kopia lustrzana https://github.com/thinkst/zippy
693 wiersze
32 KiB
Plaintext
693 wiersze
32 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS:
|
|
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TO INTRODUCE NEW
|
|
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AND TO ENTER INTO RATE AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS
|
|
WITH INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS OR GROUPS OF CUSTOMERS
|
|
|
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 11, 2002
|
|
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION Memorandum
|
|
February 11, 2002
|
|
TO: Senate Committee on Appropriations House Committee on
|
|
Appropriations Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs House
|
|
Committee on Government Reform
|
|
SUBJECT: Report to the Congress on Authority of the United
|
|
States Postal Service to Introduce Innovative Products and Services
|
|
and to Enter into Rate and Service Agreements
|
|
In accordance with the direction of the Joint Committee of
|
|
Conference concerning the 2002 appropriation for the Postal
|
|
Service, the Postal Rate Commission hereby transmits its report on
|
|
the scope of existing authority of the United States Postal Service
|
|
under current postal laws and regulations to introduce new products
|
|
and services and to enter into negotiated service agreements with
|
|
individual customers or groups of customers.
|
|
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
|
|
George A. Omas, Chairman
|
|
Ruth Y. Goldway, Vice Chairman
|
|
Dana B. Covington, Sr., Commissioner
|
|
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS:
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
|
|
Postal Service Product Innovations and Special-Purpose Mail
|
|
Classification Changes Reviewed by the Postal Rate Commission Since
|
|
January 1, 2000
|
|
|
|
I. SUMMARY
|
|
This report provides an analysis of the United States Postal
|
|
Service's current legal authority to: (1) introduce and provide new
|
|
products and services; and (2) enter into negotiated service
|
|
agreements with individual customers. This report also includes
|
|
background on the use of such authority within the past two
|
|
years.
|
|
The Commission's analysis of existing postal law yields the
|
|
following conclusions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 gives the United
|
|
States Postal Service a clear mandate to innovate by developing
|
|
effective and efficient services adapted to the needs of the
|
|
Nation's mail users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
The mechanism for implementing innovations in domestic
|
|
mail services is the joint authority shared by the Postal Service
|
|
and the Postal Rate Commission to adopt new mail classifications
|
|
under 39 U.S.C. §§ 3623 through 3625.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
The Postal Rate Commission has developed specialized
|
|
procedural rules that provide for expeditious consideration of
|
|
proposed service innovations in a manner consistent with the due
|
|
process rights of other interested persons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs) or "niche
|
|
classifications" are rate and service adjustments arranged by the
|
|
Postal Service and potential users that are legally permissible,
|
|
provided that:
|
|
|
|
|
|
❶ The proposal is reviewed in a public proceeding, as the
|
|
Reorganization Act requires;
|
|
❷ The agreed-upon rate and service changes will work to the
|
|
mutual benefit of mail users and the postal system as a whole;
|
|
and
|
|
❸ The negotiated rate-and-service package is made available on
|
|
the same terms to other potential users willing to meet the same
|
|
conditions of service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
|
|
In joint deliberations on appropriations for the United States
|
|
Postal Service and certain other agencies and departments for
|
|
Fiscal Year 2002, the committee of conference directed both the
|
|
Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission to prepare reports on
|
|
particular areas of the Postal Service's authority under existing
|
|
law.1 Specifically, the conferees directed:
|
|
…both the United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate
|
|
Commission to independently report, 90 days after enactment of this
|
|
Act, on the scope of existing authority of the US Postal Service,
|
|
under title 39, United States Code, and title 39, Code of Federal
|
|
Regulations, to introduce and provide new products and services
|
|
(including the introduction and provision of new products and
|
|
service on an experimental or market test basis) and to enter into
|
|
negotiated service agreements with individual customers or groups
|
|
of customers. Such reports shall include background on the use of
|
|
such authority within the past 24 months and shall be provided to
|
|
the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on
|
|
Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government
|
|
Reform.
