[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31374-31380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15469]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3020
[Docket Nos. MC2009-25, CP2009-30, CP2009-31, CP2009-32, CP2009-33 and
CP2009-34; Order No. 226]
New Postal Product
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is adding the Postal Service's Priority Mail
Contract Group to the Competitive Product List. This action is
consistent with changes in a recent law governing postal operations.
Republication of the lists of market dominant and competitive products
is also consistent with new requirements of the law.
DATES: Effective July 1, 2009 and is applicable beginning June 19,
2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202-789-6820 and [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History, 74 FR 26744 (June 3, 2009)
The Postal Service seeks to add a new product identified as
Priority Mail Contract Group to the Competitive Product List, or, in
the alternative, add new products identified as Priority Mail Contract
6 through Priority Mail Contract 10 to the Competitive Product List.
For the reasons that follow, the Commission adds the contracts
identified in Docket Nos. CP2009-30 through CP2009-34 to the
Competitive Product List as separate, new products.
I. The Postal Service's Request
On May 19, 2009, the Postal Service filed a formal request pursuant
to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq. to add a new product
entitled Priority Mail Contract Group to the Competitive Product
List.\1\ The Postal Service asserts that Priority Mail Contract Group
is a competitive product ``not of general applicability'' within the
meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). Request at 1. The Request has been
assigned Docket No. MC2009-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Docket No. MC2009-25, Request of the United States Postal
Service to Add Priority Mail Contract Group to Competitive Product
List, May 19, 2009 (Request). In the alternative, the Commission
construes the Postal Service's proposal as a request to add Priority
Mail Contract 6 through Priority Mail Contract 10 to the Competitive
Product List. See Order No. 217, Notice and Order Concerning
Priority Mail Contract 6 through 10 Negotiated Service Agreements,
May 26, 2009, at 4, n.5 (Order No. 217).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Postal Service contemporaneously filed five contracts
[[Page 31375]]
which it identifies as Priority Mail Contract 6, Priority Mail Contract
7, Priority Mail Contract 8, Priority Mail Contract 9, and Priority
Mail Contract 10. These contracts have been assigned Docket Nos.
CP2009-30 through CP2009-34, respectively. \2\ It believes these
contracts are related to the proposed new product in Docket No. MC2009-
25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Docket Nos. CP2009-30 through CP2009-34, Notice of
Establishment of Rates and Class Not of General Applicability, May
19, 2009 (collectively cited as Notices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of its Request, the Postal Service filed the following
materials: (1) A redacted version of the Governors' Decision
``authorizing management to negotiate [certain] contracts for Priority
Mail service;'' (2) requested changes in the Mail Classification
Schedule product list and accompanying Mail Classification Schedule
language; (3) a redacted version of the Governors' analysis of the
Priority Mail Contract Group; (4) a statement of supporting
justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32; and (5) a certification of
compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).\3\ Substantively, the Request seeks
to add Priority Mail Contract Group to the Competitive Product List.
Request at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Attachment 1 to the Request consists of the redacted
Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on
Establishment of Rates and Classes Not of General Applicability for
Priority Mail Contract Group (Governors' Decision No. 09-6). The
Governors' Decision includes two attachments. Attachment A shows the
requested changes to the Mail Classification Schedule product list.
Attachment B provides an analysis of the proposed Priority Mail
Contract Group. Attachment 2 provides a statement of supporting
justification for this Request. Attachment 3 provides the
certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redacted versions of five specific Priority Mail contracts are also
included with the Request. Three of the contracts are for 3 years, one
of the contracts is for 1 year, and the final contract is for 3 months.
Depending on the contract, the effective dates are proposed to be
either the day the Commission provides all necessary regulatory
approvals or the following day.\4\ W. Ashley Lyons, Regulatory
Reporting and Cost Analysis, Finance Department, certifies that all
five contracts comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). See Notices, Attachment
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The contracts in Docket Nos. CP2009-30, CP2009-31 and
CP2009-34 become effective on the day the Commission issues all
necessary regulatory approvals. The contracts in Docket Nos. CP2009-
32 and CP2009-33 become effective the day after the Commission
issues all necessary regulatory approvals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Statement of Supporting Justification, Mary Prince Anderson,
Manager, Sales and Communications, Expedited Shipping, asserts that the
services to be provided under the proposed new product will cover their
attributable costs, make a positive contribution to institutional
costs, and increase contribution toward the requisite 5.5 percent of
the Postal Service's total institutional costs. Request, Attachment 2.
