September 19, 1994 MEMORANDUM FOR ALL MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES MAILERS' TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MTAC) Enclosed are the minutes from the August 30-31 Mailers' Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Also enclosed for your information are copies of articles of interest from Federal Register notices. For planning purposes, the dates for the 1995 MTAC meetings are as follows: - March 29-30 - June 14-15 - September 13-14 - December 13-14 Hank Cleffi, Mailing Standards, has scheduled a follow-up meeting to the June 17 Federal Register notice concerning revisions to standards on physical mail piece dimensions, addressing, and address placement that was discussed at the August MTAC meeting. It is scheduled for October 20, 1994 from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. at the Gateway Marriott Hotel (Salon 1) in Crystal City, Virginia. As a reminder, the next regular meeting is scheduled for December 14-15. John R. Wargo Enclosures An Executive Summary of the Mailers' Technical Advisory Committee August 31, 1994 Mr. William David opened the meeting and introduced the Postmaster General, Marvin Runyon. Mr. Runyon welcomed the members of MTAC, noting that there would be progress reports and discussion of plans for the coming fall season. He noted that there had been recent improvements in the financials, with budgets being bettered in all four previous months. He said that service in some major cities was below expectations, but that the causes had been identified and were being addressed. Mr. Runyon pointed to the recent 10.3 percent rate increase request, the lowest in more than 25 years, below the inflation rate, and an increase that was designed to be equal in all areas. He said that early indications show a record two-thirds support for the rate proposed. Negotiations with the two largest postal unions, he said, were about to begin and the USPS had three goals: a fair and reasonable compensation package, revised work rules to make jobs easier and more effective, and a successfully negotiated contract. The Merit System Protection Board ruled that actions taken early on were effectively a reduction in force (RIF). The USPS will accept that ruling but continue to protect Postal Service employment, maintain salaries and grades, and offer no monetary windfall to anyone as a result of the ruling. Mr. Runyon then left the meeting to kick off the previously mentioned negotiations, and Mr. William Henderson responded to questions. He reaffirmed the USPS commitment to automation, noting that is was a challenging process, but one that continues with a high priority. Concerning service in the field, he said, there was an evaluation ongoing to develop high and low service requirements, and there was a continuing effort to enhance the national accounts structure. Mr. Henderson suggested a small group (made up of customers and management) to look at what postal systems around the world were doing in comparison to the USPS. He also said that the USPS was continuing to look at reclassification as a priority item. Concerning the contract negotiations, with the two unions separated for the first time in many years, Mr. Henderson suggested that the separation would make the negotiations more difficult, but that cost containment would still be the high priority for management. Responding to a comment about revised standards for hand-addressed (versus bar-coded) mail, Mr. Henderson noted that, although the idea was interesting, the first priority was to develop systems to get mail delivered in metropolitan areas on a consistent overnight basis. Finally, Mr. Henderson related the philosophy -- get it right, deliver the mail -- being shared with area vice presidents, a philosophy that actually overrides budget considerations. Mr. Charles McBride then discussed the progress toward reclassification, referring to a detailed description of the planned restructuring that was distributed before a June 23 meeting of the reclassification committee. Public comments were accepted at the meeting, and a revised description was issued on July 21. The Postal Service tried to accommodate most of the comments and recommendations, and a final survey will be sent within a week or so. Mr. McBride explained that an independent contractor was in the process of "debugging" the final survey, which will contain several rate scenarios and two different rate structures, neither of which is a final proposed rate, but are more based on low and high cost estimates. He suggested a filing in December and that FY 1995 might be the test year for the restructured rates. Turning to the Federal Register notices of June 17, which had caused some concern regarding public response time, Mr. Hank Cleffi announced that the USPS would allow a public hearing, either in conjunction with the Postal Forum or at a later separate time and place, to examine issues where there appears to be substantial opinion, especially in terms of compliance. He noted that nonprofit third class would be included in the agenda. Finally, he added that the format for the meeting would provide for free interchange of ideas between the USPS and the public. Ms. Yvonne Reigle announced the newly elected committee chairs, adding that comments concerning the national account structure would be welcome. Future MTAC meeting dates would be included in the current minutes. Mr. David, closing the formal part of the meeting, reiterated that the automation program was alive and well, and would be part of the next year's publicity effort; that the national accounts issue was a high priority; and that the resolution of the third class small parcels issue was welcome and appreciated. Mr. Russell introduced the service committee part of the agenda, promising an update on issues discussed at the last meeting and, some