCMILLAN. If you are talking about what we call a simplified

address, it would relieve some of the problems, Mr. Chairman, but I

think a separate carrier to deliver the samples would be an intolerable

situation, because you never know when they are going to hit. You

may get three in 1 day and you might not get more for 3 weeks. You

would have a difficult time personnelwise to provide a man to make the

delivery.

Some of these mailings are what we call saturated mailings. In

other words, most everyone in the block will get one.

Mr. OLSEN. You could require notice though? These mailers could

probably cooperate with you.
10

Mr. MCMILLAN. We are attempting to get that now. However, I

don't think it would solve the problem personnelwise.

Mr. UDALL. A typical sample mailer doesn't much care whether I

get my sample deodorant this Tuesday, next Tuesday, or next Friday,

so long as I get it.

Why couldn't you consider, particularly in the big city areas,

having a run once or twice a week or once every 2 weeks? Let the

mailers know that on the second and fourth Tuesdays of every month

this special run will be made. Then you could saturate the area with

everything that has accumulated in those 7 days.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Of course, under our present regulations we give

all mailers, regardless of type of mail matter, the same type of service

for the fee they have paid. These people do pay the bulk-rate fee the

same as the mailer of your so-called advertising matter.

Under our present policy they are entitled to the same service.

Your big problem, Mr. Udall, I think would be that in some cases

you have saturated mailings and in others you have particular samples

that go to just certain people scattered all over town. I think it would

be most difficult to provide separate carriers. Incidentally, this is

very expensive. We don't allow this when we know it is being done,

not even during Christmas. We don't have two carriers covering

the same territory. We may have six carriers on the route but wherever

they deliver they deliver everything for that day. We find this is

much more economical than the old manner of having one carrier

following another one as we used to do it.

Mr. Nix. I want to say I am interested in increased employment

in the Post Office. In the event that you farm it out, certainly it

would reduce the number of possible employees to do this kind of work,

wouldn't it?

Mr. MCMILLAN. That is correct.

Of course, it depends on the day of the week, but some of this could

be absorbed. On our motorized routes, particularly, we give the

carrier actual time. We have standards for casing mail, but on samples

where you have a saturated sample mailing, we give him actual time

and we find this invariably involves overtime on the day these samples

are being handled.

Mr. OLSEN. Today, on the route I live on, we have two mailmen.

One is motorized and the other is walking. I don't know just how

they split the mail, but they are both there and they are doing a good

job, I must say. Perhaps we are on so many sucker lists that we have

to have two mailings.

In any event, we do have two mailmen coming through our route

every day. This is where I got the idea plus the fact that one of the

neighborhood young men works in the Friendship Station and he

observed that when there was extraordinary bulk mail, bulk third-class

mail, that they did hire extra carriers and that they had notice. They

knew when to call extra carriers.

I thought inasmuch as these are extraordinary carriers—they are

not every-day carriers—they are called out on notice, and the Post

Office gets notice of the fact that the mail is coming and I thought this

sort of thing could be worked out.

Mr. MCMILLAN. You have a motorized carrier every day? I would

assume this is your parcel-post carrier, Mr. Chairman.
11

Where you have a foot carrier, of course, your parcel post has to be

delivered by truck or by vehicle.

Mr. OLSEN. Our foot carrier had the vehicle himself until about

2 months ago, and for more than 2 months now he has been walking

and there has been a motorized carrier with him. Until about 2 or 3

months ago, he was all alone and he had his own vehicle. He had one

of these two-wheelers. Now he is walking and there is a motorized

carrier also.

You are probably right. You know more about it than I do, but

there are two of them there. There was a day when we had our regular

carrier and we had someone delivering samples also, and I am telling

you the gospel; he delivered them by throwing them at the door. I

thought maybe it was the ordinary procedure.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I am surprised we didn't get some complaints

on that.

Mr. OLSEN. That is how we got that toothpaste.

Mr. NICHOLSON. As the chairman and members of this committee

are particularly well aware as a result of the recent extensive hearings

on rate increases, the special ways that different mailers use the mail

are frequently injected into discussions as justification for relief from

rate increases. Partly as a result of consideration for those mailers who

do help to save cost in the postal system, rates, generally speaking,

are raised quite prudently. I believe the Department has the responsibility of looking on the other side of the same coin. I believe we should

identify those types of mail that cause disproportionate costs and ask

the mailers of these types of materials to pay more in proportion to

the costs that they create. Only by so doing can we avoid charging

all mailers more when only a few mailers contribute disproportionately

to the raising of the average costs.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we feel the Department should immediately initiate a study leading to the definition of standard letter

mail and that Congress should now establish penalty postage rates

for nonstandard letter mail with the effective date for such penalties

to be 2 years after completion of the Department's study.