Thus, Ms. Anderson contends there will be no issue of subsidization of
competitive products by market dominant products as a result of the
creation of this product. Id.
The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials,
including the Governors' Decision and the specific Priority Mail
contracts, under seal. In its Request, the Postal Service maintains
that the contracts and related financial information, including the
customer's name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices,
terms, conditions, and financial projections should remain under seal.
Request at 2; Notices at 2.
II. Procedural History
In Order No. 217, the Commission gave notice of the above-captioned
dockets, offered certain preliminary observations on the Request and
Notices, appointed a public representative, requested supplemental
information, and provided the public with an opportunity to comment.
Significantly, the Commission indicated that, in its view, Governors'
Decision 09-6 could be used to satisfy the requirements of 39 CFR
3020.31(b) and 39 U.S.C. 3642 with regard to authorizing future
Priority Mail contracts that might or might not be functionally
equivalent to existing products. Order No. 217 at 4.
On June 1, 2009, the Postal Service filed the supplemental
information requested in Order No. 217.\5\ On June 5, 2009, the Public
Representative filed comments.\6\ On June 8, 2009, the Postal Service
and United Parcel Service (UPS) filed comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing Under
Seal of Response to Request for Supplemental Information in Order
No. 217, June 1, 2009 (Response).
\6\ Public Representative Comments in Response to Order No. 217,
June 5, 2009 (Public Representative Comments).
\7\ Comments of the United States Postal Service in Response to
Order No. 217 (Postal Service Comments), and Comments of United
Parcel Service in Response to Commission Order No. 217 (UPS
Comments), both filed on June 8, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Comments
UPS comments. UPS argues that the proposed Priority Mail Contract
Group product does not meet the Postal Accountability and Enhancement
Act (PAEA) definition of the term ``product,'' and is inconsistent with
Order No. 43's finding that every negotiated service agreement is a
separate product unless the agreements are functionally equivalent to
one another.\8\ It submits that for products to be functionally
equivalent, they must have similar cost and market characteristics and
be alike in all material respects. UPS Comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Docket No. RM2007-1, Order Establishing Ratemaking
Regulations for Market Dominant and Competitive Products, October
29, 2007 (Order No. 43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPS believes that the proposed Priority Mail Contract Group product
is not limited to agreements that share the same cost and market
characteristics. It believes that the length of time of the contract,
whether the mailer or the Postal Service provides packaging as well as
entry and preparation requirements, means that these contracts have
very different cost characteristics. Moreover, because the shell
classification only requires the cost coverage to fall within a
specified range, shippers can qualify for contracts under the proposed
product without regard to market similarities. Id. at 2-3.
UPS also has a concern that the proposed Priority Mail Contract
Group would undermine the effectiveness of the PAEA's safeguards--
grouping NSAs too broadly not only would diminish the Annual Compliance
Report's value as a tool for achieving transparency, but also would
undermine substantive ratemaking requirements, such as the requirement
that each competitive product cover its attributable costs. It also
believes that the effectiveness of pre-implementation review would be
diminished due to the shortened timeframe for consideration of
functionally equivalent agreements. In support of its position, UPS
cites to Commission Order No. 26 in Docket No. RM2007-1.\9\ UPS
Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Docket No. RM2007-1, Order Proposing Regulations to
Establish a System of Ratemaking, August 15, 2007 (Order No. 26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Representative Comments. The Public Representative's
Comments focus on (1) the breadth of the proposed shell classification
in Docket No. MC2009-25; (2) a concern that the Governors may be
delegating too much of their authority to management with respect to
the proposed shell classification in Docket No. MC2009-25; and (3) a
concern about the lack of transparency and accountability with respect
to the voting records of the Governors. Public Representative Comments
at 2-9. He believes that creating a broad product category seemingly
without functional constraint is contrary to the public interest and
the intent of the PAEA. Id. at 10.
