Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices 57989 

verifies the effluent release program 

performance? (B.3.1) 

Should a policy statement be 

developed based upon NRC’s existing 

regulations and guidance to address: (1) 

Protection of the environment within 

NRC’s regulatory framework, (2) NRC’s 

expectations of licensees, (3) the 

relationship to other regulatory 

schemes, and (4) NRC’s desire to work 

cooperatively with other Federal 

agencies and States in protecting the 

environment? 

Should NRC’s regulatory framework 

be informed by experience or guidance 

developed or applied by the 

International Atomic Energy Agency, 

the international community or by other 

U.S. agencies, e.g., Department of 

Energy directives (DOE STD 1153) and 

activities? 

Theme 2: Maintain Barriers as Designed 

To Confine Licensed Material 

Should NRC’s programs be modified 

to ensure that systems and components 

better contain radioactive liquids and 

gases? 

• Are additional requirements 

appropriate for the design, operation 

and maintenance of systems and 

components that contain radioactive 

liquids and gases? (C.3.1) 

• Should a more quantitative 

definition of the ‘‘As Low As Is 

Reasonably Achievable’’ (ALARA) 

concept be adopted with respect to 

leakage of radioactive liquids and gases? 

• Is it feasible to apply the ALARA 

concept in 10 CFR 50.36a to 

‘‘unmonitored releases’’ and to restricted 

areas as well as unrestricted areas? 

• How could the principles in 10 CFR 

20.1406 be applied to operating 

reactors? 

• Do the existing General Design 

Criteria (GDC) (e.g., GDC 60 and 64) in 

10 CFR part 50, appendix A, provide a 

basis to require new licensee programs 

with respect to leakage of radioactive 

liquids and gases? 

Theme 3: Create More Reliable NRC 

Response 

Should NRC’s programs be modified 

to ensure greater consistency when 

addressing low risk, high public 

interest/confidence issues? 

• Should NRC’s oversight programs 

be modified to include more specific 

guidance on responding to reported 

incidents where risk is low but there is 

high stakeholder interest? Should this 

guidance address the follow up and 

disposition of a licensee’s immediate 

actions, extent of condition, root cause, 

corrective action, and communication 

with the stakeholders? (A.3.1, A.3.2, 

B.3.3) 

How can the NRC improve 

communications and support to other 

regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and 

the States, in understanding and 

exercising respective roles and 

responsibilities related to groundwater 

protection? (D.3.3) 

Theme 4: Strengthen Trust 

How can the NRC increase confidence 

in its actions and communications 

related to groundwater protection? 

What role could third party 

verification or assessment play in 

responding to groundwater protection? 

(D.3.3) 

What would be the benefit of using 

the International Nuclear Event Scale 

for communicating the safety 

significance of events at Levels 0 or 1 

that attract high domestic or 

international public interest? Would 

this approach lead to confusion on the 

significance of the issue? 

How can greater clarity be given to the 

interplay between NRC regulations and 

existing State and other Federal 

regulations with respect to the 

objectives and level of protection 

provided by adherence to the 

regulations? 

D. Conduct of the Meeting. 

This is a Category 3 Meeting. The 

public is invited to participate in this 

meeting by providing comments and 

asking questions throughout the 

meeting. The NRC’s Policy Statement, 

‘‘Enhancing Public Participation on NRC 

Meetings,’’ (May 28, 2002; 67 FR 36920), 

applies to this meeting. The policy 

contains information regarding visitors 

and security. The NRC provides 

reasonable accommodation to 

individuals with disabilities where 

appropriate. If a member of the public 

needs a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in the meeting, or needs the 

meeting notice or the transcript or other 

information from the meeting in another 

format (e.g., Braille, large print), please 

notify the NRC’s meeting contacts. 

Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodations will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael R. Johnson, 

Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and 

Preparedness Programs, Acting Office of the 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23877 Filed 9–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. RM2010–11; Order No. 531] 

Exceptions from Periodic Reporting 

Rules 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service has 

requested semi–permanent exceptions 

to certain recently–adopted service 

performance measurement reporting 

requirements. This order grants most of 

the requested exceptions. The 

Commission asks the Postal Service to 

explore other measurement options or 

use of proxies for reporting purposes for 

the exceptions not granted. This order 

also addresses the question of the need 

to request an exception or waiver prior 

to the use of a proxy as a substitute for 

a direct measurement. 

DATES: Request for waivers from the 

Postal Service: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202–789– 

6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Regulatory 

History, 75 FR 38757 (JULY 6, 2010). 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Statutory Provisions 

III. Use of Proxies 

IV. Disposition of Individual Requests 

for Exceptions 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

The Commission issued an Order 

Establishing Final Rules Concerning 

Periodic Reporting of Service 

Performance Measurements and 

Customer Satisfaction (Order No. 465) 

on May 25, 2010, bringing Docket No. 

RM2009–11 to a conclusion. Within this 

order, the Commission established a 

two-step process to achieve full 

compliance with all reporting 

requirements by the filing date of the FY 

2011 Annual Compliance Report (ACR). 

See Order No. 465 at 18–24. 