brainstorming with the committee to formulate action items and work terms. Mr. Alan Kane addressed the topic of service, suggesting three approaches. First, site-specific responses that would improve very specific local problems; second, systems approaches that require a national approach and endorsement; and third, looking at ways to increase flexibility in face of volume changes, especially in third class, and especially with regard to enhanced infrastructure. Mr. Robert Sheehan discussed the fall forecast with regard to the annex program, networks, changes, mechanization, personnel, transportation, materials handling and the future. Over a million square feet of annex space has been planned, he said, to allow a substantial part of the mail volume to bypass the BMC, especially non-machinable outsides and cross-docking pallets. Although some are set for operation on September 1, a full list of locations, services and hours of operation is attached. Concerning networking, capacity capabilities have been determined for each BMC, and various approaches have been considered to alleviate workload shortfalls (more customer applied bar codes, more direct (3/5 digit) pallets, secondary separations that allow bypassing primary sort at the BMC). Within the network system, each BMC is expected to develop contingency plans for various levels of volume. Mr. Sheehan noted that additional personnel would be hired specifically for the BMC's and annexes, the first contingent beginning in early September, and an additional group for the Christmas rush. He said that additional induction stations would be able to handle up to 35,000 more parcels per hour. Parcel bar code volume increased during the year, Mr. Sheehan said, and it is expected to benefit the process this year as well. Additional transportation (particularly vans)has been provided for, and the procurement of materials handling equipment continues. Progress reports, he said, on each BMC are made to the PMG and to the Board on a weekly basis. Communications is the key to success. Responding to a question about pallets, Mr. Sheehan observed that the USPS wanted to increase the efficient use of pallets and would invite comment on proposed rules through the Federal Register and other means, and would continue to look for ways to improve pallet handling in conjunction with the BMC's, perhaps though additional facilities, like the annexes. In addition, to enhance transport utilization, there is a study of triple-stacking pallets underway. Mr. Paul Seehaver reported on mail transport equipment, stating that a survey of the top 220 national accounts provided a requirements picture, which was matched against an availability inventory, which included a sleuthing effort to turn up equipment that was unused, stored, and in other ways lost to the standard inventory. Having determined the capacity, Mr. Seehaver said, a plan was developed which reflected anticipated usage requirements. Beginning immediately, the USPS will track actual usage versus anticipated usage, and actual versus desired equipment deliveries. There is also a program, QMTE, that aims at controlling and improving the distribution of transport materials so that mailers actually get what they order and not a mixture of what they ordered and items not useful. This will reduce over-ordering and improve MTE efficiency. Mr. Paul Sullivan discussed service initiatives. A "full holiday mail season plan" has been developed, Mr. Sullivan reported, which includes a concentrated surveillance of the six major areas (New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Northern Virginia and Chicago) which have had serious delayed mail problems, in both third and first class. In those areas, the most troublesome five-digit zones will be monitored. He noted that in the Washington area, five of 64 stations were responsible for half of the late mail. The customer service daily reporting system (CSDRS) follows activity in some 6,000 five-digit zones, mainly to act as an early warning system. The CSDRS monitors mail volume and some delivery criteria like late route departure and/or completion. It is being used as a management tool, not an evaluation criteria. Mr. Michael Krop briefly discussed the National Control Center and the information system that was set up especially for the fall peak load period, showing the kinds of information available, support from headquarters and some of the plans for the peak period in December. He emphasized that the information would not only be collected, but analyzed and made available to assist management and customers in handling the fall peak loads. Mr. Frank Auer followed up the discussion with a sales perspective, noting the importance of continued communication between the customers and their account representatives, as an information source. He also said that the account reps were charged with becoming more familiar with the customers' specific needs. This information is added to the Control Center resources so that a proactive response is possible when problems arise. Mr. Auer added that information flowed through many channels, including the RIBS system, E-mail connections, account manager networking, contact with user associations, and a new sales/marketing directory to be published in September. Mr. Doug Madison began an industry/USPS update, noting that a proactive campaign to educate USPS employees on the importance of advertising mail was under way which includes positive endorsement from the PMG level, coverage in Focus magazine, and a video directed at field management personnel. A short version of the video will be available to line staff. Mr. Rebello then described an intensive audit his firm had conducted on its own mailing operations, covering every aspect from design of ad pieces, to printing, addressing, delivery to USPS facility, and a follow-up, with postmaster