|
|
H. R. CONF. REP. NO. 107-253, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. 59 (2001).
|
|
As directed, the Commission submits this report to the Senate and
|
|
House of Representatives Committees on Appropriations, the Senate
|
|
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on
|
|
Government Reform.
|
|
The report is presented in three sections. The first outlines
|
|
the Postal Service's current legal authority to introduce new
|
|
products and services, the role of the Postal Rate Commission in
|
|
that process, and the procedural mechanisms available for expedited
|
|
approval of such innovations. The second section addresses the same
|
|
topics in connection with Negotiated Service Agreements (NSAs),
|
|
so-called "niche classifications," which are special service and
|
|
rate arrangements negotiated between the Postal Service and a
|
|
particular mailer or groups of mailers with features tailored to
|
|
their use of the postal system. Finally, an appendix to the report
|
|
summarizes recent
|
|
1 The amended bill produced by the conference committee was
|
|
enacted as Pub. L. No. 107-67, 115 Stat. 514 (2001).
|
|
Commission proceedings in which the Postal Service has sought to
|
|
introduce service innovations-some of them customized for
|
|
particular groups of mailers-on an expedited basis.
|
|
III. POSTAL SERVICE AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP, INTRODUCE AND PROVIDE
|
|
NEW PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Innovation under the Postal Reorganization Act
|
|
While pre-existing law afforded limited opportunities for postal
|
|
innovation,2 the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 gave the
|
|
newly-created United States Postal Service a clear mandate to
|
|
innovate by developing effective and efficient services adapted to
|
|
the needs of the Nation's mail users. Section 101(a) of Title 39
|
|
establishes the Postal Service's paramount obligation "to provide
|
|
postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal,
|
|
educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people."
|
|
The same section establishes the performance criterion that the
|
|
Postal Service is expected to achieve as a matter of postal policy:
|
|
"It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to
|
|
patrons in all areas and . . . all communities." Similarly, §
|
|
403(a) assigns the Postal Service the duty to "plan, develop,
|
|
promote, and provide adequate and efficient postal services at fair
|
|
and reasonable rates and fees." The Act fosters service innovation
|
|
by assigning the Postal Service responsibility "to provide types of
|
|
mail service to meet the needs of different categories of mail and
|
|
mail users[.]" 39
|
|
U.S.C. § 403(b)(2).
|
|
The Reorganization Act grants the Postal Service specific powers
|
|
that serve as the operational tools of service innovation. Section
|
|
404 of Title 39 grants the Postal Service plenary authority over
|
|
custody of the mail and its movement [§ 404(a)(1)]; over the
|
|
deployment of post offices, other facilities, and equipment [§
|
|
404(a)(3)]; and over the means by which stamps and other postage
|
|
are sold [§ 404(a)(4) and (5)]. The same section also authorizes
|
|
the Postal Service "to provide, establish, change, or abolish
|
|
special nonpostal or similar services[.]" 39 U.S.C. §
|
|
404(a)(6).
|
|
Conclusion: The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 clearly
|
|
mandates that the Postal Service innovate by developing effective
|
|
and efficient postal services adapted to the needs of the Nation's
|
|
mail users.
|
|
2 Former 39 U.S.C. § 504(a) authorized the Postmaster General to
|
|
maintain a research and development program, and to conduct
|
|
experiments to enhance the operational efficiency and economy of
|
|
the postal system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Commission Review of Proposed Changes in Domestic Mail
|
|
Classifications
|
|
Prior to 1970, the array of mail services provided by the Post
|
|
Office Department was codified as part of Title 39.3 The
|
|
Reorganization Act replaced this statutory codification of postal
|
|
services with an administrative process in which the Governors of
|
|
the Postal Service establish, and the Postal Rate Commission
|
|
reviews proposed changes in, the terms and conditions of postal
|
|
services, which are compiled as the Domestic Mail Classification
|
|
Schedule (or "DMCS").4
|
|
Section 3621 of Title 39 provides that "the Governors are
|
|
authorized to establish reasonable and equitable classes of mail .