The first step in the process, and the 

subject matter of the instant order, 

consists of the Postal Service petitioning 

the Commission for semi-permanent 

exceptions from reporting pursuant to 

rule 3055.3. Id. at 21–22. The second 

step, and the subject matter of a future 

proceeding, consists of the Postal 

Service petitioning the Commission for 

temporary waivers of reporting until 

such time that reporting can be 

provided. The Commission further 

indicated that the Postal Service may 

seek a temporary waiver of reporting for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57990 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices 

1United States Postal Service Response to Order 

No. 465 and Request for Semi-Permanent 

Exceptions from Periodic Reporting of Service 

Performance Measurement, June 25, 2010 (Request). 

2United States Postal Service Notice of Filing 

Supplemental Information, July 9, 2010 

(Supplemental Information). 

3United States Postal Service Response to 

Comments of the Public Representative, August 12, 

2010 (Postal Service Reply Comments). A Motion 

for Leave to File Response to Comments of the 

Public Representative, August 12, 2010, 

accompanied the Postal Service Reply Comments. 

This motion is granted. 

4Public Representative’s Comments in Response 

to Order No. 481, July 16, 2010 (Public 

Representative Comments). 

any product, or component of a product, 

that is denied a semi-permanent 

exception from reporting in the first step 

of the process. Id. at 22–24. 

On June 25, 2010, the Postal Service 

filed a request for semi-permanent 

exceptions from periodic reporting of 

service performance measurement for 

various market dominant postal 

services, or components of postal 

services, pursuant to Commission Order 

No. 465 and 39 CFR 3055.3.1 It seeks 

semi-permanent exceptions for Standard 

Mail High Density, Saturation, and 

Carrier Route parcels, Inbound 

International Surface Parcel Post (at 

UPU Rates), hard-copy Address 

Correction Service, various Special 

Services, Within County Periodicals, 

and various negotiated service 

agreements. Id. at 1. The Postal Service 

supplemented its initial comments on 

July 9, 2010 with material on Within 

County Periodicals reporting.2 The 

Postal Service also filed comments in 

reply to the Public Representative’s 

comments.3

On June 29, 2010, the Commission 

issued Order No. 481, which established 

Docket No. RM2010–11 for 

consideration of matters related to the 

proposed semi-permanent exceptions 

identified in the Postal Service’s 

Request. It also appointed Emmett Rand 

Costich to serve as Public 

Representative, and reiterated the July 

16, 2010 filing deadline, as previously 

established in Order No. 465, for 

interested persons to comment on the 

Postal Service’s Request. 

Comments were received from the 

Public Representative on July 16, 2010.4

The comments identify products, or 

components of products, where semipermanent exceptions might be 

warranted. The comments also identify 

products, or components of products, 

where the Public Representative 

believes that the Postal Service fails to 

justify semi-permanent exceptions. The 

Public Representative appropriately 

indicates that ‘‘[i]n some instances, 

direct measurement of the service 

performance of a product is possible 

and should be undertaken, while in 

others a proxy can be identified to 

satisfy service performance 

measurement.’’ Id. at 3. 

The Commission grants 27 of the 31 

semi–permanent exceptions requested 

by the Postal Service. The granted semi– 

permanent exceptions are listed in the 

Appendix following the signature page 

of this order. The Commission denies 

the following requests for semi– 

permanent exceptions: High Density 

and Saturation Flats/Parcels (parcels 

only), Carrier Route (parcels only), 

Within County Periodicals, and Inbound 

Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates). For 

these services, the Commission requests 

that the Postal Service explore other 

measurement options, or the use of 

appropriate proxies for reporting service 

performance. 

The Commission previously 

established a September 10, 2010 

deadline for the Postal Service to file a 

request for waivers where it is unable to 

comply with specific reporting 

requirements. Order No. 465 at 22–23. 

This deadline will be extended until 

October 1, 2010 to provide the Postal 

Service time to incorporate the findings 

of this order. A new date for comments 

will be established once the Postal 

Service files its request for waivers. 

This order also separately addresses 

an issue identified by the Postal Service 

concerning the need to request an 

exception or waiver prior to the use of 

a proxy as a substitute for direct 

measurement and reporting of that 

measurement. See section III. 

II. Statutory Provisions 

Section 3652(a)(2) of title 39 requires 

the Postal Service to include in an 

annual report to the Commission an 

analysis of the quality of service ‘‘for 

each market-dominant product provided 

in such year’’ by providing, in part, ‘‘(B) 

measures of the quality of service 

afforded by the Postal Service in 

connection with such product, 

including—(i) the level of service 

(described in terms of speed of delivery 

and reliability) provided....’’ 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure, which implement this 

requirement, acknowledge that certain 

products, or components of products, 

should be excluded from measurement 

because requiring such measurements 

would be unnecessary, impractical, or 

would not further the goals and 

objectives of the Postal Accountability 

and Enhancement Act (PAEA). Rule 

3055.3 provides the Postal Service the 

opportunity to request that a product, or 

component of a product, be excluded 

from service performance measurement 

reporting upon demonstration that: 

(1) The cost of implementing a 

measurement system would be prohibitive in 

relation to the revenue generated by the 

product, or component of a product; 

(2) The product, or component of a 

product, defies meaningful measurement; or 

(3) The product, or component of a 

product, is in the form of a negotiated service 

agreement with substantially all components 

of the agreement included in the 

measurement of other products. 