cooperation, that looked at the handling of the mail inside the USPS system. The purpose was more to evaluate what he firm was doing to impede the proper delivery, and not to find fault with the delivery system. Mr. Rebello shared some of his findings. Although dating slips attached to bags alerted USPS to delivery requirements, once broken and sorted to carriers, that alert disappeared. On pallets, it was found that origin and destination zip codes were printed in the same size and style of type, which could cause accidental return of pallets. At times the top cap actually covered the destination zip, leaving only the origin zip visible. He said there were also blatant labeling errors. The design of the label holder on some trays allows the destination label to easily fall out, requiring extra handling to determine disposition. Finally, Mr. Rebello said his firm learned to print carrier codes on address labels to make it easier to identify the carrier. He said there were 22 items that his firm could "repair" that would enhance timely delivery. Mr. Russell suggested ad hoc groups develop a more formal set of criteria, along the lines of the audit described, that would similarly enhance timely delivery, perhaps even looking at the problem cities for clues to improve the system as whole. Other ideas offered included simplifying mail preparation, improving volume forecasting, an analysis of the use of information to insure that positive results are achieved, a more efficient use of in- home delivery date labeling, and a look at acceptance standards. Mr. Russell and Mr. Schick will distribute a separate document outlining the details and issues that were discussed as opportunities. These will be broken down into joint work teams (industry and postal). These work teams will make trips to mailer and USPS plant sites and meet separately to draft recommendations which will be reported back to the full committee. The meeting was then adjourned. First-Class Mail Subcommittee August 30, 1994 1. EXFC Data - Ann Robinson, The Consumer Advocate, presented data for Quarter III of 1994 (March 5 through May 27). The data presented is as follows and is compared to the same period last year Overnight Days 1 2 3 or more 93 84.3 9.5 6.2 94 81.7 11.2 7.1 Two Day Days 2 3 4 or more 93 78.3 13.1 8.6 94 71.5 16.8 11.7 Three Day Days 3 4 5 or more 93 80.2 11.0 8.8 94 76.9 13.3 9.8 The Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for quarter III of 1994 indicated that 85% of the respondents reported good, very good or excellent service relative to value of the mail. This compared to 89% the same period last year. Since this data reflects performance during the previous period, it was expected to be low since service in Quarter II of 1994 was very poor due to weather conditions throughout the nation. It was requested that future reports of service include average delivery time for each day delivery category and have this available by market area. It was noted that the current method of reporting does not show what got there early, but only late. 2. Re engineering of First-Class Mail Processing - Colleen Hoar informed the subcommittee that the new organization of Operation Processing Redesign has just been established and will be responsible for the Process Planning and Operation Planning for the long term of the organization. Since this is a new group, she indicated a need to work with MTAC in developing alliances to develop pilot programs, get input and set up a working group in conjunction with the NPF in September. In order to be considered for the working group, MTAC members were asked to provide Joan Rau with their business cards as soon as possible. A group will be put together and the first meeting will be conducted during the forum. 3. Service Performance Improvement in Washington, DC Area - Pat Donahoe, District Manager of Customer Sales and Service for the Capital District made the presentation on actions being taken to improve service in the area. The efforts are being directed against a four pronged approach . First is staffing. Since BCS and DP BC units were coming on line, every effort was made to keep staffs constant. However, volume has increased 10% resulting in the need for more staff. To date, 75 new carriers have been added to DC; 110 to Southern Maryland; and 50 clerks to the area in general. Second prong is process Improvement. There has been an effort to bring in special people to do the work in the areas of Mail Processing, Delivery and the acceptance areas. This has resulted in improved performance over the past 1.5 months. Customer work teams are also being put together to help move the mail. The third area is with customer support. Customers are being asked to work with the Post Office to get mail to the PO earlier if possible and to be sure that address quality and Bar Code preparation is as accurate as possible. This will help improve the mail system and the delivery performance. Finally, infrastructure was being examined to eliminate problems as much as possible. In this case, every effort is being made to reduce handling of the mail, improve service to meet customer needs, and improve billing programs for retail, bulk mail acceptance and annex expansions. With regards to the Inspection Service report on the area, It was noted that a new manager is now in place in Southern Maryland and every effort is being made to get back log of mail cleaned immediately. 4. Sorting Enhancements to improve Delivery - No report was given on this program, but a written report is included with the minutes. 