|
|
. . in accordance with the provisions of this chapter." Section
|
|
3623(a) directs the Postal Service to file a request with the
|
|
Postal Rate Commission for a recommended decision on establishing a
|
|
mail classification schedule within two years of the Reorganization
|
|
Act's effective date. The Postal Service complied with this
|
|
requirement early in 1973, and a Domestic Mail Classification
|
|
Schedule recommended by the Commission became effective on July 6,
|
|
1976.5
|
|
Following establishment of this initial mail classification
|
|
schedule, § 3623(b) provides that the Postal Service "may from time
|
|
to time request that the Commission submit, or the Commission may
|
|
submit to the Governors on its own initiative, a recommended
|
|
decision on changes in the mail classification schedule."
|
|
Deliberations on proposed mail classification changes follow
|
|
proceedings in which an opportunity for on the record hearings is
|
|
afforded to mail users and an officer of the Commission required to
|
|
represent the interests of the general public. 39 U.S.C. § 3624(a).
|
|
The Commission's procedural rules governing proposed changes in the
|
|
mail classification schedule are contained in Subpart C of title 39
|
|
of the Code of Federal Regulations, 39
|
|
C.F.R. § 3001.61 et seq.
|
|
3 See former Title 39, Part IV-Mail Matter.
|
|
4 The text of the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule is
|
|
published as Appendix A to Subpart C of 39 C.F.R. Part 3001,
|
|
following 39 C.F.R. § 3001.68
|
|
5 Docket No. MC73-1, Phase I, Opinion and Recommended Decision,
|
|
April 15, 1976; accepted in Decision of the Governors of the United
|
|
States Postal Service on Establishing a Mail Classification
|
|
Schedule, June 2, 1976.
|
|
Over the past 25 years, the Postal Service has filed many such
|
|
mail classification requests with the Commission, seeking either to
|
|
establish new postal products or to reconfigure pre-existing
|
|
services. Less frequently, the Commission has begun proceedings on
|
|
its own initiative, most commonly in response to a mail user's
|
|
request to do so. Both forms of proceeding have proven to offer
|
|
useful opportunities to introduce innovations in postal
|
|
services.
|
|
Conclusion: The joint authority shared by the Postal Service and
|
|
the Postal Rate Commission under the Reorganization Act to adopt
|
|
new mail classifications is the mechanism for implementing
|
|
innovations in domestic mail service.
|
|
C. Commission Procedures Adapted to the Expeditious
|
|
Consideration of Proposed Service Innovations
|
|
Recognizing that certain types of proposed service innovations
|
|
merit consideration under specialized procedures, the Commission
|
|
has adopted several sets of rules that are customized for defined
|
|
categories of Postal Service requests. The rules depart from those
|
|
generally applicable to proposed mail classification changes by
|
|
reducing the amount of supporting evidence the Postal Service is
|
|
required to produce, and by expediting the Commission's procedural
|
|
schedule for considering the particular form of proposed
|
|
change.
|
|
The Commission determined almost twenty years ago that there was
|
|
a need for specialized rules to facilitate Postal Service mail
|
|
classification requests involving proposed new services, or changes
|
|
in existing services, that were intended to serve as experiments.
|
|
The rules, contained in 39 C.F.R. §§ 3001.67 through .67d, provide
|
|
a mechanism for limiting the issues on which a trial-type hearing
|
|
is required; allow the Postal Service to explain the unavailability
|
|
of data that would otherwise have to be filed; and provide for data
|
|
collection for the duration of the experiment. The experimental
|
|
rules also incorporate a procedural time limit of 150 days from the
|
|
Commission's determination that the proposed change is experimental
|
|
in nature.
|
|
These rules were not used extensively. A joint Postal
|
|
Service-Postal Rate Commission task force suggested a number of
|
|
areas where additional special rules might further encourage Postal
|
|
Service innovation.6 The Postal Service petitioned the Commission
|
|
in 1995 to adopt rules to implement some of the task force's
|
|
recommendations. The Commission conducted a rulemaking to consider
|
|
the rules proposed in the Service's petition, and after considering
|
|
the comments of interested parties, implemented four of the
|
|
proposed initiatives, albeit in revised form.