No product that does not satisfy one 

of these conditions will be granted an 

exception from reporting. However, a 

product, or component of a product, 

falling into one or more of these 

conditions does not guarantee that an 

exception will be granted. There may be 

instances of where reporting of service 

performance furthers the goals and 

objectives of the PAEA, or adds 

necessary transparency to a particular 

product, where reporting may be 

required notwithstanding cost, 

inconvenience, or redundancy. 

Once granted, exceptions are semi– 

permanent in nature. The Postal Service 

is not required to reapply for exceptions 

on a regular basis, barring changed 

circumstances. However, the Postal 

Service is required to periodically 

identify the products, or components of 

a product, granted exceptions and 

certify that the rationale for originally 

granting the exception remains valid. 

The Postal Service shall identify each 

product or component of a product granted 

an exception in each report required under 

subparts A or B of this part, and certify that 

the rationale for originally granting the 

exception remains valid. 

Rule 3055.3(b). 

III. Use of Proxies 

In discussing its request that Inbound 

International Surface Parcel Post (at 

UPU Rates) be granted a semipermanent exception, the Postal Service 

notes what it labels a semantic 

difference between its request and the 

Public Representative’s comments 

which oppose the request and suggest 

the use of a proxy. The Postal Service 

interprets Order No. 465 such that the 

use of proxies requires an exception or 

a waiver from the requirement of direct 

measurement and reporting. Postal 

Service Reply Comments at 3. 

The rules promulgated in Order No. 

465 indicate that proxies may be used 

if justified. As part of each annual report 

the Postal Service is to provide: 

(e) A description of the measurement 

system for each product, including: ... (5) 

[w]here proxies are used, a description of and 

justification for the use of each proxy. 

Rule 3055.2(e)(5). 

In Order No. 465, the Commission 

authorized a two–step process for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices 57991 

5A Delivery Confirmation–based system 

originally was proposed by the Postal Service. See 

Service Performance Measurement, November 2007, 

at 39; see also United States Postal Service 

Comments in Response to Order No. 292, November 

2, 2009, at 32–33. 

6As an added complication, the Postal Service 

notes that most Within County Periodicals receive 

manual processing. Id. at 9. 

Postal Service to achieve full 

compliance with all service 

performance measurement reporting 

requirements by the filing date of the FY 

2011 ACR. The first step requires the 

Postal Service to request semi– 

permanent exceptions from reporting as 

allowed by rule 3055.3. The exceptions 

provision of rule 3055.3 does not apply 

to the use of proxies. If a semi– 

permanent exception is granted 

pursuant to rule 3055.3, no service 

performance measurement reporting is 

required. Thus, the use of a proxy 

becomes irrelevant. However, if a 

suitable proxy exists, it should be used 

and a semi–permanent exception is not 

appropriate. 

The second step requires the Postal 

Service to seek a temporary waiver 

where it cannot immediately comply 

with specific reporting requirements. 

The Commission indicated that a 

request for waiver must be for a 

specified period of time, and must 

include an implementation plan for 

achieving compliance with the specific 

reporting requirement. Generally, the 

Postal Service has indicated it cannot 

comply with reporting requirements 

where direct measurement systems 

currently are not available. The 

Commission notes that there are 

instances where the use of a proxy may 

provide some indication of service 

performance pending development of 

more direct measurement systems. 

Therefore, wherever the Postal Service 

believes that the use of a proxy is 

appropriate and its use can be justified, 

the Postal Service should request a 

waiver for the use of the proxy until the 

direct measurement system becomes 

operational. 

IV. Disposition of Individual Requests 

for Exceptions 

A. Standard Mail 

The Postal Service seeks semi– 

permanent exceptions from service 

performance reporting for the following 

components of products within the 

Standard Mail class: High Density and 

Saturation Flats/Parcels (parcels only) 

and Carrier Route (parcels only). The 

Postal Service argues that the data 

systems do not distinguish parcel items 

from other Standard Mail measurement 

categories, nor is there a reliable start– 

the–clock method for parcels. 

Furthermore, the volume for the parcel 

components is very small (about 0.1 

percent of the volume of regular and 

nonprofit Parcels/Non–Flat 

Machinables). Based on the above, the 

Postal Service contends it would be cost 

prohibitive to develop a reporting 

system for these parcels. Request at 4– 

6. 

The Public Representative asks that a 

waiver not be granted for the parcels 

components of the High Density and 

Saturation Flats/Parcels and Carrier 

Route products. The Public 

Representative notes that the Postal 

Service has not explained why data for 

parcels with Delivery Confirmation 

cannot be used, or why a proxy cannot 

be used, to measure the service 

performance of Standard Mail parcels.5

The Public Representative also notes 

that the Postal Service believes that the 

parcels customer base is expected to 

adopt the Intelligent Mail barcode in the 

near future. This may provide an 

Intelligent Mail barcode solution to the 

measurement problem. Public 

Representative Comments at 4–5. 

The Commission finds that providing 

an exception from reporting for High 

Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels 

(parcels only) and Carrier Route (parcels 

only) has not been justified. The Postal 

Service has not explained why the 

originally proposed Delivery 

Confirmation–based system is no longer 

feasible, nor has it explained why it 

would be inappropriate to use another 

parcels item as a suitable proxy to 

measure the service performance of 

these Standard Mail parcels. The 

request for a semi–permanent exception 

for the specified Standard Mail parcels 

is denied. 