At the same time, the Department will begin the development of

proposed regulations for third-class bulk mail so as to establish needed

standardization in that class.

Mr. Nix. May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman? What is the

magic in this 2-year period?

Mr. NICHOLSON. There is no particular magic about 2 years. That

does seem to be an adequate time for mailers to use up stocks and

material they have that would be nonstandard under the proposed

regulations or definitions of standards. It gives the manufacturers of

such material time to adjust their manufacturing processes. It could

be a shorter period, perhaps, but 2 years seems to be a generous

period in which to get ready for new standards.

Users of the mail and all interested persons will be given full

opportunity to participate in the development of the standards in

first class and airmail on the one hand and in third class on the other.

A resolution of these problems is clearly in the best interest of the

users of the mail who would be charged more equitably for the services

they require; the Postal Establishment that now is striving to maintain

and improve service in the face of mounting mail volumes; all Americans who by means of higher postal rates or by taxes pay for needed
12

postal buildings and equipment and whose payments will be less if we

can provide a reasonable degree of standardization.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be glad to answer any questions

you may have.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson.

We have a statement by Postmaster General O'Brien before the

Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee and it is an excerpt on

nonmachinable mail. It is before all the members and I ask unanimous

consent that at this point in the record it be included.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF POSTMASTER GENERAL O'BRIEN, BEFORE SENATE POST OFFICE

AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE—EXCERPT ON NONMACHINABLE MAIL

My keenest disappointment stems from the omission of all references to surcharges for mail of hard-to-handle sizes and shapes. It is the will of the House that

this subject be explored more fully before standards or surcharges become effective.

Accordingly, in the very near future the Department will have ready for submission to the Congress a new legislative proposal on this matter. We will recommend that the Congress set surcharges for light-weight pieces of first-class and airmail that cannot be processed readily by postal machinery and that the Department be directed to conduct a comprehensive study to determine the size

standards on which the surcharge should be based. The surcharge would not

become effective until two years after the size standards developed as a result of

the Department's study have been published in the Federal Register. The mailing

public would be given ample opportunity to comment on the size standards

proposed by the Department before they are published in the Register.

We will not propose surcharges for third-class mail. However, I am taking this

opportunity to advise the Congress and mailers of our intention to issue regulations

governing pieces of odd size and shape. Our aim is to exclude from bulk mail all

pieces that cannot be tied into bundles by letter carriers in the normal manner.

These regulations will be issued, initially, as proposals with adequate opportunity

for mailers to react and to adjust to final decisions.

Mr. OLSE,N. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr.

Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I came this morning to listen and to tryto learn. I think this is very helpful. I want to commend you and advise my colleagues and those present who already know it, that you

are a man of your word.

When we ran into this great difficulty on non-standard-size mail in

the course of the postal rate hearings, we said that we would have

separate hearings to pursue this matter further and try to come up

with some answers.

I think the opening statement you made this morning in the conduct,

of these hearings is a really important and constructive step and I am

very happy to participate.

This is far better than the idea of the commission we had in the bill

we took up. We have a pretty good commission here in the members

of this subcommittee. In the pending rate legislation we should have

some time within the next year to come up with some answers.

I am impressed with the statement made this morning by the

administration witnesses and I will be interested to hear what the

users of the mail have to say. There may be some gaps in your program.

I am sure the chairman intends to have the users of the mails present

their case and comment or disagree with the proposals that have been

made here.
13

I certainly think that, sad as it may be in this complicated world,

we have to begin to standardize things, particularly the mail.

I used the example in the rate hearings with the airlines—I got on

a plane yesterday coming back from Arizona and across the aisle was

a 6-year-old boy who had exactly the same amount of legroom that

I had. I suppose I could argue that each jet ought to be equipped with

some seats for people my size and some seats for ladies who are 4 feet

8. But in order to get the job done, we have to standardize and I have

to suffer a little bit. I think we are going to have to get to some kind

of standardization in mail.

The Department proposals may not be the final ones, but I consider

them a very constructive beginning.

You suggest on page 6 the possibility of simply meeting these oddsize pieces, or sample-size pieces, as not being subject to bulk handling

and bulk mailing procedures, and, therefore, treating them as single

piece, third class, charging the single-piece rate.

To what extent would you carry this suggestion forward? Is this a

way out?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I believe it is, Mr. Udall.

Prior to 1962 there was a provision in the rate structure for a higher

charge for odd-size pieces. The definition of those odd-size pieces is as

follows: Let me read, if I may, all of 4452, subparagraph (c) of 39

U.S.C. prior to 1962:

The minimum postage rates on pieces or packages of third class mail of such

size or form as prevent ready facing and tying in bundles and requiring individual

distribution is 3.5 cents.