5. Avoiding Coding of Return Addresses - Dennis MacHarg presented four actions the mailer may take to fix this problem. The first is to remove the security background on checks where the address will be printed. Second, change the address font to meet OCR system requirements. The font recommended was 6 X 10 OCR-B fixed Pitch. Third, charge the return address font so it is not readable. Script font with touching characters was recommended. Finally, if Bar-coding internally, he recommended having installed an OCR error message if three or more envelopes have identical 11 digit Bar codes in a row. This would indicate that there may be a problem. 6. Bar Coded Mail Volume Statistics - Currently, 26 % of the letter and card mail is being bar-coded by the Postal Service and 28 % by the mailers. In both cases, this is below what was initially planned for in 1992. Much of the problem is in the delay of the RBCS systems Deployment which was scheduled to have 143 systems in place by 1994. Currently only 45 are in place. Also, rate incentives were to have been given to encourage automation by mailers. Instead, the current rate case is an across-the-board change. There are several programs which will impact bar-coding and they include the re-classification programs now underway, OCR improvements and the additional deployment of RBCS equipment. The support of the Postal Business Centers and the rewriting of the Corporate Automation Plan are expected to increase automated mail. A cross functional team is now in place to reassess the bar- coding program and attempt to revitalize it. The actions include reassessing the 40/40/20 commitment and looking at reassessing the timing of the program. Action is being taken to identify key customer segments and the barriers to improve customer addressing, readability and bar-coding. New programs will be recommended to eliminate the barriers. It was recommended that work will be done with the ABC Letter Mail focus group which will be used as a follow up to the program. Joan Rau Chairperson MTAC SECOND-CLASS SUBCOMMITTEE August 30, 1994 Charles Pace, Chairman Lyn Seidler, USPS Coordinator Supplement Proposal Alix Johnson, Chicago Rates and Classification Service Center, said that the proposal published in the Federal Register aims to replace the current vague rules with clear rules. It proposes removing the current advertising limit (75%) on supplements to bound publications, allowing such items as grommets, rubber bands, string and staples on novelty pages (which must still be printed sheets), and allowing posters and calendars which are not otherwise available for purchase. It will not propose removing the need to print "supplement to..." on loose supplements to bound publications. In the proposal, the supplement may not have printed on it a separate price or subscription instructions different from the host publication, a 3rd or 4th class permit imprint, an ISSN or ISBN number, and may not be called a catalog. No cassettes and floppy disks can be included as second-class matter. Permissible enclosures are not counted when determining the percentage of advertising in the publications, but they are included in the total weight of the publication. Incidental First-Class enclosures are counted as advertising, unless the publication is 100% non-advertising. Comments will be accepted until September 19. MTAC applauded the job the USPS had done on the proposal. Statement of Ownership Jane Stefaniak, Business Mail Acceptance said that there is currently a revised Form 3526, Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation. This is an interim form--a Federal Register notice will be published requesting comments. This year, publishers can use either the old or the revised form. The revised form asks publishers to calculate and report their percentage of paid OR request circulation, and to provide the date of the issue in which the Statement of Ownership will be published, if required. The revised form is available through the Managers, Business Mail Entry, District Offices, and will also appear in the September 1 Postal Bulletin. The current timing of when the statement of ownership should be published has not changed. Reply Card Scanning Stuart Willoughby, Technology Applications Marketing, said that Reply Card Scanning is a proposed new service which, based on initial customer reaction, will continue to be evaluated and developed. The service will capture reply cards at the originating office and deliver them to the customer electronically within 12-18 hours. Envelopes could also be scanned. The Postal Service can scan a card and send the image to customers, or can extract information from a card and put it in a format requested by the customer. There could be a built-in address correction feature. The scanning service should be of interest to publishers, book clubs, mail order companies and others. Customer benefits include reduction of delivery time by up to two days and reduction in data input costs. Postal benefits include increased revenue, customer satisfaction, and reduced processing costs, and the service building on postal imaging and processing competency. There will be an operational test from September to mid-winter in Dallas and Baltimore, in which images will be sent to Neodata, and then Rodale Press and Fingerhut. If all goes well, there will be a presentation to the Board of Governors that includes a PRC filing proposal and request for equipment funding in Spring 1995. The scanned side doesn't need a barcode, but could have a special identifier code. Price-Waterhouse is evaluating costs. Cards would be held for 3 days, then destroyed, though other arrangements could be made with the customer. For data extraction, studies show a 98% accuracy on pre-printed cards, checked boxes, etc., and a 50-60% rate on handwritten information. There would be no need for BRMAS under this program. Peter Moore, PIA, suggested that the ZIP+4 be printed on the scanned side, since it can be used to identify publisher, which magazine, whether renewal, etc. Howard Schwartz, MPA, said that there should be no need to pay full First-Class postage, since the piece is not returned individually