B. Periodicals 

The Commission’s rules require 

separate service performance reporting 

for the Within County Periodicals 

product and the Outside County 

Periodicals product. The Postal Service 

informs the Commission of its intent to 

seek a temporary waiver from reporting 

the two products separately, as well as 

for Outside County Periodicals 

individually. It notes that upon 

expiration of the temporary waiver, it 

still does not expect to be able to report 

data for Within County Periodicals. 

Therefore, it is seeking a semi– 

permanent exception from reporting 

performance of Within County 

Periodicals at this time. Request at 7–10. 

The Postal Service cites two problems 

with being able to report service 

performance for Within County 

Periodicals. First, some forms of 

electronic mail documentation do not 

require the mailer to identify whether 

an individual mailpiece is a Within 

County Periodicals mailpiece or an 

Outside County Periodicals mailpiece. 

Thus, the mailpiece cannot be 

distinguished for individual reporting 

purposes. Second, there might not be 

sufficient data (volume) for reporting 

Within County Periodicals and Outside 

County Periodicals individually.6

The Postal Service filed supplemental 

information regarding the difficulties in 

establishing a service performance 

measurement for Within County 

Periodicals. See Supplemental 

Information. The Postal Service explains 

that it contracted a special study to 

develop a baseline service performance 

estimate for community newspaper 

performance (a significant segment of 

Within County Periodicals). 

Among other things, the study reports 

that: 

• The Community Newspapers 

national result of 72.48 percent was 

comparable to the Periodicals result of 

75.44 percent for the same period. 

• It is not practical to conduct 

ongoing measurement. 

• It would be difficult for the 

newspaper mailers to participate based 

on our experience with the baseline 

study; and 

• Ongoing costs for subscriptions and 

conducting the study may outweigh 

value. 

• Results are similar enough that 

Periodicals could be considered as a 

proxy for Community Newspapers Mail. 

• Consider conducting another study 

in a few years to verify that results are 

still similar. 

Supplemental Information, Attachment, 

slide 24. From the undertaking of the 

study, the Postal Service concludes that 

it is not feasible to establish a 

measurement system for Within County 

Periodicals and implementing a 

measurement system cannot be 

accomplished without undue burden 

imposed on relevant mailers. 

Therefore, the Postal Service contends 

that Within County Periodicals is a 

product that ‘‘defies meaningful 

measurement’’ within the intent of the 

39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2), or that ‘‘cost of 

implementing a measurement system 

would be prohibitive in relation to the 

revenue generated by the product....’’ 39 

CFR 3055.3(a)(1). The Postal Service 

concludes by suggesting that 

Periodicals’ performance as a class may 

be considered an appropriate proxy for 

Within County Periodicals. Request at 

10. 

The Commission finds that Within 

County Periodicals does not fall within 

the exception for a product that defies 

meaningful measurement. 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2). Mailpiece seeding or other 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57992 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices 

methodologies could be developed and 

successfully implemented to measure 

service performance. The costs and 

practicality of alternative approaches 

still may remain an issue. 

A semi–permanent exception based 

on the prohibitive costs of 

implementing a measurement system, 

39 CFR 3055.3(a)(1), might have been 

appropriate if no measurement and 

reporting options were available. 

However, the Postal Service has 

presented sufficient information for the 

Commission to conclude that solutions 

may exist for Within County 

Periodicals. The Commission suggests 

that the Postal Service look into the 

feasibility of using all Periodicals as a 

proxy for reporting Within County 

Periodicals (as indicated by the Postal 

Service), along with a special study 

every 5 years (such as presented in 

Supplemental Information) to examine 

the veracity of the proxy. In the future, 

as the Intelligent Mail barcode develops 

and is put to new uses, the Postal 

Service may wish to examine the 

potential of developing a more 

appropriate direct measurement system. 

The request for a semi–permanent 

exception for Within County Periodicals 

is denied. 

C. Parcel Post 

The Postal Service explains that no 

measurement system exists for Inbound 

International Surface Parcel Post (at 

UPU Rates). It estimates the cost for 

developing a measurement system to be 

approximately $3 million for a product 

with gross revenues of $12.88 million in 

FY 2009. The Postal Service instead 

suggests using domestic Parcel Post as a 

proxy for Inbound International Surface 

Parcel Post (at UPU Rates). Id. at 6–7. 

The Public Representative supports 

the use of domestic Parcel Post as a 

proxy for Inbound International Surface 

Parcel Post (at UPU Rates), and asks that 

the request for semi-permanent 

exception be denied. The Public 

Representative further argues that use of 

the proxy should be supplemented with 

information from the UNEX system (an 

RFID–based system). The supplemental 

data could be used to analyze time in 

customs. Public Representative 

Comments at 5–7. 

The Postal Service does not believe it 

would be appropriate to use UNEX data 

to supplement the use of the proxy. 

First, it argues that UNEX measures 

performance of letters and flats, not 

Parcel Post items. Second, time in 

customs is not relevant to Postal Service 

performance because the Postal Service 

does not have control over this time. 

Third, UNEX does not include time in 

customs in its calculations of Postal 

Service performance. Postal Service 

Reply Comments at 2–4. 

Because of the availability of what 

appears to be a reasonable proxy, one 

that presumably the Postal Service can 

more fully explain and justify, the 

Commission denies the request for 

semi–permanent exception. The use of 

domestic Parcel Post as a proxy will 

significantly reduce the costs associated 

with directly measuring and reporting 

the service performance of Surface 

Parcel Post (at UPU Rates). The Postal 

Service is further encouraged to use 

supplemental data to explore the 

veracity of any and all proxies it uses, 

and periodically report this information 

to the Commission. This could include, 

in this instance, an independent mail 

seeding study, or use of applicable data 

from the UNEX system, or other 

independent analysis that the Postal 

Service may deem appropriate. 