[[Page 31376]]
The Public Representative offers two recommendations to alleviate
these concerns. First, he suggests that the Commission work with the
Postal Service to define shell classifications in a ``somewhat narrower
fashion'' so that there is some common element among the included
contracts. Second, he recommends that broad shell classifications
should be set to expire after a specified period of time. Id. at 9-10.
Postal Service comments. The Postal Service claims that all five
contracts share the cost and market characteristics of large,
commercial Priority Mail customers. As such, it believes the agreements
are functionally equivalent. The Postal Service references its Notices
that identify the differences between the five agreements. For example,
it states that proposed Priority Mail Contract 7 differs from Priority
Mail Contract 6 only in regards to the negotiated prices, the postage
payment method, and the provision of Priority Mail packaging. Postal
Service Comments at 2. It characterizes these differences as ``minor,''
and argues that they do not rise to the level of differences in cost or
market characteristics that would be expected at the product level. Id.
at 1-2.
The Postal Service does not believe that the scope of the
classification established by the Governors is problematic, noting that
it is less broad than Priority Mail service as a whole, which is one
product. It contends that while the concept of functional equivalency
was originally applied to negotiated service agreements to ensure
similarly situated customers would be entitled to similar agreements
with the Postal Service, those concerns are reduced significantly in
the context of competitive products. Id. at 3-4.
As a practical matter, the Postal Service explains that it has
encountered difficulties in implementing contracts and maintaining
customers in light of various uncertainties, including the lack of a
statutory or regulatory timeline for proceedings filed under section
3642. It notes that ``even after negotiation, signature, and filing,
the implementation date is not known when a section 3642 proceeding is
required.'' Id. at 4. On the other hand, it argues that adding Priority
Mail Contract Group to the product list will improve the ability of the
Postal Service to plan with the customer for a smooth initiation and
implementation of the contract terms on a known date. Id. at 4-5.
IV. Commission Analysis
The Commission has reviewed the Postal Service's filings in Docket
Nos. MC2009-25 and CP2009-30 through CP2009-34, the financial analysis
provided under seal that accompanies it, the supplemental information
filed by the Postal Service, and the comments filed by the Public
Representative, the Postal Service, and UPS.
Statutory requirements. The Commission's statutory responsibilities
with respect to 39 U.S.C. 3642 in this instance entail (1) determining
the appropriate scope of the proposed new product or products, and (2)
assigning the proposed contracts to either the Market Dominant Product
List or to the Competitive Product List. As part of this
responsibility, the Commission also reviews the proposal for compliance
with PAEA requirements. This includes, for proposed competitive
products, a review of the provisions applicable to rates for
competitive products. 39 U.S.C. 3633.
Scope of the proposed product. The Postal Service is seeking to
place on the Competitive Product List a product that would encompass
all mailer-specific agreements for Priority Mail. The proposed
requirements for that negotiated service agreement product entitled
``Priority Mail Contract Group'' are as follows: (1) The agreement must
be for Priority Mail service, and (2) the cost coverage for the
particular contract must fall within a specified, broad range. Request,
Attachment 1 and Attachment A. The Public Representative and UPS argue
that the scope of this proposed new product is too broad, and that
classifying all five Priority Mail contracts at issue in this case (and
future Priority Mail contracts satisfying the above criteria) as a
single product is inappropriate.
39 U.S.C. 102(6) defines the term ``product'' as ``a postal service
with a distinct cost or market characteristic for which a rate or rates
are, or may reasonably be, applied[.]'' In Order No. 43, the Commission
found, after providing the public with several rounds of notice and
comment in a rulemaking proceeding, that each negotiated service
agreement would be treated as a separate product except in very limited
circumstances. Order No. 43, paras. 1003, 2177. With respect to these
limited circumstances, the Commission stated that ``it may be
appropriate to group functionally equivalent negotiated service
agreements as a single product if it can be shown that they have
similar cost and market characteristics.'' Id. para. 2177. After
consideration of conflicting arguments from several commenters, the
Commission found that this method of treating negotiated service
agreements as separate products was an appropriate way to balance the
PAEA's competing goals. The Commission noted:
This treatment affords the Postal Service flexibility to enter
into any special classification it wishes, but provides the
necessary transparency to satisfy relevant business and regulatory
needs. Absent the discipline that such accountability imposes, both
the Postal Service and the Commission roles under the PAEA may be
compromised. For example, the Postal Service may lack agreement-
specific details on profitability of the agreement, while the
Commission would be unable to assess whether the agreement complied
with the statute.
Order No. 26, para. 3079. Allowing negotiated service agreements to be
placed into only a few products ``forfeits transparency and serves no
legitimate business or regulatory need * * *[and] it will not provide
for accountability, a bedrock principle underlying the PAEA.'' Id.
para. 3070. In particular, as UPS notes, too broadly defining a product
would diminish the effectiveness of the Commission's review of the
Postal Service's annual compliance report since the Commission's annual
compliance determination focuses on compliance at the product level.
See 39 U.S.C. 3652(a)(1), 3653(b)(1).
Negotiated service agreements may be treated as part of the same
product, but only when they have similar cost and market
characteristics. Although the Postal Service characterizes the
differences between the contracts and contractual partner profiles as
``minor,'' the Commission is not persuaded that the differences are
sufficiently minor as to allow treatment as a single product. The
proposed ``Priority Mail Contract Group'' is too encompassing to ensure
that the contracts have similar cost and market characteristics. The
proposed Priority Mail Contract Group product would treat all Priority
Mail contracts as one product so long as the anticipated cost coverage
of each contract falls within a given, broad range. As UPS notes, no
other qualifications apply.
The proposed draft Mail Classification Schedule language states
that:
Each individual contract will specify the applicable rates, any
postage payment methods required, whether any volume minimums apply,
whether packaging is provided by the Postal Service, the length of
the contract and any price adjustment mechanism, and any other
customized terms or conditions applicable to the provision of
Priority Mail service at the negotiated rates.
Request at Attachment 1, Attachment A. Each of the five characteristics
listed have potential cost and/or market implications. For example, as
UPS points out, ``[a] contract that will be in effect for only the
summer of 2009
[[Page 31377]]
would not have the same market or cost characteristics as contracts
that will be in effect for all seasons of the year.'' UPS Comments at
2. Other criteria not identified in the proposed product description
language that may have distinct cost and/or market characteristics
include shape, weight, and dropshipping.
The proposed catch-all provision allowing future contracts to
contain ``any other customized terms or conditions'' is also
problematic. It is so expansive as to be unknowable, but presumably
would justify any Priority Mail piece meeting the cost coverage range
to fall within the proposed product. This catch-all approach is far too
wide-ranging to allow the Commission to conclude that there are similar
cost characteristics in the potential contractual partners' mailing
profiles.
Additionally, if the Postal Service is suggesting that all
contractual partners that use Priority Mail exhibit similar market
characteristics, that contention has no support.\10\ The Commission
does not view mailings with significantly different costs or mailings
sent by mailers with different market characteristics as functionally
equivalent, notwithstanding that their cost coverages are within a
wide, given range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Postal Service correctly points out that Priority Mail
(dealing with rates of general applicability) is a broad, distinct
product. However, a broad Priority Mail product of general
applicability does not raise the same concerns, discussed above and
in Order Nos. 26 and 43, as multiple mailer specific contracts
``expected'' to achieve a cost coverage target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed above, the Postal Service's proposed
Priority Mail Contract Group is too broad to be considered a single
product. Below, the Commission addresses the contracts filed in Docket
Nos. CP2009-30 through 34 to determine if the agreement should be
placed on the product list as a separate product or if several of the
agreements can be placed on the product list as one product on the
basis of functional equivalency.
Functional equivalence. The Postal Service contends that the four
contracts are functionally equivalent to the one submitted in Docket
No. CP2009-30 and that, accordingly, all should be grouped under the
same product. Notices at 1; Postal Service Comments at 2. It appears to
be implicitly arguing that the contracts share the same cost and market
characteristics as the one submitted in Docket No. CP2009-30. See
Postal Service Comments at 1-2. It points out that the differences
between the contracts relate to negotiated prices, the postage payment
method, the provision of packaging, the term of the contract, and mail
entry requirements. Id. at 2 (citing Notices at 1). It characterizes
these differences as ``minor.'' Id. The Commission has reviewed the
five contracts and, for the same reasons that it found the Priority
Mail Contract Group proposed product to be overbroad, finds that none
of these contracts may be appropriately classified within the same
product. Accordingly, these contracts will be treated as separate
products (Priority Mail Contract 6 through Priority Mail Contract
10).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In contrast, the Commission has approved the grouping of
several similar contracts within the same product in the
international arena (although there may be distinctions between
domestic and international services provided by the Postal Service
which need to be taken into account). See, e.g., Docket Nos. CP2008-
11, 12, 13, 18-21, 23, 25; CP2009-1, 15, 16 (GEPS 1 Product); Docket
Nos. CP2009-10, 11, 29 (Global Direct Product); Docket No. CP2009-10
(Global Plus 1 Product); and Docket No. CP2009-17 (Global Plus 2
Product).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timelines for review under 39 U.S.C. 3642. The Postal Service
implies that the absence of a statutory or regulatory timeline for the
Commission's review under 39 U.S.C. 3642 has contributed to
``difficulties in implementing contracts and maintaining customers[.]''
\12\ The Postal Service correctly notes that proceedings under 39 CFR
3015.5 require at least 15 days' notice prior to the effective date,
while 39 CFR 3020 subpart B proceedings do not have a definite
timeframe. However, the Commission has consistently processed 39 CFR
3020 subpart B filings expeditiously. Since the first post-PAEA
domestic competitive rate contract was filed, the Commission has issued
its final decision in 39 CFR 3020 subpart B proceedings in an average
of 21 days. Overall, the Commission's average review period for
competitive contracts in section 3642 proceedings is 27 days. These
timeframes undoubtedly could be shortened if the initial filings were
fully supported by all relevant information. See, e.g., Docket Nos.
MC2009-21 and CP2009-26, Order Concerning Priority Mail Contract 5
Negotiated Service Agreement, March 30, 2009, at 6. (``The electronic
files submitted in support of the Request did not include all
supporting data. Future requests must provide all electronic files
showing calculations in support of the financial models associated with
the request. A failure to provide such information may delay resolution
of requests in the future.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Postal Service Comments at 4. The Postal Service does not
contend that the absence of a statutory or regulatory timeline is
the primary or even a significant factor in causing difficulties in
implementing contracts and maintaining customers; instead it states
that its difficulties are due to ``various uncertainties.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking into account these filings represent new products and that
the public is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to comment on these
proposals, the Commission's record demonstrates that it acts quickly on
Postal Service requests to add new competitive negotiated service
agreement products to the Competitive Product List. Moreover, while the
Commission appreciates the Postal Service's desire to move quickly, it
would appear that delay in implementation is often not due to
Commission proceedings.
For example, three of the five contracts filed in this case in May
2009 were countersigned by the Postal Service in February of 2009.\13\
Additionally, the Governors' Decision associated with these agreements
was issued at the end of April 2009, yet the contracts were not filed
with the Commission for approval until 22 days later. Request,
Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Docket No. CP2009-30, Notice, Attachment A at 5 (signed by
the Postal Service on February 17, 2009); Docket No. CP2009-31,
Notice, Attachment A at 5 (signed by the Postal Service on February
25, 2009); and Docket No. CP2009-33, Notice, Attachment A at 5
(signed by the Postal Service on February 4, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As has been discussed in other contexts, the Commission and the
Governors have different, complementary responsibilities. The
Commission does recognize the Board of Governors' concerns in
administering such agreements. As stated in Order No. 217, it is the
Commission's view that Governors' Decision 09-6 may be used to
authorize future Priority Mail agreements that satisfy the broad
parameters set out in Governors' Decision 09-6. Based on the parameters
of Governors' Decision 09-6, the Postal Service may seek to add future
non-functionally equivalent Priority Mail contracts to the Competitive
Product List by filing new, joint ``MC'' and ``CP'' dockets. Governors'
Decision 09-6 would then satisfy the requirements of 39 CFR 3020.31(b)
and 39 U.S.C. 3642. In those cases, however, the Postal Service still
should file supporting justification as required by 39 CFR 3020.32 to
justify the particular contract or group of contracts for that narrower
product grouping.
Product list assignment. In determining whether to assign Priority
Mail Contract 6 through Priority Mail Contract 10 as products to the
Market Dominant Product List or the Competitive Product List, the
Commission must consider whether:
[[Page 31378]]
The Postal Service exercises sufficient market power that it can
effectively set the price of such product substantially above costs,
raise prices significantly, decrease quality, or decrease output,
without risk of losing a significant level of business to other
firms offering similar products.
39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(1). If so, the particular product will be categorized
as market dominant. The competitive category of products shall consist
of all other products.
The Commission is further required to consider the availability and
nature of enterprises in the private sector engaged in the delivery of
the product, the views of those who use the product, and the likely
impact on small business concerns. 39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(3).
The Postal Service asserts that, for these contracts, its
bargaining position is constrained by the existence of other shippers
who can provide similar services, thus precluding it from taking
unilateral action to increase prices without the risk of losing volume
to private companies. Request, Attachment 2, at 2. The Postal Service
also contends that it may not decrease quality or output without
risking the loss of business to competitors that offer similar
expedited delivery services. Id. It further states that shippers
typically support the addition of their agreements to the product list
to effectuate the negotiated contractual terms. Id. at 3. Finally, the
Postal Service states that the market for expedited delivery services
is highly competitive and requires a substantial infrastructure to
support a national network. It indicates that large carriers serve this
market. Accordingly, the Postal Service states that it is unaware of
any small business concerns that could offer comparable service for
this customer. Id.
No commenter opposes the proposed classification of Priority Mail
Contract 6 through Priority Mail Contract 10 as competitive. Having
considered the statutory requirement and the support offered by the
Postal Service, the Commission finds that Priority Mail Contract 6,
Priority Mail Contract 7, Priority Mail Contract 8, Priority Mail
Contract 9, and Priority Mail Contract 10 are appropriately classified
as competitive products and should be added to the Competitive Product
List.
Cost considerations. The Postal Service's filings seek to establish
new domestic negotiated service agreement products using Priority Mail.
The contracts are predicated on unit costs for major mail functions,
e.g., window service, mail processing, and transportation, based on the
shipper's mail characteristics. Governors' Decision, Attachment B.
The Postal Service contends that its financial analysis shows that
each of these five contracts cover its attributable costs, do not
result in subsidization of competitive products by market dominant
products, and increases contribution from competitive products. See
Notices, Attachment B.
Based on the data submitted and the comments received, the
Commission finds that each of the five proposed Priority Mail contracts
at issue in this case should cover its respective attributable costs
(39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)), should not lead to the subsidization of
competitive products by market dominant products (39 U.S.C.
3633(a)(1)), and should have a positive effect on competitive products'
contribution to institutional costs (39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3)). Thus, an
initial review of the five proposed Priority Mail contracts at issue in
this case indicates that each comports with the provisions applicable
to rates for competitive products.
Termination dates. The Postal Service shall promptly notify the
Commission when each contract terminates, but no later than the actual
termination date. The Commission will then remove the contract from the
Mail Classification Schedule at the earliest possible opportunity.
In conclusion, the Commission approves Priority Mail Contract 6
(MC2009-25 and CP2009-30), Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009-25 and
CP2009-31), Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-32),
Priority Mail Contract 9 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-33), and Priority Mail
Contract 10 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-34) as new products. The revision to
the Competitive Product List is shown below the signature of this Order
and is effective upon issuance of the order.
V. Ordering Paragraphs
It is Ordered:
1. Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-30), Priority
Mail Contract 7 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-31), Priority Mail Contract 8
(MC2009-25 and CP2009-32), Priority Mail Contract 9 (MC2009-25 and
CP2009-33), and Priority Mail Contract 10 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-34) are
added to the Competitive Product List as new products under Negotiated
Service Agreements, Domestic.
2. The Postal Service shall notify the Commission of the
termination date of each contract filed in Docket Nos. CP2009-30,
CP2009-31, CP2009-32, CP2009-33, and CP2009-34 as discussed in this
order.
3. The Secretary shall arrange for the publication of this order in
the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020
Administrative practice and procedure; Postal Service.
By the Commission.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority at 39
U.S.C. 503, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends 39 CFR part 3020 as
follows:
PART 3020--PRODUCT LISTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 3020 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
0
2. Revise Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020--Mail Classification to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020--Mail Classification
Schedule
Part A--Market Dominant Products
1000 Market Dominant Product List
First-Class Mail
Single-Piece Letters/Postcards
Bulk Letters/Postcards
Flats
Parcels
Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit)
High Density and Saturation Letters
High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels
Carrier Route
Letters
Flats
Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels
Periodicals
Within County Periodicals
Outside County Periodicals
Package Services
Single-Piece Parcel Post
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU rates)
Bound Printed Matter Flats
Bound Printed Matter Parcels
Media Mail/Library Mail
Special Services
Ancillary Services
International Ancillary Services
Address List Services
Caller Service
Change-of-Address Credit Card Authentication
Confirm
International Reply Coupon Service
International Business Reply Mail Service
Money Orders
Post Office Box Service
Negotiated Service Agreements
HSBC North America Holdings Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement
Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement
[[Page 31379]]
Bank of America corporation Negotiated Service Agreement
The Bradford Group Negotiated Service Agreement
Inbound International
Canada Post--United States Postal Service Contractual Bilateral
Agreement for Inbound Market Dominant Services
Market Dominant Product Descriptions
First-Class Mail
[Reserved for Class Description]
Single-Piece Letters/Postcards
[Reserved for Product Description]
Bulk Letters/Postcards
[Reserved for Product Description]
Flats
[Reserved for Product Description]
Parcels
[Reserved for Product Description]
Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
[Reserved for Product Description]
Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International
[Reserved for Product Description]
Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit)
[Reserved for Class Description]
High Density and Saturation Letters
[Reserved for Product Description]
High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels
[Reserved for Product Description]
Carrier Route
[Reserved for Product Description]
Letters
[Reserved for Product Description]
Flats
[Reserved for Product Description]
Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels
[Reserved for Product Description]
Periodicals
[Reserved for Class Description]
Within County Periodicals
[Reserved for Product Description]
Outside County Periodicals
[Reserved for Product Description]
Package Services
[Reserved for Class Description]
Single-Piece Parcel Post
[Reserved for Product Description]
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU rates)
[Reserved for Product Description]
Bound Printed Matter Flats
[Reserved for Product Description]
Bound Printed Matter Parcels
[Reserved for Product Description]
Media Mail/Library Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
Special Services
[Reserved for Class Description]
Ancillary Services
[Reserved for Product Description]
Address Correction Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
Applications and Mailing Permits
[Reserved for Product Description]
Business Reply Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
Bulk Parcel Return Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
Certified Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
Certificate of Mailing
[Reserved for Product Description]
Collect on Delivery
[Reserved for Product Description]
Delivery Confirmation
[Reserved for Product Description]
Insurance
[Reserved for Product Description]
Merchandise Return Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
Parcel Airlift (PAL)
[Reserved for Product Description]
Registered Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
Return Receipt
[Reserved for Product Description]
Return Receipt for Merchandise
[Reserved for Product Description]
Restricted Delivery
[Reserved for Product Description]
Shipper-Paid Forwarding
[Reserved for Product Description]
Signature Confirmation
[Reserved for Product Description]
Special Handling
[Reserved for Product Description]
Stamped Envelopes
[Reserved for Product Description]
Stamped Cards
[Reserved for Product Description]
Premium Stamped Stationery
[Reserved for Product Description]
Premium Stamped Cards
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Ancillary Services
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Certificate of Mailing
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Registered Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Return Receipt
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Restricted Delivery
[Reserved for Product Description]
Address List Services
[Reserved for Product Description]
Caller Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
Change-of-Address Credit Card Authentication
[Reserved for Product Description]
Confirm
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Reply Coupon Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Business Reply Mail Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
Money Orders
[Reserved for Product Description]
Post Office Box Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
Negotiated Service Agreements
[Reserved for Class Description]
HSBC North America Holdings Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement
[Reserved for Product Description]
Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement
[Reserved for Product Description]
Bank of America Corporation Negotiated Service Agreement
The Bradford Group Negotiated Service Agreement
Part B--Competitive Products
Competitive Product List
Express Mail
Express Mail
Outbound International Expedited Services
Inbound International Expedited Services
Inbound International Expedited Services 1 (CP2008-7)
Inbound International Expedited Services 2 (MC2009-10 and
CP2009-12)
Priority Mail
Priority Mail
Outbound Priority Mail International
Inbound Air Parcel Post
Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post Agreement
Parcel Select
Parcel Return Service
International
International Priority Airlift (IPA)
International Surface Airlift (ISAL)
International Direct Sacks--M-Bags
Global Customized Shipping Services
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates)
Canada Post--United States Postal service Contractual Bilateral
Agreement for Inbound Competitive Services (MC2009-8 and CP2009-9)
International Money Transfer Service
International Ancillary Services
Special Services
Premium Forwarding Service
Negotiated Service Agreements
Domestic
Express Mail Contract 1 (MC2008-5)
Express Mail Contract 2 (MC2009-3 and CP2009-4)
Express Mail Contract 3 (MC2009-15 and CP2009-21)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2009-6 and CP2009-7)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009-12 and CP2009-
14)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009-13 and CP2009-
17)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009-17 and CP2009-
24)
Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009-18 and CP2009-
25)
Parcel Return Service Contract 1 (MC2009-1 and CP2009-2)
Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2008-8 and CP2008-26)
Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009-2 and CP2009-3)
Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009-4 and CP2009-5)
Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009-5 and CP2009-6)
Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009-21 and CP2009-26)
Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-30)
Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-31)
Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-32)
Priority Mail Contract 9 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-33)
Priority Mail Contract 10 (MC2009-25 and CP2009-34
Outbound International
Global Direct Contracts (MC2009-9, CP2009-10, and CP2009-11)
Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) Contracts
GEPS 1 (CP2008-5, CP2008-11, CP2008-12, and CP2008-13, CP2008-
18, CP2008-19, CP2008-20, CP2008-21, CP2008-22, CP2008-23, and
CP2008-24)
Global Plus Contracts
Global Plus 1 (CP2008-9 and CP2008-10)
Global Plus 2 (MC2008-7, CP2008-16 and CP2008-17)
[[Page 31380]]
Inbound International
Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal
Administrations (MC2008-6, CP2008-14 and CP2008-15)
International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 1
(MC2009-14 and CP2009-20)
Competitive Product Descriptions
Express Mail
[Reserved for Group Description]
Express Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
Outbound International Expedited Services
[Reserved for Product Description]
Inbound International Expedited Services
[Reserved for Product Description]
Priority
[Reserved for Product Description]
Priority Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
Outbound Priority Mail International
[Reserved for Product Description]
Inbound Air Parcel Post
[Reserved for Product Description]
Parcel Select
[Reserved for Group Description]
Parcel Return Service
[Reserved for Group Description]
International
[Reserved for Group Description]
International Priority Airlift (IPA)
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Surface Airlift (ISAL)
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Direct Sacks--M-Bags
[Reserved for Product Description]
Global Customized Shipping Services
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Money Transfer Service
[Reserved for Product Description]
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates)
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Ancillary Services
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Certificate of Mailing
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Registered Mail
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Return Receipt
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Restricted Delivery
[Reserved for Product Description]
International Insurance
[Reserved for Product Description]
Negotiated Service Agreements
[Reserved for Group Description]
Domestic
[Reserved for Product Description]
Outbound International
[Reserved for Group Description]
Part C--Glossary of Terms and Conditions [Reserved]
Part D--Country Price Lists for International Mail [Reserved]
[FR Doc. E9-15469 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P