by mail. Quik-Pak for Fulfillment Jim McGowan, Sales, described a New Subscriber program which will be tested in conjunction with MPA in January to cut fulfillment time to 4-5 days. The program utilizes an existing company which specializes in fulfillment of merchandise. Participating publishers would send copies of their magazines to a warehouse in Indiana. When there is a new subscriber, the Quik Pak company will put a label on the magazine and arrange drop-shipping, via Express or Priority mail to the SCF level. For further information, contact Jim McGowan at 202-268-3945. Policy, Requirements, and Methods Committee Update Bill Strong, Red Tag, said that the meeting of the PRM Committee on August 29 was very well attended and productive. There will be a group response, headed by Dennis Farley of Red Tag, to the pallet regulations proposed in the Federal Register. The group prefers a 250 lb. min. weight for SCF pallets. They expressed concern about what the impact of pallet regulations may be on current publisher agreements with local facilities for special make-up to achieve service for weeklies. For local mail, they want exemptions from top-capping and strapping, and a height variance from 77 to 84 inches. Another initiative of the group is to investigate ways to simplify the documentation requirements for copalletizing. A subcommittee is being formed to work with Ernest Collins, Mailing Standards, to eliminate paperwork barriers. Bill Strong and Dennis Farley have been working with Postal officials in New York and Chicago to establish voluntary consolidation co-ops for smaller circulation weekly publications. Service Issues At the previous second-class subcommittee meeting, John Dorsey, Publications Mail, was asked to assist in getting service-related data from the members to the appropriate channels within the Postal Service. John went through the data, and compared it with operational analyses addressing the overall service problems. He found that the locations where problems occurred closely correlated with facilities which the Postal Service had already identified as sources of service failures. In general, the 2-C problems tended to be in the same major cities that have been targeted for improvement for other classes. John said that it is more valuable for publishers to work directly with the 2-C Focus groups and local postal personnel, rather than to provide large quantities of data to headquarters personnel. Ted Russell, MPA, questioned whether the service data correlated with EX2C results, and John said he thought it did. John said that EX2C data has not yet been released because it is still under internal review. Max Heath, NNA, led what appeared to be a general MTAC consensus that the EX2C scores should be released. Bill Strong reported that the Red Tag service tracking indicates a recent improvement of about five percentage points over the last few months. John Dorsey said that the revised Publication Watch will soon begin a test phase. Signed:________________________ Date:__________ Charles L. Pace, Chairman Summary MTAC Third Class Subcommittee August 30-31, 1994 Industry Chair: William Armistead USPS Coordinator: Jean Li Rogers To assist the MTAC Service Subcommittee, Bill Armistead asked members to please send estimated third-class mail volume information for the holiday season to Ted Russell. Mailers' Liability on Advances in Metered Postage Lee Epstein reintroduced the 1992 issue of mailers' liability for client's postage by lettershops, stating that USPS should accept the liability if postmasters accepted checks for meters at their local post offices. The issue facing the lettershop is that it does not want to be held liable for client's postage and possibly face bankruptcy where large mailings are involved. A change in national policy is requested. Anita Bizzotto stated the USPS policy regarding mailers' liability using Permit imprint and indicated procedures may differ for mailers using meters. The liability would fall in the following order: the writer of the check, the meter holder, then the presenter of the mail. If a Permit holder refuses to pay, the USPS, after notifying the holder, will take out the owed amount from the Permit account. With metered postage, the USPS cannot go into the meter to take out the owed amount, but does treat the amount as a revenue deficiency and the mailer is referred to procedures on revenue deficiency. Any changes in this procedure would require a major policy change that is handled by the Finance Department. The industry asked mailers to propose alternatives. Review of the USPS Proposal to Revise Standards for Palletization The August 19, 1994 Federal Register (Vol. 59, No. 159) notice announced the USPS proposal for revising standards for palletization. Cheryl Beller, Business Mail Acceptance, opened the discussion by announcing the extension of the written comment period to 45 days after September 18, effectively pushing the implementation of the new rules until after the holiday mailing season. The USPS will shortly announce the date of a meeting with mailers to clarify issues related to the palletization proposal during the extension period. She also stated the intent of the new rules was to help improve service and to ease the load off the BMCs by standardizing minimum weights and volumes across the board for all types of mail for certain categories of 5- and 3- digit pallets and moving as much mail as possible in cross- dock operations to SCFs. Height restrictions are reduced to 77 inches for single, double-and in some cases triple stack pallets. Top caps will be necessary for double-and triple- stacked pallets. It is unclear whether or not the USPS will provide the top caps. The industry indicated it will be very costly for mailers to provide the top caps. Double stacking is allowed for sacks and desirable for pallets. The USPS need mailers to test and develop parameters for triple stacking to ensure safety and protection of the customer's mail. The 4 current test sites are SF, Greensboro, Chicago and Seattle. Contact Jim Cunningham of Processing Policies and Programs for more information. Third-Class Subcommittee Meeting Summary Strapping is needed for trays placed on destination BMC and mixed-BMC pallets. There are no changes on strapping rules on pallets destining to non-BMC facilities. This is a correction of the Federal Register notice. Mailers are required to prepare SDC pallets for packages, trays, and sacks placed on pallets. The SDC splits to BMC areas has become an unresolved issue since drop-shipping began. The Federal Register notice did not change any packaging requirements. The notice proposed the elimination of "courtesy pallets," (i.e., pallets that do not meet postal standards and are presented to the USPS for the palletization program). Don Harle led the discussion on industry issues and concerns. One mailer indicated they have double stacked pallets up to 90", shrinked wrap all mail in the palletized sacks and cartons and have done so successfully for over 2 years. SDCs mean double carton sortations that require more space in plants. The cost involved may force some mailers to return to bed-loading and away from palletization. The view that the proposed revisions are directed more favorably to printers of catalogs and magazines and did not take into consideration advertising/letter mailers was voiced. There was also a suggestion that the "courtesy pallets" issue be removed from the Federal Register notice and a committee be set up to review and recommend standards for inclusion of courtesy pallets in the palletization program. The committee consented. Dan Minnick was elected the new 1995-6 chair of the MTAC Third-Class Subcommittee. ______________________________ William Armistead, Industry Chair MTAC Third-Class Subcommittee MTAC MINUTES FOURTH-CLASS SUBCOMMITTEE AUGUST 30, 1994 Ed Meszaros, Industry Chair Tom Higgins, USPS Coordinator Ed Meszaros opened the meeting at 11:00 a.m. by discussing the National Postal Forum session being presented by the Parcel Shippers Association. The session will be held one time only on Tuesday, September 27 from 8:15 A.M. until 9:45 A.M. The panel, to be moderated by Chris Rebello, consists of Gene Puckett, Manager Greensboro BMC, Steve Wheeler, Director of Distribution, The Swiss Colony, and Karen Withee, Director, Business Development, Parcel Management. Tom Higgins then discussed the other sessions featuring Parcel Post; "Introduction to Dropship Workshop" and "Value Driven Solutions for Your Merchandise Distribution Needs." Debbie McCall was introduced, she described a suggestion for a label to be printed or affixed to packages stating the package was protected by the Postal Inspection Service. This label would carry a package identification number which would carry meaning only for the shipper. Use of this label would not mean the assumption of additional liability by the U. S. Postal Service. This suggestion was well received. Tom Higgins and Heidi Cherry will identify customers and develop a means to test the deterrent effect of such a label. Mary Bronson was introduced and she explained proposed changes to the Manifest rules as they apply to mail bearing Special Services. Customers will no longer be required to separate Insured, Certified or mail bearing a Return Receipt for Merchandise for individual piece verification by the Postal Service. These changes will be announced in the September 16 Postal Bulletin and will be effective that date. Tom Higgins was then introduced. He presented information on 3 issues, EX4C, Major mailer Tracking Project (MMTP) and an update on the Fourth Class volume for the Fiscal Year. EX4C: To date 105,000 cards have been distributed to participants. Half had a postage stamp affixed; the other half was Business Reply Mail format. The Business Reply pieces received have not yet been counted. As of Friday August 26, over 12,000 stamped cards have been received. Contract for data input has been awarded and should begin in about 2 weeks. MMTP: Target for test start up is Thanksgiving week. Software and hardware are being installed and the data base is being designed. Volume: Volume for all Fourth Class is up almost 15% year to date. The only subclass not showing growth is Library rate. Zone Rated Parcel Post total volume through the first 11 accounting periods of this fiscal year is 10 million pieces greater than all of last fiscal year. Ed then introduced Stef Tolson for an update on the Shipper Paid Forwarding effort. Progress toward a January '95 test and a March '95 implementation is still on track. Stef also gave a presentation on the damaged parcel return policy. The USPS will make every effort to return, at least, the address label, containing customer account information, to the shipper within 48 Hrs. of the damage but no more than 5 days. The current policy regarding the handling of damaged packages containing checks will be re- issued. Sid Shulins then gave an update on the status if the Notice of Inquiry received from the Postal Rate Commission. This Notice dealt with extending the Non-Machinable Surcharge to Intra-BMC and DBMC packages, to include a transportation element within the surcharge and whether to have a flat surcharge or develop a separate rate schedule. Sid stated the volume basis for this Notice contained a programming error which over stated the Non-Machinable volume, it is around 8% instead of the stated 30%. The Postal Service, Parcel Shippers Association, the Florida Gift Fruit Shippers Association and United Parcel Service all filed responses to this notice. All agree that such a change is a classification change and should not be part of this current filing. John Mulford brought up an issue regarding a change in sortation requirements for Third Class packages. It was decided to have a meeting between Charles McBride, Sid Shulins and Operations to resolve this issue. (NOTE: It was announced at the Wednesday Morning General Session that the 3C sortation issue would "go back to the drawing board".) The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m.. _________________________________ Ed Meszaros Fourth-Class Co-Chair MTAC Minutes Addressing/ZIP+4 Committee 8/31/94 Peter J. Moore: Chairman Paul Bakshi: USPS Co-chair The meeting opened with an announcement that the agenda would be changed substantially to allow time to discuss the June 17 Federal Register notice in detail. Firm Holdout Dick Funck opened with a concern about the elimination of firm holdout service. In the interim between the agenda item and the meeting, a clarification of the DMM was published, allowing a "grandfathering" of existing firm holdouts using street addresses. All future firms wishing to receive firm holdout service will use PO Box or Caller Service styles of addressing. Labeling of Residual Mail The issue raised by Russ Shores in previous meetings concerning the labeling of residual mail to the origin SCF was addressed by Robert Sheehan, Manager, Processing Policies and Programs. He indicated that this is one of several processing and labeling issues which are currently under review. The policies have yet to be developed, though drafts about some issues have been created. He agreed to bring a set of proposals to the December meeting for further discussion. A list of the topics under consideration is attached. Temporary Away Notification Dan Minnick raised questions about the inclusion of "temporary forwards" in ACS when they are not included in the NCOA product. He suggested adding the information to NCOA or creating a flag which would identify those moves in ACS. Michael Murphy indicated that the cycle by which addresses are added to NCOA and the administrative costs associated with tracking and removing temporary moves from the NCOA file are factors which have led to not including those addresses in NCOA. There appeared to be concern among some members as to whether ACS should block the transmission of temporary changes. Some members wished them included and others did not. Michael asked the associations to poll their members and submit some recommendations on how those types of moves should be handled. Currently, a flag is set in the ACS record which indicates it is a temporary move. In addition, the name field is filled with the words "Temporarily Away." Approximately 47 million change of address orders are processed each year and 2 million of those were for temporary changes. CASS Update Michael reviewed the results of the Partner for Tomorrow meeting with members of the software vendor community and mailers. These meetings are a continuing effort to improve the quality of address matching software and discuss changes to the Coding Accuracy Support System testing process. The new step include focusing on Spanish address styles which are extensively used in the Southwest and Puerto Rico. The proposal to extend the CASS cycle to a yearly one met with industry approval. The next cycle will be used to make the transition into a yearly process and will extend from September 1, 1994 through July 14, 1995. The following cycle will run July 15, 1995 through July 14, 1996. RIBBS Michael also discussed RIBBS. There is a plan to implement a fee structure which would allow free access to some of the information in RIBBS and fees for additional levels of access. Corporate accounts could also be obtained. A summary of the proposal is attached. One member requested greater representation by postal policy makers on the bulletin board. A recommendation was made that the USPS provide more technical assistance in certain areas, particularly classification, on the board. Gene del Polito suggested that the MTAC members, in their role as technical advisors, also play a greater role in supporting RIBBS and its users, serving as a channel for the information. Excessive Hard Copy Address Changes from ACS Mailings Peter Moore raised the issue of hard copy ACS notices by asking members to start capturing data on the locations which are returning hard copy. This would include ZIP Code and, where available, CFS operator numbers. This data can be used to identify areas with recurring problems processing ACS mail properly. Peter provided a copy of the information supplied by one mailer to Michael Murphy. One member questioned whether a list of the ZIP Codes which do not forward mail through a CFS site was available. Michael replied that the list was available to ACS participants and is updated monthly. Other interested parties may purchase an annual subscription for $45. Addressing Federal Register The June 17 Federal Register notice was the subject for most of the meeting. The timing of the release of the notice was acknowledged to be a problem. Members expressed strong feelings about not having prior notice of the proposal. The chairman outlined the basic provisions of the proposal and asked for comments on each of them. Members were requested to forward their written comments on this proposal to the USPS before the closing of the comment period on September 16, 1994. The first proposal redefined the terms length, height and thickness. Although the change to the manner in which these dimensions are defined is not a problem, in itself, the placement of address information on the mailpiece is relative to those dimensions. One member questioned the lack of specificity in the term "at the top." Another expressed the concern that the distinction in requirements for flats and letters was not clearly drawn and led to confusion or conflict. For example, for letter mail, length is defined as the longest dimension, and addresses are required to parallel it. However, flats would require a label which was perpendicular to the length. The second issue concerned the proposal to limit the use of the term "PO Box" or any variant of those words to actual boxes served by the Postal Service - not, for example those served by commercial mail receiving agencies or colleges and universities. One member questioned why the Postal Service was trying to acquire ownership of the language. Another commented that if we were starting out addressing today, these provisions might be a good idea, but that existing addresses would remain a problem. Computer attempts to correct these are liable to create some undeliverable mail. The third proposal says that when a return address is required, that address must be placed on the front of the envelope. Second class is not impacted by this proposal. Members commented that they had moved their return to the back to avoid having it interpreted as the delivery address by OCRs. Another question was raised regarding the need to put the return address on the front of company permit mail, where the return address is not associated with a service endorsement, such as ACR, but is only required in the event that the USPS needs to review the mailing records. The fourth proposal prohibited the use of "portrait" style addressing on any bulk letters. Mailers who used this would pay single piece rates. One member questioned the applicability of this requirement for pieces for which a specific delivery date is requested. Since the portrait addressed pieces are non-automatable, the USPS doesn't run this mail on OCRs, thus losing track of the requested delivery date (DO NOT DELIVER BEFORE ...) and, possibly providing delivery more rapidly than the mailer wants or is prepared to support. This same strategy can also be used by mailers who wish to prevent letter mail containing non-machinable inserts (calculators, pens, etc.) from being processed on automation equipment where both the mailpiece and mailing equipment might sustain damages. Gene del Polito suggested that making automatable and non-automatable distinctions should be a function of the reclassification effort and not done by rule making prior to that time. It was pointed out that the existing rates are predicated on the current mail mix, which includes portrait addressed pieces. Thus, it may be inappropriate to make this far-reaching change without filing with the PRC. The fifth proposal prohibits the use of dual address lines, either in the delivery address or in the return address. Although some saw some possible value to this requirement for the delivery address line, they felt that applying this restriction to the return address requirement would be preposterous. After all, this is the mailer's means of conveying the address to which correspondents can send both letters and other materials which may not be delivered by the USPS. One member questioned whether or not the Postal Service had any idea of the impact of this proposal, especially on down line customers. Difficulties in doing wholesale file conversions were raised. Another cited the use of dual addresses by those who order personalized products such as labels, stationery and checks. Very often, in such cases, the mailer uses a windowed device (e.g., the check box) through which the address as printed on the actual product appears. In such cases the mailer may have no ability to modify delivery address. Others cited the difficulty of using checks which contained only a PO Box address without many additional forms of identification. Gene del Polito offered a solution in allowing dual addresses only on those pieces with ZIP+4 codes or barcodes so the piece could be properly directed. The sixth proposal requires the address placement on unenveloped flats to appear right-side up, at the top and parallel to the top, when the spine is on the right edge of the mailpiece. This is directly contrary to various effective marketing techniques, such as tipping renewal efforts on magazines, or putting personalized messages on the covers of catalogs. Ted Russell cited evidence that response rates to cover offers declined when the address information appeared oriented other than as the magazine would be read. Joe Lubenow brought up the extraordinary cost of re-tooling for the printing industry, indicating that some of the older equipment is physically incapable of printing in that location. This proposal is particularly questionable in light of the ability of flat sorters to pick up the barcode, irrespective of orientation. A member questioned if this proposal represented a lack of faith in the flat automation programs. The seventh proposal required labels on sleeved copies to appear on the piece or on both piece and sleeve. While the USPS stated that this proposal was intended to reduce the problems of sleeves and contents separating, Kerry Knight, of READERS' DIGEST which mails their magazines inside addresses belly bands, said that his company receives fewer than 1/10% missing copy complaints. Members asked that the Postal Service let the mailers worry about whether the pieces separate. Members ended the discussion with a proposal that the Federal Register notice be rescinded and the issues it addressed become a part of the reclassification project. This was greeted with applause. Once again, the Postal Service was urged to use MTAC as a resource. "Let us help solve (our mutual problems) together," one member comments. The final result of this issue is that the USPS decided to further extend the comment period for this notice until a public meeting can be held. At that time, USPS protagonists of the various elements of the proposal will present the substantiation for their requests. Mailers will have an opportunity to question them and present their sides of the issue. Notice of the meeting will be published in the Federal Register.