D. Special Services 

1. Address Correction Service (Hard– 

Copy) 

The Postal Service explains that 

Address Correction Service (ACS) 

involves the transmission of corrected 

address information to a sender that 

subscribes to the service, when the 

recipient has provided a forwarding 

address to the Postal Service. The Postal 

Service requests an exception from 

reporting only for the hard–copy version 

of this service. The Postal Service states 

that forwarding information is 

accumulated into batches, data 

transmission times vary, and specific 

arrangements are made with individual 

subscribers. Furthermore, it contends 

that implementation of a measurement 

system would be unwarranted for a 

product that only produced 

approximately $22 million in revenue in 

FY 2009. The Postal Service projects 

that revenue from this service is likely 

to decrease given that it is encouraging 

subscribers to move to the electronic 

version of the service. Request at 12–14. 

The Public Representative comments 

that given the cost of measuring service 

performance of Address Correction 

Service (hard–copy), and the stated 

intent of the Postal Service to switch 

customers to electronic or automated 

ACS, a semi–permanent exception 

should be granted. Public 

Representative Comments at 12. 

The Commission finds that Address 

Correction Service (hard–copy) is a 

product that ‘‘defies meaningful 

measurement’’ within the intent of the 

39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) given that service 

standards may be tailored to individual 

customers. It also is a product where the 

‘‘cost of implementing a measurement 

system would be prohibitive in relation 

to the revenue generated by the 

product,’’ 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(1), given the 

historical revenue generated and the 

Postal Service’s intent to migrate 

customers to the electronic version of 

the service. The reporting of service 

performance measurement shall not be 

required for Address Correction Service 

(hard–copy only). 

2. Alternate Postage Payment Services 

The Postal Service explains that 

Business Reply Mail, International 

Business Reply Mail, Merchandise 

Return Service, Bulk Parcel Return, and 

Shipper Paid Forwarding share the 

common attribute of allowing customers 

to establish accounts to pay postage 

without requiring the actual sender to 

affix postage. The Postal Service states 

that the host mailpiece utilizing any of 

the above services has the same delivery 

service standard as the applicable host 

mail product. In the majority of cases, 

‘‘weighing and rating’’ is done 

seamlessly during automated 

processing, which results in no 

additional processing time. In a 

minority of cases, where ‘‘weighing and 

rating’’ is done manually, manual 

processing could result in an additional 

day of delay. Accordingly, the Postal 

Service contends that it is unable to 

justify establishing service standards for 

these special services independent of 

the host mailpiece, and that these 

services defy meaningful measurement. 

Request at 14; see also Postal Service 

Reply Comments at 7–8. 

The Public Representative contends 

that Business Reply Mail does not have 

the same service performance as the 

underlying host product because of the 

weighing and rating processing that 

must occur with this service. 

Consequently, the Public Representative 

urges the Commission to deny a semi– 

permanent exception for this service. 

Public Representative Comments at 7–8. 

The Commission understands that 

manually processed Business Reply 

Mail (and similarly International 

Business Reply Mail) does not always 

receive the same delivery service as the 

underlying First–Class Mail or Priority 

Mail piece. The Commission listened to 

many comments from Business Reply 

Mail users during MTAC meetings 

related to service standards who 

expressed concern over the time it took 

from when mail was delivered to the 

receiving mail facility, to when the mail 

was actually delivered to the recipient. 

The time between these two events 

allegedly is due to weighing and rating 

activities, which lends itself to the 

development of a standard and the 

measurement of performance. However, 

no affected mail user offered comments 

in this docket to indicate that their 

concerns remain valid. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices 57993 

7 If it becomes necessary, development of a proxy 

for reporting International Business Reply Mail may 

be appropriate. 

Hence, based on the Postal Service’s 

representation that the majority of 

weighing and rating functions now are 

performed seamlessly, the Commission 

concludes that the Business Reply Mail 

services more aptly may be considered 

merely accounting services that defy 

meaningful measurement. 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2). The Commission grants the 

Postal Service request for a semi– 

permanent reporting exception for 

Business Reply Mail and International 

Business Reply Mail until such time 

that a problem with service performance 

is identified that warrants monitoring.7

For the remaining services, 

Merchandise Return Service, Bulk 

Parcel Return, and Shipper Paid 

Forwarding, the Commission finds that 

the services are basically accounting 

services. In the cases of Merchandise 

Return Service and Bulk Parcel Return, 

the services are somewhat customizable 

to the individual recipient, and in the 

case of Shipper Paid Forwarding, the 

Postal Service has no control over when 

a mailpiece will be forwarded. The 

Commission finds that these services 

‘‘def[y] meaningful measurement’’ 

within the intent of the 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2) exception. The reporting of 

service performance measurement shall 

not be required for Merchandise Return 

Service, Bulk Parcel Return, and 

Shipper Paid Forwarding, each of which 

is a component of Ancillary Services. 

3. Caller Service 

The Postal Service explains that 

Caller Service provides a means for 

typically higher volume mail recipients 

to receive mail at a postal retail window 

or loading dock. The mail that is 

received is subject to the standards for 

each class. Pickup times are 

individually arranged between the 

delivery office and the mail recipient. 