|
|
Three of the new sets of rules prescribe expedited procedures
|
|
for particular categories of Postal Service requests. The fourth
|
|
set specifies conditions under which the Service may use multi-year
|
|
test periods to demonstrate that a proposed new service will become
|
|
compensatory over time.
|
|
The first set of these new procedural rules, incorporated into
|
|
the Commission's rules of practice as sections 161 through 166,7
|
|
establish expedited procedures for consideration of Postal Service
|
|
proposed market tests of potential new services. The rules specify
|
|
the limited information the Service is required to file in support
|
|
of a proposed market test, including a plan for testing the
|
|
proposed new service and associated data collection and reporting
|
|
requirements. They also streamline public notice and hearing
|
|
procedures, and provide for issuance of a "yes or no" Commission
|
|
decision on the proposed market test within 90 days, consistent
|
|
with the procedural due process rights of interested persons. The
|
|
Postal Service's innovative Mailing Online service, for which a
|
|
three-year experimental trial was requested and approved in Docket
|
|
No. MC2000-2, was initially considered and recommended by the
|
|
Commission under the market test rules. See the Appendix to this
|
|
report under the heading for Docket No. MC2000-2.
|
|
The second set of rules,8 apply to Postal Service proposals to
|
|
implement new services that would supplement, but not alter,
|
|
existing mail classifications and rates on a provisional basis for
|
|
a limited time. As in the market test rules, the provisional
|
|
service rules identify the supporting information to be provided by
|
|
the Postal Service; in addition, they allow the Service to explain
|
|
why it should not be required to provide
|
|
6 See Postal Ratemaking in a Time of Change: A Report by the
|
|
Joint Task Force on Postal Ratemaking, June 1, 1992.
|
|
7 39 C.F.R. §§ 3001.161-.166.
|
|
8 39 C.F.R. §§ 3001.171-.176.
|
|
information called for in the Commission's general rules for
|
|
mail classification proposals. The rules likewise expedite public
|
|
notice and procedural scheduling, providing for a "yes or no"
|
|
Commission decision within 90 days, consistent with the due process
|
|
rights of other parties.
|
|
A third set of rules, adopted as sections 69 through 69c of the
|
|
rules of practice,9 applies to Postal Service requests for
|
|
permanent mail classification changes that are minor in character.
|
|
"Minor" classification changes are defined as those that would not
|
|
change any existing rate or fee; would not impose any new
|
|
restriction on eligibility for mailing; and would not significantly
|
|
increase or decrease the estimated contribution of the affected
|
|
mail subclass or service category to the institutional costs of the
|
|
Postal Service. The rules specify limited required supporting
|
|
information, allow the Service to explain the unavailability of
|
|
otherwise required data, and also streamline procedural scheduling.
|
|
Under these rules for minor classification proposals, the
|
|
procedural deadline for rendering a Commission decision is 90 days
|
|
from the filing of the Postal Service request if no hearings are
|
|
held, and 120 days if hearings are scheduled in the case.
|
|
Finally, the fourth set of rules, contained in sections 181 and
|
|
182 of the rules of practice, 10 applies to Postal Service requests
|
|
for new services that it believes cannot recover all their
|
|
associated costs in the first full fiscal year of their operation.
|
|
In such instances, the Service's request must be supported by
|
|
testimony of a Postal Service witness that explains the rationale
|
|
for the proposed multi-year test period. The request should also
|
|
provide Return on Investment projections, other available financial
|
|
analyses, and cost, revenue, and volume estimates for the new
|
|
service for the entire proposed test period. The rules establish a
|
|
policy standard that allows test periods of up to five fiscal years
|
|
for the purpose of determining breakeven for newly introduced
|
|
postal services.
|
|
The Commission adopted these four sets of rules in 1996, to be
|
|
effective for a period of five years. In light of their apparent
|
|
workability in several Commission proceedings and their continuing
|
|
usefulness for affording procedural flexibility to the
|
|
9 39 C.F.R. §§ 3001.69-69c. 10 39 C.F.R. §§ 3001.181-.182.
|
|
Postal Service, the Commission extended their application for an
|
|
additional five-year period in a recent rulemaking.11
|
|
Conclusion: Specialized Postal Rate Commission rules of
|
|
procedure are currently available for use by the Postal Service to
|
|
provide expeditious consideration of proposed service innovations
|
|
in a manner consistent with the due process rights of all
|
|
interested persons.
|
|
11 Docket No. RM2001-3, Order No. 1322, 66 Fed. Reg. 54436
|
|
(2001).
|
|
IV. POSTAL SERVICE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATED RATE AND
|
|
SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS OR GROUPS OF CUSTOMERS
|
|
TO PROVIDE SERVICES
|
|
For a number of years, some mailers have pursued the idea of
|
|
establishing customized postal rates and/or terms of service
|
|
through negotiation with the Postal Service. Depending on their
|
|
respective objectives and features, contractual arrangements of
|
|
this kind have been labeled "contract rates," "negotiated service
|
|
agreements," or more recently, "niche classifications." In
|
|
addressing the consistency of these various approaches with current
|
|
law, it is important to identify and consider all of their
|
|
characteristics. For example, the legality of an agreement may be
|
|
dependent on whether the contract is agreed upon and performed
|
|
without any regulatory scrutiny, or instead submitted for some form
|
|
of review by the Postal Rate Commission prior to its
|
|
effectiveness.
|
|
A. Statutory Bases of Potential Authority
|
|
No provision in existing law explicitly authorizes or prohibits
|
|
the Postal Service from entering into rate or service agreements
|
|
with mail users. Section 401(3) of Title 39 generally empowers the
|
|
Service "to enter into and perform contracts," and there is no
|
|
prohibition elsewhere against the Postal Service and mail users
|
|
negotiating and reaching consensus as to how rates or conditions of
|
|
service should be changed. However, other provisions in Title 39
|
|
cast into doubt the conclusion that the Service's authority under §
|
|
401(3) is sufficiently broad to encompass changes in rates or mail
|
|
classifications by agreement alone.
|
|
The obstacles to this conclusion are both procedural and
|
|
substantive. From a procedural perspective, the legal soundness of
|
|
rate or mail classification changes by contract alone is doubtful
|
|
because the only means of making such changes recognized in the
|
|
Reorganization Act are the procedures prescribed in Chapter 36 of
|
|
Title 39. These provisions require that rate or mail classification
|
|
changes desired by the Postal Service must be filed as a request
|
|
with the Postal Rate Commission, allowing for public scrutiny and
|
|
deliberations by the Commission and the Governors of the Postal
|
|
Service.
|
|
Failure to abide by the procedural requirements of Chapter 36
|
|
has been recognized as a sufficient legal basis for voiding the
|
|
intended change.12
|
|
Negotiated rate or service changes also may run afoul of the
|
|
substantive standards prescribed for rates and mail classifications
|
|
in the Reorganization Act. Section 403(c) of Title 39 directs
|
|
that:
|
|
In providing services and in establishing classifications,
|
|
rates, and fees under this title, the Postal Service shall not,
|
|
except as specifically authorized in this title, make any undue or
|
|
unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails, nor shall it
|
|
grant any undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.
|
|
Sections 3622 and 3623 similarly specify fairness and equity,
|
|
together with other criteria, as considerations to be observed in
|
|
making rate and mail classification changes. Without public
|
|
scrutiny and review of the terms of a given rate or service
|
|
agreement between the Postal Service and a customer, there could be
|
|
no assurance that these substantive criteria would be
|
|
satisfied.
|
|
However, assuming the procedural requirements of Chapter 36 are
|
|
met, changes negotiated by the Postal Service and a mail user for
|
|
their mutual benefit may merit recommendation under the applicable
|
|
statutory standards. Section 3623(c) directs the Commission to
|
|
consider "the desirability and justification for special
|
|
classifications and services of mail" [§ 3623(c)(2)] and "the
|
|
desirability of special classifications from the point of view of
|
|
both the user and of the Postal Service" [§ 3623(c)(5)]. Regarding
|
|
rates, § 3622(b)(6) establishes "the degree of preparation of mail
|
|
for delivery into the postal system performed by the mailer and its
|
|
effect upon reducing costs to the Postal Service" as a factor to be
|
|
considered in connection with a proposed change. In combination
|
|
with other factors and the policies of the Reorganization Act,
|
|
these
|
|
12 United Parcel Service v. U. S. Postal Service, 455 F.Supp.
|
|
857 (E.D. Pa. 1978), affirmed, 604 F.2d 1370 (3d Cir. 1979), cert.
|
|
denied, 446 U.S. 957 (1980).
|
|
considerations could support recommendation of rate and
|
|
classification changes tailored to the capabilities and needs of
|
|
particular mailers.
|
|
Conclusion: Rate and service agreements negotiated by the Postal
|
|
Service and mail users are permissible under current law if the
|
|
procedural and substantive requirements of the Postal
|
|
Reorganization Act are satisfied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Problematical "Contract Rates"
|
|
In a rulemaking proceeding conducted in the late 1980s at the
|
|
request of a mailer, the Commission addressed the question of the
|
|
Postal Service's authority to negotiate rate changes in the form of
|
|
a proposal to recognize "contract rates." After considering
|
|
comments of the Postal Service and other participants, the
|
|
Commission found the proposal problematical, and declined to pursue
|
|
it.
|
|
The initial proposal, considered in Docket No. RM89-5, included
|
|
two variants:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
|
|
The Commission might, after considering cost and other
|
|
relevant evidence, establish a range of permissible rates for
|
|
particular subclasses, with the Postal Service and individual
|
|
mailers free thereafter to negotiate rates within this range;
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
|
The Postal Service and one or more mailers would
|
|
negotiate a rate and service package which would then (i) be
|
|
submitted to the Commission for a review, and (ii) thereafter be
|
|
available on the same terms to all potential users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Commission solicited two rounds of comments on the proposal
|
|
from interested parties. The proponent and one other mailer took
|
|
the position that the Postal Service is authorized to enter into
|
|
such contracts, provided the procedural requirement of review under
|
|
Chapter 36 is observed. Other commenters-including the Commission's
|
|
Office of Consumer Advocate-expressed doubts regarding the legal
|
|
soundness of one or both of the proposed variants of such
|
|
agreements. The Postal Service commented that, in its view, legal
|
|
constraints would not preclude a contract mechanism in principle,
|
|
but that no such arrangement would be permissible without the
|
|
Commission's participation in accordance with 39 U.S.C. §§ 3622
|
|
through 3625.
|
|
Upon consideration of the initial comments it received, the
|
|
Commission declined to pursue the contract rate proposal, but
|
|
solicited further comments on several broad issues concerning
|
|
possible changes in the mail classification system. The Commission
|
|
explained that its reluctance to pursue the concept of contract
|
|
rates was based on substantial uncertainty regarding the legal
|
|
sufficiency of examining agreed-upon rates after the fact, rather
|
|
than in a prior review. It also raised the potential problems of
|
|
unreasonable discrimination that such contracts might cause, in
|
|
contravention of 39
|
|
U.S.C. § 403(c), and the preservation of fair contributions to
|
|
the Postal Service's institutional costs by mail volumes.13 Such
|
|
problems might well arise if the Service were to negotiate
|
|
"discounted" rates-unaccompanied by a change in service conditions
|
|
that provided cost or revenue justification.
|
|
Conclusion: Negotiated rates-unaccompanied by a change in
|
|
service conditions that provides cost justification-are a
|
|
problematical approach to introducing additional flexibility into
|
|
Postal Service business practices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Negotiated Service Agreements and Specialized "Niche
|
|
Classifications"
|
|
Following publication of the report of the joint Postal
|
|
Service-Postal Rate Commission task force on ratemaking, the Postal
|
|
Service petitioned the Commission to adopt rules to implement some
|
|
of the report's recommendations. One recommendation included in the
|
|
Service's petition was adoption of Commission rules for reviewing
|
|
on an expedited basis "service agreements with postal customers,
|
|
varying from the general rate and classifications schedules in ways
|
|
which add value both for the customer and for the postal system as
|
|
a whole."14
|
|
The proposal in the Postal Service's petition would have
|
|
established Negotiated Service Agreements as a new form of mail
|
|
classification, with individual agreements to be reviewed by the
|
|
Commission within 60 days. In the Commission's Notice of Proposed
|
|
Rulemaking, it deferred consideration of the NSA proposal, citing
|
|
legal uncertainty regarding the consistency of negotiated rates
|
|
with the Reorganization Act's
|
|
13 Docket No. RM89-5, Further Invitation for Comments, 54 Fed.
|
|
Reg. 47223 (1989). 14 Postal Ratemaking in a Time of Change, supra,
|
|
at 54.
|
|
ratemaking provisions. However, the Commission also expressed a
|
|
general willingness to address the concept in a subsequent
|
|
rulemaking.
|
|
Since then, the Commission has conducted several mail
|
|
classification proceedings under the other expedited procedures
|
|
adopted in that rulemaking. These procedures have been shown to be
|
|
well suited to the consideration of "niche classification"
|
|
proposals. Niche classifications are specialized mail
|
|
classifications- including reduced, but cost-justified rates or
|
|
fees-that have been developed by the Postal Service in direct
|
|
consultation with its customers, to meet the needs and capabilities
|
|
of a mailer or group of mailers. For example, the Commission
|
|
approved a two-year experiment of a program that enabled users of
|
|
bulk, nonletter-size Business Reply Mail such as photofinishers
|
|
that could reliably determine postage and fees due, to obtain
|
|
earlier access to their mail at revised fees.15 The Commission
|
|
subsequently granted a requested extension of the experiment,16 and
|
|
ultimately approved a request to make the experimental program a
|
|
permanent mail classification.17 More recently, in Docket No.
|
|
MC2001-1, the Commission recommended three new worksharing-based
|
|
discounted Priority Mail categories after negotiating with mailers
|
|
who were willing to presort their mail in new ways that could
|
|
reduce the Postal Service's costs.18 Such "niche classification"
|
|
proposals are essentially Negotiated Service Agreements, without
|
|
any associated legal uncertainties or additional administrative
|
|
barriers.
|
|
Conclusion: Rate and service adjustments agreed upon by the
|
|
Postal Service and mailers are legally authorized if three
|
|
conditions are satisfied:
|
|
❶ The proposal is reviewed in a public proceeding, as the
|
|
Reorganization Act requires;
|
|
❷ The agreed-upon rate and service changes will work to the
|
|
mutual benefit of mail users and the postal system as a whole;
|
|
and
|
|
15 Docket No. MC97-1, Opinion and Recommended Decision, April 2,
|
|
1997.
|
|
16 Docket No. MC99-1, Opinion and Recommended Decision Approving
|
|
Revised Stipulation and Agreement, May 14, 1998.
|
|
17 Docket No. MC99-2, Opinion and Recommended Decision Approving
|
|
Stipulation and Agreement, July 14, 1999.
|
|
18 See the description of this proceeding in the Appendix.
|
|
❸ The negotiated rate-and-service package is made available on
|
|
the same terms to other potential users willing to meet the same
|
|
conditions of service.
|
|
Examples of "niche classification" proposals recommended in
|
|
recent Commission proceedings, and Postal Service product
|
|
innovations considered in other cases, are described in the
|
|
Appendix to this report.
|
|
Report To The Congress Appendix Feb. 11, 2002 Page 1 of 2
|
|
Postal Service Product Innovations and Special-Purpose Mail
|
|
Classification Changes Reviewed by the Postal Rate Commission Since
|
|
January 1, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Docket No. MC2001-1-Experimental Presorted Priority Mail Rate
|
|
Categories
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Nature of service or change: Experimental trial of three
|
|
new presorted rate categories of Priority Mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Target users: Mailers who can meet minimum quantity, mail
|
|
preparation and containerization requirements for presorting their
|
|
Priority Mail shipments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Rate(s) and justification: Three levels of presort
|
|
discounts based on processing costs bypassed because of worksharing
|
|
by mailers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Procedural history: Request filed by Postal Service on
|
|
March 7, 2001. Settlement agreement among parties filed on May 17,
|
|
2001. PRC decision approving settlement agreement transmitted to
|
|
Postal Service Governors on May 25, 2001. Governors approved PRC
|
|
decision on June 4, 2001.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Docket No. MC2000-1-Experimental "Ride-Along" Classification
|
|
Change for Periodicals
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Nature of service or change: Experiment allowing one
|
|
piece of advertising matter to "ride-along" in a Periodicals
|
|
publication for a flat additional ten-cent rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Target users: Publishers who wish to include innovative
|
|
advertisements in their periodicals at a more affordable rate than
|
|
Standard A postage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Rate(s) and justification: Flat ten-cent rate available
|
|
only for "ride-along" pieces that do not cause any significant
|
|
additional mail processing or delivery costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Procedural history: Request filed by Postal Service on
|
|
September 27, 1999. Settlement agreement among parties filed on
|
|
December 20, 1999. PRC decision approving settlement agreement
|
|
transmitted to Postal Service Governors on February 3, 2000.
|
|
Governors approved PRC decision on February 8, 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
➨ Update: Postal Service request for permanent authority filed
|
|
September 24, 2001 in Docket No. R2001-1. Action by Commission is
|
|
pending. Postal Service Request for extension of experiment filed
|
|
in Docket No. MC2001-3 on September 28, 2001. PRC decision
|
|
approving request transmitted to Postal Service Governors on
|
|
January 11, 2002.
|
|
Report To The Congress Appendix Feb. 11, 2002 Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Docket No. MC2000-2-Mailing Online Experiment
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Nature of service or change: Experimental service
|
|
enabling computer users to transmit documents in electronic form to
|
|
Postal Service for printing, processing, and delivery as Express
|
|
Mail, First-Class Mail or Standard A Mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Target users: Single-piece mailers and small office/home
|
|
office (SOHO) operators who have difficulty taking advantage of
|
|
traditional mail service providers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Rate(s) and justification: Applicable bulk mailing rate
|
|
plus fee to recover costs of printing, technological resources,
|
|
advertising and other program-related expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Procedural history: Market test of same service approved
|
|
by PRC in Docket No. MC98-1. Request for three-year experiment
|
|
filed by Postal Service on November 16, 1999. Hearings held
|
|
December, 1999 through February, 2000. PRC decision approving
|
|
proposal, with recommended fee modifications, on June 21, 2000.
|
|
Governors approved PRC decision on August 7, 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Docket No. MC2001-2-Experimental Seasonal Delivery Confirmation
|
|
Fee
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Nature of service or change: Experiment to provide manual
|
|
delivery confirmation without charge to retail Priority Mail users
|
|
during two weeks before the peak of the holiday mailing
|
|
season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Target users: Small volume mailers that might be made
|
|
more inclined to mail before the holiday peak, and that also might,
|
|
as a result of the test, increase their purchases of delivery
|
|
confirmation service in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Rate(s) and justification: Delivery confirmation to be
|
|
available at no charge to retail Priority Mail users during the
|
|
early stages of the holiday season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
|
Procedural History: Request Filed by Postal Service
|
|
September 20, 2001. Postal Service withdrew request on November 5,
|
|
2001 because the disruption of other events made conducting the
|
|
experiment inadvisable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|