At that time the bulk rate was 2.5 cents. However, if the piece was

of such size or form as to prevent ready facing and tying in bundles,

the rate was a penny higher, or 3.5 cents.

I cannot assert this with official validity because it is not mentioned

in the report accompanying the 1962 legislation, but that special

higher rate was dropped in 1962 and I believe at least in part it was

because the Congress felt that the Department could, by definition,

indicate those pieces of mail that were eligible for the bulk rate and

those that were eligible should all get the same rate; and, if the piece

was not eligible for the bulk rate, it should not be classed as bulk

mail and not be eligible for any bulk rate.

Mr. UDALL. The whole justification of the bulk rate is that the mailer

does most of the processing and puts it in a condition that the Department can handle it with a lot less effort than it could handle some other

kind of mail.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. UDALL. This doesn't apply to the samples that have to be tied

with straps and handled entirely separately from the regular mail?

Mr. NICHOLSON. You may recall too, Mr. Udall, that during the

discussions in connection with the now pending rate bill that one of

the problems was the system of extra charges that we were proposing

was going to cause unequal treatment of similar mailings, depending

upon the intent behind that mailing. For example, a piece of merchandise offered for sale would not be caught by a premium charge

that we were proposing whereas the same identical piece of merchandise, if distributed as a sample, would be subject to a penalty.

So we did run into some difficulties and there were some very valid

points that members of this subcommittee raised at that time.
14

We believed that some much simpler approach had to be found in

order to get around such inconsistencies and that is why we now

propose that the definition of third-class mail be arrived at, and things

that do not fit that definition would not be eligible for the bulk rate

but instead would go at the single-piece rate, which is proposed at

6 cents.

Mr. UDALL. In the sheet you have for standard-size envelopes, there

is a gray area and if the top of an envelope fits in there then it is a

standard size. It has seemed to me—and I expressed this during the

rate hearings—that rather than allowing 100 different-sized envelopes

to fit the personalities and desires of the particular mailers that

eventually if we are going to use machine processing in the mail we

will have to have a limitation on the number of allowable envelope

sizes.

Is it still your feeling that you would proceed as outlined there and

have any amount of variety in the size and shape of envelopes? Or do

you feel eventually we are going to have to go to a few standard sizes,

as I understand they are doing in other countries?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I don't believe the slavish sticking to a certain

size is so important inasmuch as the overall aspect of the piece and the

relation of length to width be controlled.

For example, we get envelopes such as these [indicating]. These

are envelopes sent out with third-class mail. They are business-return

envelopes so the recipient of that third-class mail, if he takes action,

would use one of these envelopes. These envelopes are pretty hard to

handle, along with other types of mail.

Here is one, for example, that is square. It is very difficult to get

that oriented so that the address is the correct way, either for a

machine to read or for the carrier to handle in sorting.

Some of these seem to be unnecessarily large for the purpose intended. So it is our feeling that when these pieces of mail, which would

be lightweight—less than 2 ounces—would be dropped in a collection box, they would have to be processed along with all the general

mail that we get in the connection and facing and sorting processes.

These envelopes, when they pay only 5 cents basic rate of postage,

these cause costs not covered by that postage. So these lightweight

pieces should, we think, have an additional postage assessed against

them.

Mr. OLSEN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska for 10 minutes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am just wondering—as I have wondered all

through the previous rate hearings—why you don't mention the newspapers and magazines, the second-class mail.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. The flats, which is the way newspapers

and magazines usually have to be handled, are difficult to handle.

Since all of the materials in those classes tend to be the same, the basic

postage rate should be such as to be compensatory in that class.

It is not a matter of having some of that material that is easy to

handle and some that is hard to handle.

In the case of second class, I think I would have to say that it is all

hard to handle and that the rate for the class as a whole should be set

so as to take into account both postal costs and public interest involved.

Mr. OLSEN. I want to interrupt you at this particular point. A

weekly newspaper publisher in my county was in Helena a few days
15

ago and found the Wall Street Journal was being delivered in Helena

the day following its publication in New York, whereas his newspaper

from Townsend, 35 miles away, took 2 days to get to Helena, and that

his Wall Street Journal didn't get to Townsend until the third day after

publication.

Now, that is quite unrelated to Mr. Cunningham's question but I

think it demonstrates the fact that what we call flats and what they

call over in England packets, that they do present a problem that

should be looked into in these hearings and we ought to be talking

about the problem of the cost of moving this kind of material.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I approve of the statement the chairman made,

and I want to be helpful, but I want to see that all classes are considered.

You made no reference whatsoever to second class, nor has the

Postmaster General in his statement before the Senate. He says, "My

keenest disappointment stems from the omission of all references to

surcharges for mail in hard-to-handle sizes and shapes."

I tried to put some surcharges on second-class mail, but was not

successful. I got no reception from the Post Office.

When you come back for further discussion on standardization, we

certainly want to discuss second class, also.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. I would say the whole of second class is

hard to handle.

Mr. OLSEN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey

for 10 minutes.

Mr. DANIELS. At the outset, Mr. Nicholson, I want to apologize

for not being present when you presented your testimony. I want to

assure you my absence was not due to a lack of interest in what you

have to say, but it was due to the fact that I had to attend a caucus

of the Education and Labor Committee, which has a very important

bill on the floor of the House today.

This committee, about a year ago, made a trip to Europe and I

recall visiting the Office of the Universal Postal Union. I left there

with the impression that they were endeavoring at that time to

establish minimum standards of size. Am I correct in that impression,

and, if so, what was done and what is your Department doing along

that line?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes. For some years the Universal Postal Union,

Mr. Daniels, has been coping with this problem of nonstandard mail

in the international service. A working party of the UPU has developed

a proposed set of standards and this set of standards has also been

coordinated with the International Standards Organization—ISO—

and is in the process of becoming an international set of standards.

The proposed UPU dimensions are these:

The minimum size would be 3.5 inches by 5.5 inches and the

maximum size would be 4.72 inches by 9.25 inches.

Now, the proposed UPU minimum is larger than our present

domestic minimum, by which I mean it is more restrictive, more

limiting than the present standards that we allow on the minimum

side.

The width of the present U.S. minimum is 3.0 inches as contrasted

with the UPU 3.5, and our present length is 4.25 inches as contrasted

with the international length of 5.5 inches.
16

Mr. DANIELS. In the event UPU adopts the minimum standard of'

3.5 by 5.5, would it not be advisable for our Post Office Department to

adopt a similar standard so that the mail would be uniform? When we

refer to the word "uniform," we really want that word to mean what

it says.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. Our present minimum was set administratively and in the setting of a minimum there is less of a problem than

the setting of a maximum, because the fact that the material contained

is of a certain size does not prevent the mailer from putting it in a

slightly larger envelope.

There has been little difficulty about the standard in the minimum

size. It is the maximum that does seem to cause some trouble.

Mr. DANIELS. You use the word "proposed." Is it really proposed,

or have they actually adopted some minimum standards as of this.

date?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It has been adopted tentatively at various levels.

First, a working party has adopted it and I believe various meetings

of the Executive Council of the UPU have approved it. However, it

does not become binding on the member nations of the UPU until a

congress of the UPU adopts it.

Mr. DANIELS. In your statement you say, "The next congress

proposes to meet in Tokyo in 1969." Is that the congress that you

have reference to?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. I believe it is almost certain that the

congress at Tokyo in 1969 will adopt the proposed UPU standards to

become effective 3 years subsequent to the adoption in 1969.

Mr. DANIELS Do you think it advisable for members of this committee to attend that conference in Tokyo in 1969?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I think it is always well for Members of Congress to

pay close attention to what is going on in postal service throughout

the world.

Mr. DANIELS So you do approve of so-called junkets?

Mr. NICHOLSON. No, I don't approve of junkets, but I don't believe

this would be a junket.

Mr. DANIELS. A working trip?

Mr. NICHOLSON. A working trip, yes.

Mr. OLSEN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,

Mr. Nix for 10 minutes.

Mr. 1\1Ix. We have had a mounting volume of mail and processingproblems for a long time in the Post Office. I just don't understand

why it took so long for this particular mail problem to come before

the committee.

Mr. NICHOLSON. For many years, Mr. Nix, the Department was in

the process of developing an approach to mechanization. Until the

machine capability and the economics of the machines with given

capabilities were known, and proven through development and application, it was not clear exactly what the machine limitations were, or

what the machine requirements were in this area of standardization.

But now not only in this country, but throughout the world, machines

have reached the kind of stage of development that indicates the time

is now here when the raw material for processing by those machines

should be susceptible to some definition.
17

Mr. Nix. What I mean is that this category or type of mail certainly must have been a disruptive influence in the mail handling for

a long time.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I misunderstood the thrust of your question. I

answered in terms of letter mails, but in terms of samples, at the

present time, machines are not involved in the process. However, the

time, we believe, is coming, when machines will also be used at the

delivery end of our mail system so that, in the not too distant future, I

am sure the kinds of bulk mails of which samples are now a part

would be handled by machines and I think, therefore, we do have to

take a look at the problem of samples and decide whether they are

•correctly entered as bulk third-class mail or whether they should be

entered at some other point in the postal system.

Mr. Nix. These samples are being sent through the mails in everincreasing volume. I believe they are a disruptive influence in the

handling of the mail—causing additional work, for additional men,

and requiring additional handling. I wondered why the question has

not been raised before.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Only because usage had not peaked until relatively

recent years.

I think it has been the attractiveness of the low rate and the introduction of many new products that lend themselves to this marketing

procedure. It has only been in recent years that suddenly we have

been inundated with this kind of material. When only a few million

such pieces were in the mail in a given year, the problem was not

acute, but now we have hundreds of millions of pieces because of the

increased usage and it is the increased usage, I think, that has brought

it to a crisis stage.

Mr. Nix. I feel the legislation is necessary; the costs are higher and

it is a subject of proper consideration for this committee's action. I

must say, however, that I don't believe the deliveries should be

farmed out because I reiterate my belief that if it is farmed out the

number of postal employees required to handle it—the people hired

by the Post Office Department—will be deprived of that employment. I wouldn't like to see that at all.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I believe the earlier suggestion that a special

carrier deliver it, that carrier would be a postal employee, as I understood the discussion that took place. Of course, with the productive

pay rates for carriers now at just about 7 cents a minute, that works

out to about 8 seconds for a penny and, when we are now getting 2%

for some of these samples-2% cents, that buys something like 24

seconds of time—and assuming all of that payment were available

just for the carrier and none of it was needed for transportation.or

the share of the cost for equipment or the mailbags used in processing

it, I don't think it is practicable to assume that any employee, whether

he be postal or other, be allowed just 24 seconds in which to do all

the handling and to make the door-to-door delivery of that kind of

material.

I think the rate is basically deficient.

Mr. Nix. There is one last thing with which I am concerned. It

is a matter of deep regret to me to see my postman burdened down

with these large bags necessary for delivering these samples. What

,other methods have you devised for such delivery?
18

Mr. NICHOLSON. The carrier at any one time carries 35 pounds

maximum in his satchel on his back, but when this bulky material—

and some of it is also heavy—exceeds 35 pounds, the only alternative

is to put it in sacks such as you see in the photographs, put it in

trucks, take it out and store it in relay boxes along the carrier's route.

So, after he has delivered the first 35 pounds, he picks up another

35 pounds and goes on and delivers that.

Mr. Nix. He could have as many as 35 trips?

Mr. NICHOLSON. He could have many trips back and forth to his

relay boxes; yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. I wanted to address some discussion to the splendid

letter I had from Mr. Russell, of Albany. I am going to pass it among

the members with the understanding that I am asking unanimous

consent to have it inserted in the record at this point. Of course, Mr.

Russell could be addressing his remarks to any class of mail in his

letter, but he sent me a chart and I ask unanimous consent that this

chart be included in the record, too, at this point, and without objection it is so ordered.

(The documents referred to follow:)

RUSSELL DISTRIBUTING CO.,

Albany, N.Y., November 7, 1967.

Hon. ARNOLD OLSEN,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR ARNOLD: I am most grateful for your bulletin on the standardization

hearing beginning on November 13th.

We are interested in the possible effect of restrictive regulations affecting

quarter-folded tabloid circulars which are prepared in carrier route and in the

order of exact travel.

Since mail of this type never requires sorting, it must be evident that it never

requires mechanization and I would appreciate an opportunity to testify to this

fact on behalf of my particular phase of the industry.

With appreciation for your many considerations and warmest regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

HOWARD W. RUSSELL,

RUSSELL DISTRIBUTING CO.
ALL POPULAR SIZES FALLING IN SMOOTH, SHADED AREA SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SURCHARGE

**0 ,:ffifeR „`•:`

Alke„14 four — TAVV15051.5511111. ••••,•:5 ,

ii

if tine /fop gii'f,.licAici «)rn, i

, 4.1, Cg

it within Frii&: haded spere i

i is a 's •jo n ,, si

Miniinurn size 3 inchr,s X 41/4inches ,

if the moiling piece does

not extend past in,t1-1 of

these tines it is non,-mttilabie

Place corner here and bottom , s • cc on this li / ne ,

thickness criteria [not mere than ,4 inch and uniform thicknessl

cf.)
20

Mr. OLSEN. Now, these envelopes are used for first-class mail by

Members of Congress. I am sure this same size envelope is very

popular in all Government offices. They seem to be standard sizes put

out by the Government Printing Office.

I ask you to address yourselves to the sizes of those envelopes.

Which ones would be qualified for the standard rate, the new standard

rate of 6 cents an ounce, and which ones would pay a surcharge?

Mr. NICHOLSON. There are two aspects involved here, Mr. Chairman. One is we have not yet gotten to the technical point of determining what maximum sizes would be allowed. In the earlier legislation,

H.R. 7977, we did propose specific dimensional characteristics.

However, I would assume at this point all of that is subject to rethinking so we do not, as we sit here, have a specific length and width in

mind so, therefore, I cannot say any one of these would or would not

be mailable under maximum dimensions at which we haven't yet

arrived.

Our second point is that our proposal would be that only those

pieces weighing 2 ounces or less would be subject to a standard.

Mr. OLSEN. We can very well agree to that. That is your thinking

for the future, isn't it, that you would be discussing a surcharge for

an envelope, less than 2 ounces, and less than a certain thickness?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir; there would be a thickness requirement.

Mr. OLSEN. I think that chart before you which Mr. Russell

sent down refers to your earlier recommendation.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. There on that chart you have the minimum at 3 inches

by 434. That was your earlier recommendation, was it not?

Mr NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. That is the current standard.

Mr. OLSEN. The Universal Postal Union is 3.5 by 5.5. In your

response to Mr. Daniels you thought perhaps it would be a good idea

if you started with that kind of a minimum that would be uniform

throughout the world.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I do; yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. When we get to the other sizes, I only wanted to point

out that the largest size you have was correct for that size letter, or

enclosure, but that you should have allowed some additional space.

What is your largest size there?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It is no longer necessarily our largest size.

Mr. OLSEN. I mean on the chart there, that was your earlier

proposal.

Mr. NICHOLSON. It is 5% by 11%.

Mr. OLSEN. I just wanted to have this understanding that your

Department is giving attention to the business standard of what they

want to put in the envelope and then build an envelope for the

material.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I would like to emphasize, reemphasize, and

emphasize again, if I may, that we are only talking about those

pieces that are 2 ounces or less.

If a person uses a large envelope this size [indicating].

Mr. OLSEN. What is that size for the record?

Mr. NICHOLSON. This size is approximately 10 inches by 14 inches.

If this size is used, it is because there is a quantity of material to be

scontained within it. As soon as a quantity of material is put in, it is

'going to weigh 3 ounces or more.

Mr. OLSEN. In any event, it ought to pay a 2-ounce rate or more?
2t

Mr. NICHOLSON. Our proposal would be a nonstandard 1- or 2-ounce

piece pay 2 cents more than regular postage.

However, once we get 18 cents, as will be the ease for a 3-ounce

letter, we are we feel, properly compensated for our work. But if

this large envelope held a single sheet of paper that could conveniently

be folded, it seems to us to be wrong to expect us to handle this for

5 cents when we could also handle this size for 5 cents. This size isabout 3 by 6.

Mr. OLSEN. I am very much in agreement with you.

Mr. NICHOLSON. We would not intend to put a surcharge on all

large envelopes simply because of the size. It is only because they

are lightweight and pay too little postage.

For example, here is a third-class envelope that is about square,

perhaps 12 inches square, and I believe it is unnecessarily large for

the material contained within it. It is used to get attention. It is used

for some special purpose and if it has those values that caused the

mailer to seek such a shape—and in this case the color is black, to be

attention-getting—it seems to me then he could also pay a little

extra in postage as part of the cost of getting these extra values that

he was seeking.

Mr. OLSEN. I think the committee is substantially in agreement

with you. What we would want to encourage is that you make some

proposal for the purpose of our hearings. We are not going to do

this as a flash in the pan. I must say it is my intention to talk with

the members of the committee and see if I can't have many cosponsors to support the plan of the Postmaster General so we will

have given notice to the public as to what they have to argue on,

what they have to shoot at.

I would like to have the same thing done in first-class mail.

Mr. Cunningham would like to hear what you have to say about

second class. I think it would be fair that we do that. We are going

to be here until the 15th of December and I think that we ought

to have more hearings; because of your discussion this morning

about third class, I anticipate inviting people in the third-class

category to come in and discuss what you have said this morning.

I would like you folks to do the same thing with first and with second

so that the whole subject is discussed, and then next year we will

have substantially the same committee here next year and perhaps

we could write some legislation.

I say this really harmoniously. I think the committee wants to

cooperate with the problems of the Post Office Department and we

want to air them. As Mr. Udall said, instead of having a private

commission, this committee can be a commission and can help you

resolve some of these problems.

Would you address yourself to the fact of whether or not you could

come forth with some recommendations on first and second class?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir. We have tried to be as explicit as we

could in setting up the procedure for processing the informational

side of this. We are not at the present time in a position to propose

the maximum sizes for letter mail because we have not undertaken

the study that we feel should be undertaken.

There are several factors involved. One, of course, is the economics

and the operational character of the machinery. The machines themselves will operate best with a given maximum size in a given length

and width ratio.
22

In addition to that set of problems, however, which has not yet been

fully studied 

Mr. OLSEN. If I may interrupt you, on the question of first-class

mail standardization because first-class mail has to be machined, it

seems to me there is the more important problem of standardization

than any other. I would encourage you to tell us what are the limits

of the machinery, because I think when we get beyond the limits of

the machinery there ought to be some different charge.

Mr. NICHOLSON. One aspect of the problem is to determine the

economics and operating characteristics of the machinery. Another,

of course, is to understand and evaluate the current practices of our

customers, the mailers. We would not want arbitrarily to set a standard

that deprived the mailers of some need or the opportunity to satisfy

some need through different sizes. •

Mr. OLSEN. We are not going to censor the mail. We are simply

going to set rates. It would not deny them the privilege of using oddsized envelopes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Darby from the GeorgiaPacific Co., showed envelopes of various sizes and shapes, but what is

more, the window in the envelope could be anywhere and everywhere.

I think we ought to address ourselves to that, too. Even more so, I do

not know how you can figure out a machine that would handle all the

kinds of windows that were in the shapes brought by Mr. Darby, and

he does not, either. He simply says the Post Office Department has to

help him tell the mailer that they have to order a different kind of

envelope.

Mr. NICHOLSON. The windows pick up air and make the envelope

balloon so it does not travel accurately. It jams up in this materialshandling equipment, the canceler, and so on. Dr. Packer, of course, is

closest to the operating characteristics of the machines, and perhaps

he would have something to add along that line at this point, Mr.

Chairman.

Dr. PACKER. I would like to say at the beginning, Mr. Chairman,

that as an engineer I am greatly encouraged to see the subcommittee

take its objective position with respect to the question of standardization. There is no question in my mind that reasonable standardization is an absolutely necessary part of mechanization and that you

cannot say you are for mechanization, and increased efficiency of postal

mail handling, and then say you are against any standardization,

because they are incompatible positions.

The basic question is how much is needed and what desirable and

necessary compromises have to be made, as Mr. Nicholson indicated,

and which factors that describe the characteristics of the mail have

to be considered, such as size, shape, ratio, thickness, uniformity of

thickness, paper characteristics, color, friction, and, as we get into the

•era of electronic address reading, the format and characteristics of the

address for optical character recognition. That will become an increasingly important question in the future.

In support of the Department's study to come up with meaningful

recommendations, we in the Bureau of Research and Engineering have

a program underway, which I would like to describe very briefly, which

will indicate the kind of technology support we are planning for this

effort. We are working with a very competent contractor:

To collect and analyze the statistical characteristics of the mail,

from industry sources as well as Post Office Department sources.
23

To determine the effect of physical size on the performance of pres-

,ent mechanical equipment.

To analyze the effect of mail piece size and shape on basic machine

processes such as singulation, transport, stacking, et cetera.

To evaluate the effect of a family of size standards on future ma-

'chine sizes for successive generations of machines.

To conduct kinematic study of mail pieces, transport in machines,

with respect to physical characteristics—a very necessary background

•of information.

To consult with representatives of major industry groups which

would be directly affected by mail standards to review the results

and conclusions from the above steps, and to develop recommended

-standards for sizes.

To identify other characteristics of mail pieces that affect mechanization, such as paper stiffness, coefficient of friction, color, abrasion

resistance, transparency, print style and quality, address format,

.optical contrast, moisture resistance, and so on. There are many primary and secondary factors involved in the total view of mechanization.

To conduct tests on samples of mail pieces of materials to determine

the effect of these characteristics on mail-processing equipment and

identify preferred standards.

To determine what causes problems and what works well and

reliably.

Finally, to prepare the appropriate reports and technical justifications to support the future position of the Post Office Department.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much.

It is my point of view that the samples give you a lot of problems,

but they are at the delivery station; whereas first class and second

-class in odd sizes give you problems from the beginning to the end.

If the mailman picks up from a business establishment a big bundle of

odd-sized mail, he takes it to the post office to be sorted to go out of

that post office around the country. Then every post office it hits has

problems, too.

I think we have to address ourselves to the problems of odd sizes of

first and second class as well as third, and also for the political reason

that we cannot be discriminatory against one class unless we have the

same discrimination among the other classes. You just cannot pound

at one class of mail. I think first class and second class have to answer

to standards as well as third class. I do not think you ought to exclude

fourth class either. I think the bulk rates ought to have some attention. I think the bulk will give you problems like samples pretty soon,

if they do not already. We are addressing ourselves here to samples

because they saturate an area, but how about samples that go out to,

say, the doctors? They are a class. I bet you the delivery post office

has a problem with them. But so does the receiving post office, probably, because they are not handled like third-class bulk, really. They

are handled like first class.

Mr. NICHOLSON. That is true. It is like handling a parcel, except

it is in quantity, in mass, in volume of first-class letters.

Mr. OLSEN. That is why I urge you to come back here again as

soon as you can, addressing yourself to first class and second class.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I want to be sure it is abundantly clear that we

are not proposing surcharges simply because of size, but also because
24

of the weight of the piece. Here is a first-class piece about 12 by 14,

but it paid for 3 ounces. It paid 15 cents first class. This piece would

not be subject to a surcharge under our present line of thinking.

I would also like to call your attention to the fact that the draft

legislation which you introduced in the record earlier indicates we

are asking for a 2-cent penalty, which is different from the proposal we

previously had made. In other words, a 1-ounce first-class piece with

nonstandard characteristics would pay first-class postage plus 2 cents.

• Mr. OLSEN. The new rate then would be 6 plus 2.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSEN. If it was airmail, would it be 10 plus 2?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It would be 10 plus 2. Or, if it were a 2-ounce surface letter, it would be 12 plus 2, and a 2-ounce airmail letter would

be 20 plus 2. So, it is only the lightweight pieces that we are talking

about on the surcharge. It seems reasonable that, if a piece of mail

were this size but weighed only 2 ounces, we should be given the extra

2 cents compensation, because this cannot be handled in machinery.,

it must be given manual processing; it cannot conveniently be tied out

on the delivery end; it cannot fit in the slots that the carrier has at

his carrier station. It is a separate piece.

Mr. OLSEN. It is a package.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, sir; just about.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Nicholson, I notice the color of that envelope

is different from the ordinary envelope. The only one who has made

reference this morning to color of letters or envelopes was Dr. Packer.

Is it proposed to go into the question of color and texture of paper?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, it is.

Mr. DANIELS. IS it just as important a factor in the consideration

of standardization of mail that we go into that phase of it.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I certainly do feel so. With optical scanning, the

color of the paper influences the accuracy and speed of the scanner's

operation. Color does contribute to or detract from the efficiency of

the machine operation.

Mr. DANIELS. I notice the letter dispatched by Postmaster General

O'Brien to the Speaker of the House states that a study will be made

and that the proposed findings for standardization of mail will be

printed in the Federal Register. Is it the intention of the Department

that all of this take place prior to the UPU meeting in Tokyo in 1969?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, I believe our study would be complete prior

to 1969.

Mr. DANIELS. Would definite steps be taken, along this line, prior

to this meeting in Tokyo?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, it would.

Mr. DANIELS. Would it be advisable to take affirmative action prior

to the UPU meeting?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I believe it is certainly possible and practical

to do so, because we do know what the UPU Congress will take up,

so we will know in advance of that time whether our standards would

be the same or to what extent they might be different.

Mr. DANIELS. Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to.

take affirmative action along this line under the proposed legislation

regardless of what the UPU does?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I believe we must, yes.
25

Mr. DANIELS. Suppose this legislation is not adopted, then what do

you intend to do?

Mr. NICHOLSON. If this legislation were not adopted, the international service would be defined by the UPU standards and would be

treated separately from the domestic mail. The international service

and the domestic service have had different standards off and on all

through the years, so the fact that they are different is not itself insurmountable.

Mr. DANIELS. If this legislation is not acted upon, is it your intention to make a study of domestic mail?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, it is. We believe such a study is necessary. We

should be working toward standard definitions in order to go hand-inhand with our machine development and the procurement of machines

on a more massive scale. Whether or not we are able to persuade the

public to use those standards depends to a large measure on whether

or not Congress enacts the penalty postage rate, both to encourage

people to use standards or to compensate the Department an extra

amount in the event nonstandard mail is sent.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson.

I certainly want to thank the Department for an excellent presentation. You have started, at least, in your investigation, and you have

given industry an opportunity to know what you are talking about

and to come before us. I think I should announce now publicly that as

early as we can we will have industry in here addressing remarks to

your proposal. It is my intention to try to influence members of the

committee to join me in introducing the bill that Mr. O'Brien sent up

to us, and we will have a commencement on this whole discussion.

Again, thank you. We will invite you back again as soon as you are

ready to talk to us about first class and second class.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do Mr. May or Mr. Riley have anything to

add?

Mr. MAY. No, and we are happy that we were not called on.

Mr. OLSEN. We are happy that you appeared. You have been most

courteous to this committee, and we appreciate it very much. Thank

you.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

0
N
• I

,
I