The Postal Service contends that this 

service is not susceptible to any 

meaningful measurement because of the 

nature of the service itself. Request at 

15–16. 

The Public Representative comments 

that Caller Service is a flexible 

arrangement between the delivery office 

and the recipient service which defies 

meaningful measurement within the 

meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 

Representative Comments at 11. 

The Commission finds that because 

Caller Service is customized to 

individual mail recipients, it is a 

product that ‘‘defies meaningful 

measurement’’ within the intent of the 

39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) exception. The 

reporting of service performance 

measurement shall not be required for 

this product. 

4. Change of Address Credit Card 

Authentication 

The Postal Service explains that 

Change of Address Credit Card 

Authentication provides a means of 

verifying a customer’s identity by 

reference to a credit card number. The 

customer is paying for the identification 

and not the subsequent processing of 

the change of address. The transaction 

is complete upon authorization and the 

debiting of the fee. The Postal Service 

contends that it is not feasible to 

establish a standard for the timely 

completion of the authorization. 

Request at 16. 

The Public Representative concurs 

that Change of Address Credit Card 

Authentication is a transaction–based 

service which defies meaningful 

measurement within the meaning of 39 

CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative 

Comments at 11. 

The Commission finds that this 

service defies meaningful measurement 

and falls within the parameters of 39 

CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from 

performance measurement reporting. 

Change of Address Credit Card 

Authentication is a transaction–based 

service which involves an identity 

verification and the collection of a fee. 

The request for a semi–permanent 

exception from reporting is granted. 

5. Certificate of Mailing and 

International Certificate of Mailing 

The Postal Service explains that 

Certificate of Mailing and International 

Certificate of Mailing are part of the 

acceptance of a mailpiece which 

includes the purchase of a certificate. 

The services are complete upon 

purchase and provision of the 

certificate. The Postal Service argues 

that it sees no means or need for a 

standard to measure the timely 

completion of these services. Request at 

16–17. 

The Public Representative comments 

that Certificate of Mailing and 

International Certificate of Mailing are 

transaction–based services which defy 

meaningful measurement within the 

meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 

Representative Comments at 11. 

The Commission finds that these 

services defy meaningful measurement 

and fall within the parameters of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from 

performance measurement reporting. 

Certificate of Mailing and International 

Certificate of Mailing each only involve 

a window transaction. The request for a 

semi–permanent exception from 

reporting is granted. 

6. Money Orders 

The Postal Service explains that once 

a Money Order is purchased, there is 

nothing further for the Postal Service to 

do. Thus, it argues that it is difficult to 

conceive of a practical way to measure 

Money Order performance. However, 

the Postal Service states that it has 

established standards and will report 

the performance of Money Order 

‘‘inquiries’’ as part of the Special Service 

reporting. Request at 17. 

The Public Representative comments 

that the purchase of Money Orders is a 

transaction–based service which defies 

meaningful measurement within the 

meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 

Representative Comments at 11. 

The Commission finds that the sales 

aspect of this service defies meaningful 

measurement and falls within the 

parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an 

exception from performance 

measurement reporting. The sale of 

Money Orders only involves a window 

transaction. The request for a semi–nt 

exception from reporting is granted. The 

Commission expects the Postal Service 

to continue to measure and report the 

service inquiry aspect of Money Orders. 

7. Parcel Airlift and Special Handling 

Parcel Airlift provides air 

transportation of Standard Mail parcels 

on a space available basis to or from 

military post offices outside the 

contiguous 48 United States. Special 

Handling provides preferential handling 

to the extent practicable in dispatch and 

transportation of First–ail and Package 

Services. The Postal Service explains 

that each product is purchased subject 

to the understanding that the requested 

service is subject to availability, i.e., it 

cannot be known whether the 

processing or transportation upgrade 

can be accommodated. Thus, service 

standards or service performance 

measurement is unwarranted. Request at 

17–18. 

The Public Representative comments 

that Parcel Airlift and Special Handling 

are provided on a space available or to 

the extent practical basis which defies 

meaningful measurement within the 

meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 

Representative Comments at 11–12. 

Because Parcel Airlift and Special 

Handling are provided on a space 

available or to the extent practical basis, 

the Commission finds these services 

defy meaningful measurement and fall 

within the parameters of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from 

performance measurement reporting. 

The request for a semi–nt exception 

from reporting is granted. 

8. Restricted Delivery and 

International Restricted Delivery 

The Postal Service explains that 

Restricted Delivery and International 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57994 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices 

Restricted Delivery are services that 

permit the sender to direct that a 

mailpiece be delivered to a particular 

person (or person’s agent) at a delivery 

address. The Postal Service states that 

the delivery choice is either the 

mailpiece is delivered to the named 

addressee, or the mailpiece is delivered 

to someone else. It contends that it is 

not feasible to develop a standard for 

measurement (without tracking the 

identity of all of the mail recipients). It 

further contends that the international 

version of the service has the additional 

complications of acceptance of the 

request (inbound) or fulfillment of the 

service (outbound) not being entirely 

within the Postal Service’s control. 

Request at 18–19, see also Postal Service 

Reply Comments at 9–10. 

The Public Representative contends 

that reporting may be based on whether 

or not the mailpieces were delivered to 

the correct recipient. Thus, the Public 

Representative contends that a semi–nt 

exception from reporting should not be 

granted. Public Representative 

Comments at 9–10. 

The Commission agrees with the 

Postal Service that it may be impractical 

to develop a measurement system for 

either the domestic or the international 

versions of Restricted Delivery. The 

Postal Service would in effect be obliged 

to design a measurement system to 

measure whether a mailpiece was or 

was not delivered to a correct person. 

The Commission finds that International 

Restricted Delivery has the added 

difficulty of being partly dependent 

upon foreign postal operators, which in 

itself makes it difficult to design a 

meaningful performance measurement 

and reporting system. For the above 

reasons, Restricted Delivery and 

International Restricted Delivery fall 

within the parameters of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from 

performance measurement reporting. 

The request for a semi–nt exception 

from reporting is granted. 

9. Stamped Envelopes, Cards, and 

Stationery 

The Postal Service contends that 

Stamped Envelopes, Cards, and 

Stationery are incompatible with 

meaningful service performance 

measurements. Request at 19. 

The Public Representative comments 

that Stamped Envelopes, Cards, and 

Stationery are transaction services 

which defy meaningful measurement 

within the meaning of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative 

Comments at 11. 

Stamped Envelopes, Cards, and 

Stationery only involve a window 

transaction. Thus, the Commission finds 

that these components of Special 

Services defy meaningful measurement 

and fall within the parameters of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from 

performance measurement reporting. 

The request for a semi–permanent 

exception from reporting is granted. 

10. Customs Clearance and Delivery 

Fee 

The Postal Service explains that 

Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee 

involves the collection of a fee from the 

recipient of each inbound package on 

which customs duty or Internal Revenue 

Service tax is assessed. Request at 19– 

20. This is done at the direction of 

Customs and Border Protection and the 

Internal Revenue Service. The Postal 

Service contends that there is no 

customer interaction that warrants 

performance measurement. 

The Public Representative comments 

that Customs Clearance and Delivery 

Fee is a transaction–based service which 

defies meaningful measurement within 

the meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). 

Public Representative Comments at 11. 

Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee 

is a transaction–based service which 

involves the collection of a fee. The 

Commission finds that this service 

defies meaningful measurement and fall 

within the parameters of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from 

performance measurement reporting. 

The request for a semi-permanent 

exception from reporting is granted. 

11. International Insurance with 

Inbound International Surface Parcel 

Post 

The Postal Service explains that 

International Insurance is available with 

Inbound International Surface Parcel 

Post (at UPU Rates) tendered by foreign 

postal operators. The Universal Postal 

Union establishes time limits for inquiry 

and claims processing. The Postal 

Service contends that there is a 

relatively small number of insured 

mailpieces given the small volume of 

International Surface Parcel Post (at 

UPU Rates). For insurance inquiries 

filed with foreign posts, the Postal 

Service does not have control of the 

claims processing and information 

exchange response times of those 

foreign posts. For insurance claims filed 

with the Postal Service (only applicable 

to parcels where the foreign sender has 

waived the right of recovery), the Postal 

Service does not consider it feasible or 

practicable to establish an independent 

service standard. Request at 20–22, see 

also Postal Service Reply Comments at 

4–7. 

The Public Representative argues that 

an exception should not be granted. He 

contends that the processing times for 

claims submitted by United States 

recipients, or processing times for 

requests submitted by foreign posts, 

could be reported. Public Representative 

Comments at 8–9. 

Given the small volume of insured 

Inbound International Surface Parcel 

Post (at UPU Rates), and the even 

smaller volume that might have claims 

filed by United States recipients, the 

Commission finds it impracticable to 

require the Postal Service to report 

service performance for the 

International Insurance component of 

the International Ancillary Services 

product. See 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). The 

request for a semi––permanent 

exception from reporting is granted. 

12. Outbound International Registered 

Mail 

The Postal Service explains that 

Outbound International Registered Mail 

provides added security for a mailpiece 

from acceptance to delivery, and 

indemnity in case of loss or damage. 

Request at 22. The Postal Service asserts 

that the service does not affect the in– 

transit service standard of the host 

mailpiece. Because final delivery scan 

information depends upon the foreign 

postal operator responsible for delivery, 

and not the Postal Service, the Postal 

Service contends that it is infeasible to 

require performance measurements 

comparable to that for the domestic 

Registered Mail or Inbound 

International Registered Mail. 

The Public Representative concurs 

that Outbound International Registered 

Mail is dependent upon foreign postal 

operators and thus, defies meaningful 

measurement within the meaning of 39 

CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public Representative 

Comments at 12. 

The Commission finds that Outbound 

International Registered Mail is partly 

dependent upon foreign postal 

operators, which makes it difficult to 

design a meaningful performance 

measurement and reporting system. 

Because of this, it falls within the 

parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an 

exception from performance 

measurement reporting. The request for 

a semi–permanent exception from 

reporting is granted. 

13. International Return Receipts 

The Postal Service explains that all 

International Return Receipts (inbound 

and outbound) are provided in hard– 

copy form. Request at 22–24. It notes 

that the physical return cards have the 

same delivery service standards as 

Single–Piece First–Class Mail 

International, which could be used as a 

proxy for this portion of the service. 

However, because part of the 

International Return Receipts service is 

provided by foreign postal operators, it 

is difficult to design a meaningful 

system to measure the pertinent features 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / Notices 57995 

of International Return Receipts similar 

to what is being proposed for domestic 

Return Receipts. 

The Public Representative concurs 

that International Return Receipts 

(inbound and outbound) is dependent 

upon foreign postal operators and thus, 

defies meaningful measurement within 

the meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). 

Public Representative Comments at 12. 

The Commission finds that 

International Return Receipts (inbound 

and outbound) is partly dependent upon 

foreign postal operators, which makes it 

difficult to design a meaningful 

performance measurement and 

reporting system. Because of this, it falls 

within the parameters of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(2) for an exception from 

performance measurement reporting. 

The request for a semi–permanent 

exception from reporting is granted. 

14. International Reply Coupons 

The Postal Service explains that 

International Reply Coupon (inbound 

and outbound) service allows a sender 

to prepay a reply mailpiece by 

purchasing reply coupons that are 

exchangeable for local postage stamps 

by postal administrators in member 

countries of the Universal Postal Union. 

Request at 24–25. It contends that 

because the transaction is complete at 

the time of purchase, and because no 

additional service is required, it is 

difficult to conceive of a meaningful 

system to define or measure service 

performance for this product. Id. at 24. 

The Public Representative concurs 

that International Reply Coupons 

(outbound and inbound) is a 

transaction–based service which defies 

meaningful measurement within the 

meaning of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2). Public 

Representative Comments at 11. 

The Commission finds that 

International Reply Coupon (inbound 

and outbound) service is a transactionbased service which falls within the 

parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(2) for an 

exception from performance 

measurement reporting. The request for 

a semi–permanent exception from 

reporting is granted. 

E. Market Dominant Negotiated 

Service Agreements 

Three market dominant negotiated 

service agreement products are 

currently active: 

• The Bradford Group Negotiated 

Service Agreement; 

• Life Line Screening Negotiated 

Service Agreement; and 

• Canada Post–United States Postal 

Service Contractual Bilateral Agreement 

for Inbound Market Dominant Services. 

The Postal Service asserts that the 

mail tendered under each negotiated 

service agreement already is included in 

the measurement of other products: 

Standard Mail Letters for The Bradford 

Group; Standard Mail Letters and Flats 

for Life Line Screening; and Inbound 

Single–Piece First–Class Mail 

International for Canada Post. It requests 

that all three agreements be excluded 

from reporting based upon the 

parameters of 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(3), ‘‘[t]he 

product, or component of a product, is 

in the form of a negotiated service 

agreement with substantially all 

components of the agreement included 

in the measurement of other products.’’ 

Request at 25. 

The Public Representative concurs 

that the semi–permanent exceptions for 

the three negotiated service agreements 

are justified under 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(3). 

Public Representative Comments at 10– 

11. 

The Commission finds that the listed 

negotiated service agreements fall 

within the parameters of 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(3) for exceptions from 

performance measurement reporting. 

The requests for semi–permanent 

exceptions from reporting are granted. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Postal Service products, or 

components of products, listed 

following the signature page of this 

order are granted an exception from 

annual and periodic reporting of service 

performance achievements under 39 

CFR part 3055, subparts A and B, 

pursuant to 39 CFR 3055.3. All other 

requests for exceptions are hereby 

denied. 

2. The deadline for the Postal Service 

to file a request for waivers, originally 

established in Order No. 465, shall be 

extended until October 1, 2010. 

3. The Motion for Leave to File 

Response to Comments of the Public 

Representative, filed August 12, 2010, is 

granted. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

Appendix 

The following products, or components of 

products, are granted an exception from 

annual and periodic reporting of service 

performance achievements under 39 CFR 

part 3055, subparts A and B, pursuant to 39 

CFR 3055.3. 

Special Services (the following listed products only) 

Ancillary Services (the following listed 

components of the product only): 

Address Correction Service (hard–copy) 

Business Reply Mail 

Bulk Parcel Return 

Certificate of Mailing 

Merchandise Return 

Parcel Airlift (PAL) 

Restricted Delivery 

Shipper Paid Forwarding 

Special Handling 

Stamped Envelopes 

Stamped Cards 

Premium Stamped Stationary 

Premium Stamped Cards 

International Ancillary Services (the following listed components of the product 

only) 

Internatonal Certificate of Mailing 

International Registered Mail (outbound 

only) 

International Return Receipt 

International Restricted Delivery 

International Insurance (with Inbound 

Surface Parcel Post (at UPU Rates)) 

Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee 

Caller Service 

Change of Address Credit Card Authentication 

International Reply Coupon Service 

International Business Reply Mail Service 

Money Orders (sales aspect of this service 

only) 

Negotiated Service Agreements (the following listed products only): 

The Bradford Group Negotiated Service 

Agreement 

Life Line Screening Negotiated Service 

Agreement 

Canada Post–United States Postal Service 

Contractual Bilateral Agreement for Inbound Market Dominant Services 

[FR Doc. 2010–23788 Filed 9–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. CP2010–116, CP2010–117, and 

CP2010–118; Order No. 541] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently–filed Postal Service request to 

add three Global Expedited Package 

Services 3 contracts to the competitive 

product list. This notice addresses 

procedural steps associated with this 

filing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at 

http://www.prc.gov. Commenters who 

cannot submit their views electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

telephone for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202–789– 

6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES