Performance Measurement, 70653-70656 [2011-29391]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic and export markets.
Therefore, this rule making is not
expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995: The changes proposed in this
notice do not involve a Federal
intergovernmental mandate that will
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or
more in any one year, or a Federal
private sector mandate that will result
in the expenditure by the private sector
of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or
more in any one year, and will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
M. National Environmental Policy
Act: The rule making will not have any
effect on the quality of the environment
and is thus categorically excluded from
review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1968. See
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
N. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act: The requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are
inapplicable, because this rule making
does not involve the use of technical
standards.
O. Paperwork Reduction Act: This
rule making involves information
collection requirements which are
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). As discussed
previously, the changes in this final rule
simply reiterate the provisions of
section 10(h) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act. The collection of
information involved in this rule
making has been reviewed and
previously approved by OMB under
OMB control numbers 0651–0021 and
0651–0032. This notice does not add
any additional information collection
requirements for patent applicants or
patentees. Therefore, the USPTO is not
resubmitting information collection
packages to OMB for its review and
approval because the changes proposed
in this notice do not affect the
information collection requirements
associated with the information
collections under OMB control numbers
0651–0021 and 0651–0032. The USPTO
will update fee calculations for the
currently approved information
collections associated with this rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
making upon submission to the OMB of
the renewals of those information
collections.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Courts, Freedom of
information, Inventions and patents,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses, and
Biologics.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 37 CFR part 1 is amended as
follows:
PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
PATENT CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR
part 1 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 1.16 is amended by adding
paragraph (t) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.16 National application filing, search,
and examination fees.
*
*
*
*
*
(t) Non-electronic filing fee for any
application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) that
is filed on or after November 15, 2011,
other than by the Office electronic filing
system, except for a reissue, design, or
plant application:
By a small entity (§ 1.27(a)) ........
By other than a small entity .......
*
*
*
*
70653
$200.00
$400.00
*
Dated: November 7, 2011.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–29462 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3055
[Docket No. RM2011–14; Order No. 947]
Performance Measurement
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is adopting
a rule addressing reporting requirements
for the measurement of the level of
service the Postal Service provides in
connection with Stamp Fulfillment
Services following consideration of
comments filed in response to a
proposed rule. No commenter opposed
the proposed rule. The final rule is
therefore adopted as proposed.
Adoption of this rule will foster greater
transparency and accountability.
DATES: Effective date: December 15,
2011.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at (202) 789–6820 or
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
By a small entity (§ 1.27(a)) ........
By other than a small entity .......
*
*
*
*
$200.00
$400.00
*
Regulatory History: 76 FR 55619
(September 8, 2011).
Table of Contents
3. Section 1.445 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.445 International application filing,
processing and search fees.
(a) The following fees and charges for
international applications are
established by law or by the Director
under the authority of 35 U.S.C. 376:
(1) A transmittal fee (see 35 U.S.C.
361(d) and PCT Rule 14) consisting of:
I. Introduction
II. Procedural History
III. Background of Postal Service Proposals
IV. Service Performance Measurement
Reporting
V. Service Performance Measurement
Reporting Rules
VI. Review of Comments
VII. Final Rule
VIII. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
This rulemaking is part of the series
of rulemakings initiated by the Postal
(i) A basic portion .......................
$240.00
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
(ii) A non-electronic filing fee portion to fulfill its responsibilities under the
for any international application
Postal Accountability and Enhancement
designating the United States of
Act (PAEA), Public Law 109–435, 120
America that is filed on or after
Stat. 3198 (2006). The final rules
November 15, 2011, other than by the
described herein, which establish
Office electronic filing system, except
reporting requirements for the
for a plant application:
measurements of level of service
afforded by the Postal Service in
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
70654
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
connection with Stamp Fulfillment
Services (SFS), are adopted as proposed.
The reporting of level of service is
required by 39 U.S.C. 3652(a)(2)(B)(i) as
part of the Postal Service’s annual report
to the Commission and supporting
documentation. This is a part of the
Commission’s implementation of a
modern system of rate regulation for
market dominant products to ensure
service is not impaired as a result of the
greater flexibility provided to the Postal
Service under the PAEA in light of the
price cap requirements. See 39 U.S.C.
3622 and 3651.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Procedural History
An SFS fee is charged for order
processing and handling stamp and
product orders received by mail, phone,
fax, or Internet at the Postal Service’s
Stamp Fulfillment Services center in
Kansas City, Missouri. Orders can
include stamps, stamped cards,
envelopes, stationery, and other
philatelic items.
On July 13, 2010, the Commission
added SFS to the market dominant
product list pursuant to a Postal Service
request.1 On June 16, 2011, the
Commission granted a Postal Service
request for a temporary waiver from
reporting service performance for SFS
until the filing date for the 2011 Annual
Compliance Report. The Commission
further asked the Postal Service to either
file a request for a semi-permanent
exception from reporting or begin the
consultation process for establishing
service standards (and measurement
systems) prior to August 1, 2011.2
By letter dated July 29, 2011, the
Postal Service informed the Commission
of its intent to institute an internal
measurement system for SFS and asked
for Commission comment.3 The Postal
Service proposed service standards,
measurement methodologies, and
reporting requirements. The Postal
Service indicated that it would
formalize its proposed service standards
through a Federal Register notice.
On August 25, 2011, the Commission
responded to the Postal Service request
for comment.4 The Commission
1 Docket No. MC2009–19, Order No. 487, Order
Accepting Product Descriptions and Approving
Addition of Stamp Fulfillment Services to the Mail
Classification Schedule Product Lists, July 13, 2010.
2 Docket Nos. RM2011–1, RM2011–4 and
RM2011–7, Order No. 745, Order Concerning
Temporary Waivers and Semi-Permanent
Exceptions from Periodic Reporting of Service
Performance Measurement, June 16, 2011.
3 Letter from Kevin A. Calamoneri, Managing
Counsel Corporate & Postal Business Law, United
States Postal Service to Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary, Postal Regulatory Commission, July 29,
2011.
4 Letter from Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary,
Postal Regulatory Commission to Kevin A.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
concurred with the measurement
approach that the Postal Service
proposed and indicated that the
Commission would initiate a
rulemaking to make the Commission’s
reporting rules consistent with the
Postal Service’s reporting proposals.
On September 1, 2011, the
Commission initiated the instant
proceeding to consider rules for
periodic reporting SFS service
performance measurements.5 The Public
Representative and David B. Popkin
(Popkin) commented on the proposed
rules.6 The Postal Service filed reply
comments.7
III. Background of Postal Service
Proposals
A. Proposed Measurement System
The Postal Service proposed to
measure the time from SFS order entry
to the time a SFS order is placed on a
mail truck manifest for entry into the
mailstream. The transit time once an
order is entered into the mailstream to
delivery is not included as part of the
SFS measurement.
A measurement starts when an order
is entered into the National Customer
Management System (NCMS). NCMS
manages SFS inventory, general ledger,
order history, and customer accounts.
A measurement ends when the order
is logically closed out in the Automated
Fulfillment Equipment System (AFES).8
The AFES system interacts with NCMS
and is used to fulfill orders.
B. Proposed Service Standards
The Postal Service’s proposed service
standards vary depending upon how a
Calamoneri, Managing Counsel Corporate & Postal
Business Law, United States Postal Service, August
25, 2011.
5 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Periodic
Reporting of Service Performance Measurements for
Stamp Fulfillment Services, September 1, 2011
(Order No. 837).
6 Public Representative’s Comments in Response
to Order No. 837 (PR Comments); Comments/
Motion of David B. Popkin, September 22, 2011
(Popkin Comments); Additional Comments of David
B. Popkin, October 4, 2011 (Popkin Additional
Comments). In response to the Popkin Comments,
the Postal Service filed a Response of United States
Postal Service to Comments/Motion of David B.
Popkin, September 28, 2011. The Postal Service
attached the Kevin A. Calamoneri and Shoshana M.
Grove letters cited in footnotes 3 and 4,
respectively, a description of the Postal Service’s
proposed service performance measurement plan,
and a copy of its proposed Federal Register notice
for SFS.
7 Reply Comments of United States Postal
Service, October 12, 2011 (Postal Service Reply
Comments).
8 A logical closure is an indication that an order
has been fulfilled, packaged, labeled, and placed on
a manifest for pickup by a Postal Service truck
before entering the mailstream.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
customer’s order was received.9 The
Postal Service proposes the following
three service standards:
• Internet Orders: Non-Philatelic/NonCustom
Less than or equal to 2 business days
• Business Level Orders
Less than or equal to 5 business days
• Philatelic/Custom and all Other Order
Sources
Less than or equal to 10 business days
C. Proposed Service Goals
For each of the three proposed service
standards, the Postal Service proposes a
service goal or target of achieving each
service standard at least 90 percent of
the time.
IV. Service Performance Measurement
Reporting
The Postal Service proposed to report
the percentage of time that SFS meets or
exceeds the applicable proposed service
standard. The Postal Service also
proposed to report service variances.
Service variances will report the total
percentage of orders fulfilled within the
applicable service standard, plus the
percentage that are fulfilled 1, 2, or 3
days late. Reporting is to be
disaggregated by how a customer’s order
was received. Percentage on time and
service variance reporting are to be
provided to the Commission both on a
quarterly and on an annual basis.
V. Service Performance Measurement
Reporting Rules
The Commission proposed to modify
39 CFR 3055.65 to include a special
reporting requirement for SFS. Section
3055.65 specifies the requirements for
the periodic reporting (quarterly) of
service performance achievements for
special services, which includes SFS.10
The special reporting requirement
specifies that the Postal Service will
report (1) SFS on-time service
performance (as a percentage rounded to
one decimal place); and (2) SFS service
variance (as a percentage rounded to
one decimal place) for orders fulfilled
within +1 day, +2 days, and +3 days of
their applicable service standard.
Both items shall be disaggregated by
customer order entry method. The
Postal Service currently proposed three
customer order entry methods: (1)
Internet Orders: Non-Philatelic/NonCustom; (2) Business Level Orders; and
9 As previously stated, the Postal Service’s
proposed service standards are not the subject of
this rulemaking and can best be addressed by
interested persons through a response to the Postal
Service’s Federal Register notice on this subject
matter.
10 Note that section 3055.31(e) currently requires
quarterly data to be aggregated to an annual level
and reported to the Commission.
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Philatelic/Custom and all Other
Order Sources. By generically referring
to the three proposed methods as
‘‘customer order entry method,’’ the
Postal Service is provided flexibility to
propose other methods to the
Commission for future implementation
without requiring a rule change.
VI. Review of Comments
Three parties, the Public
Representative, Popkin, and the Postal
Service, provided comments in this
docket. No party opposed adoption of
the reporting rules as proposed.
However, both the Public
Representative and Popkin provided
significant comments on the Postal
Service’s proposed measurement system
and service standards.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Public Representative Comments
The Public Representative questions
whether the data reported will be
meaningful based upon the Postal
Service’s selection of service standards.
He submits that ‘‘one purpose of service
performance reporting is to make public
service performance results that
ultimately prompt further
improvements in service by the Postal
Service.’’ PR Comments at 3. He
contends that the Postal Service has
selected service standards that are
relatively easy to meet. Thus, he asserts
there will be no impetus to improve the
fulfillment of SFS orders.
To develop meaningful service
standards, the Public Representative
suggests that the Postal Service be
required to report, for the first 3 years
after implementation, the percentage of
orders fulfilled for each business day of
the 2-, 5-, and 10-day service standards.
He argues that this would establish a
service performance baseline for
determining whether the reported
results are meaningful. Id. at 3–4.
The Public Representative further
suggests that the Postal Service be
required to define and describe the
service standards for Internet Orders:
(1) Non-Philatelic/Non-Custom; (2)
Business Level Orders; and (3)
Philatelic/Custom and all Other Order
Sources so it is clear what is being
measured. Id. at 4.
B. Popkin Comments
Popkin, like the Public
Representative, questions whether the
data reported will be meaningful.
Popkin Comments at 2. Based on his
observations, Popkin contends that the
10 business day standard will be met
virtually all the time, thus not providing
any challenge to the Postal Service to
improve service. Id.; Popkin Additional
Comments at 2–3. Popkin suggests that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
the Postal Service be required to provide
data over the past few years to evaluate
the 10-day standard. Popkin Comments
at 2; Popkin Additional Comments at
2–3, 4–5.
Popkin complains of the lack of
opportunity to comment on the Postal
Service’s SFS service standards because
the standards appear as a final rule in
the Federal Register. He is also critical
of the Commission for focusing on the
reporting requirements instead of the
Postal Service’s service standards.
Popkin Additional Comments at 1–2.
During the comment period, Popkin
submitted a Freedom of Information Act
request directed to the Postal Service
seeking information on SFS order
fulfillments. Id. at 3. Popkin contends
the information provided supports his
allegation that orders are being
processed in substantially less time than
indicated by the service standards.
Popkin notes that orders received
during system downtime or catastrophic
system failure, and pre-orders will be
excluded from service standard
reporting. He argues that these
situations should not be excluded from
reporting. Id. at 4–5.
Popkin also argues that the reporting
categories should be clarified and better
defined. Id. at 5.
C. Postal Service Reply Comments
The Postal Service’s Reply Comments
address the issues raised by the Public
Representative and Popkin and
conclude that no change is necessary to
its proposed measurement system and
service standards.
The Postal Service states that it
considered the questions raised by the
Public Representative and Popkin while
establishing a measurement system and
service standards. Postal Service Reply
Comments at 4. The Postal Service
discusses the data it had available in
making its decisions and the limitations
of the data provided to Popkin. Id. at 4–
5. It comments on its selection of
reporting categories associated with its
measurement system design. Id. at 5. It
explains that customer expectations and
volumes associated with the publication
of a catalog and the holiday season play
a role in establishing service standards.
Id. at 5–6. Noting that Popkin’s
comments are based on his personal
perception (one of 3 million orders
received yearly), the Postal Service
contends that it has to consider a variety
of order scenarios when establishing
service standards. Id. at 7–8.
The Postal Service believes that preorders are properly excluded from
measurement because the creation date
for the order could be weeks before the
product is allowed to ship. The Postal
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70655
Service notes that an order containing a
pre-ordered item is split into two orders,
with the items that can be fulfilled
processed immediately. Id. at 7.
The Postal Service also contends that
planned system downtimes and system
failures are properly excluded from
measurement. Id. The Postal Service
describes system downtimes as audit
periods or planned system upgrade
periods. It states that during system
downtimes customers are told to
‘‘please expect longer timeframe for
delivery.’’ Id.
The Postal Service does not believe it
is necessary to report daily fulfillments
as suggested by the Public
Representative and Popkin for the
purpose of evaluating the
appropriateness of the selected service
standards. Id. at 8–9. The Postal Service
argues that this is asking the
Commission to substitute its judgment
for that of the Postal Service in an area
that is within the realm of the Postal
Service. The Postal Service
acknowledges that the Commission has
a range of regulatory tools at its disposal
if there is reason to believe that the
service standards are not meaningful.
Finally, the Postal Service contends
that it cannot provide further definitions
regarding service standard categories
because data is not fully available at this
time. Id. at 9.
VII. Final Rule
The Commission adopts the SFS
service performance reporting
requirements as proposed. The rules
will be incorporated into the
Commission’s rules of practice and
procedure by modifying the periodic
reporting of service performance
achievements for special services found
in 39 CFR 3055.65.
Both the Public Representative and
Popkin believe the Postal Service’s
proposed service standards will be
exceptionally easy to meet and provide
little incentive for improvement in
service. Both suggest temporarily
reporting time to fulfillment on a daily
basis to judge the appropriateness of the
proposed standards.
The Commission concurs that a
purpose of service performance
measurement is to drive improvement
in service. However, costs that drive
some improvement must be balanced
with the value of results. To justify
improvements in service, other factors
also must be considered, such as
customer needs and expectations, and
the capabilities of the system to provide
that service. The Postal Service
indicates that it has considered these
factors in formulating its initial
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
70656
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
proposals. The Commission will not
require reporting of time to fulfillment
on a daily basis at this point. The
Commission first would like to review
the ability of the Postal Service to meet
its service standards as proposed before
suggesting any changes. A Commission
review of this service could be initiated
if future demonstration that customer
needs or expectations are not being met.
As noted by the Postal Service, if in the
future the Commission does not believe
SFS service performance reporting is
providing meaningful data, the
Commission has the authority to direct
changes in measurement systems and
standards.
Popkin contends that orders received
during system downtime or catastrophic
system failure, and pre-orders should
not be excluded from service standard
reporting. The Commission currently is
willing to accept excluding planned
downtimes so long as customers are
notified of these occurrences as
indicated by the Postal Service.
However, the Commission believes that
system failures (unscheduled events)
should be included in the reporting of
service performance. Infrequent events
can be explained within the data
reports. Frequent events might indicate
a systemic problem that requires
immediate attention. The Commission
recommends that the Postal Service
revisit the decision to exclude system
failures.
The Postal Service states that preorders may be received well in advance
of fulfillment. This creates a problem for
determining when to start-the-clock on
measurement. The Commission agrees
that pre-orders create a start-the-clock
issue and that it need not be addressed
at this time.
The Public Representative and Popkin
contend that the reporting categories
should be clarified and better defined.
The Commission reminds the Postal
Service that it must provide a
description of what is being measured
with each annual report to the
Commission. See 39 CFR 3055.2(e)(1).
The Postal Service is directed to ensure
that accurate descriptions of the
reporting categories are provided at that
time.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
VIII. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission amends its rules
of practice and procedure by modifying
the periodic reporting of service
performance achievements for special
services found in 39 CFR 3055.65. The
changes to 39 CFR 3055.65 appear
following the signature of this order.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Nov 14, 2011
Jkt 226001
2. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3055
Administrative practice and
procedure; Postal service; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Postal Regulatory
Commission amends chapter III of title
39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 3055—SERVICE
PERFORMANCE AND CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION REPORTING
1. The authority citation for part 3055
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503, 3622(a), 3652(d)
and (e), 3657(c).
2. In § 3055.65, add paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
■
§ 3055.65
Special Services.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Additional reporting for Stamp
Fulfillment Service. For Stamp
Fulfillment Service, report:
(1) The on-time service performance
(as a percentage rounded to one decimal
place), disaggregated by customer order
entry method; and
(2) The service variance (as a
percentage rounded to one decimal
place) for orders fulfilled within +1 day,
+2 days, and +3 days of their applicable
service standard, disaggregated by
customer order entry method.
[FR Doc. 2011–29391 Filed 11–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0029–201103; FRL–
9490–5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and
Designations of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, NC and SC;
Determination of Attainment of the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action to
determine that the Charlotte-Gastonia-
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Rock Hill, North Carolina-South
Carolina nonattainment area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte
Area’’) is composed of Cabarrus, Gaston,
Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union
and a portion of Iredell (Davidson and
Coddle Creek Townships) Counties in
North Carolina; and a portion of York
County in South Carolina. This
determination is based upon complete,
quality assured, quality controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data for
the years 2008–2010 showing that the
bi-state Charlotte Area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Under the provisions of EPA’s
ozone implementation rule the
requirements for the States of North
Carolina and South Carolina to submit
an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control
measures (RACM) analyses, reasonable
further progress (RFP) plans,
contingency measures, and other
planning state implementation plans
(SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state
Charlotte Area, shall be suspended for
as long as the Area continues to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, EPA is responding to
comments received on EPA’s April 12,
2011, proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on December 15, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0029. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during
normal business hours at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Spann or Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70653-70656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29391]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3055
[Docket No. RM2011-14; Order No. 947]
Performance Measurement
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting a rule addressing reporting
requirements for the measurement of the level of service the Postal
Service provides in connection with Stamp Fulfillment Services
following consideration of comments filed in response to a proposed
rule. No commenter opposed the proposed rule. The final rule is
therefore adopted as proposed. Adoption of this rule will foster
greater transparency and accountability.
DATES: Effective date: December 15, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at (202) 789-6820 or stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History: 76 FR 55619 (September 8, 2011).
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Procedural History
III. Background of Postal Service Proposals
IV. Service Performance Measurement Reporting
V. Service Performance Measurement Reporting Rules
VI. Review of Comments
VII. Final Rule
VIII. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
This rulemaking is part of the series of rulemakings initiated by
the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) to fulfill its
responsibilities under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
(PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006). The final rules
described herein, which establish reporting requirements for the
measurements of level of service afforded by the Postal Service in
[[Page 70654]]
connection with Stamp Fulfillment Services (SFS), are adopted as
proposed. The reporting of level of service is required by 39 U.S.C.
3652(a)(2)(B)(i) as part of the Postal Service's annual report to the
Commission and supporting documentation. This is a part of the
Commission's implementation of a modern system of rate regulation for
market dominant products to ensure service is not impaired as a result
of the greater flexibility provided to the Postal Service under the
PAEA in light of the price cap requirements. See 39 U.S.C. 3622 and
3651.
II. Procedural History
An SFS fee is charged for order processing and handling stamp and
product orders received by mail, phone, fax, or Internet at the Postal
Service's Stamp Fulfillment Services center in Kansas City, Missouri.
Orders can include stamps, stamped cards, envelopes, stationery, and
other philatelic items.
On July 13, 2010, the Commission added SFS to the market dominant
product list pursuant to a Postal Service request.\1\ On June 16, 2011,
the Commission granted a Postal Service request for a temporary waiver
from reporting service performance for SFS until the filing date for
the 2011 Annual Compliance Report. The Commission further asked the
Postal Service to either file a request for a semi-permanent exception
from reporting or begin the consultation process for establishing
service standards (and measurement systems) prior to August 1, 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Docket No. MC2009-19, Order No. 487, Order Accepting Product
Descriptions and Approving Addition of Stamp Fulfillment Services to
the Mail Classification Schedule Product Lists, July 13, 2010.
\2\ Docket Nos. RM2011-1, RM2011-4 and RM2011-7, Order No. 745,
Order Concerning Temporary Waivers and Semi-Permanent Exceptions
from Periodic Reporting of Service Performance Measurement, June 16,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By letter dated July 29, 2011, the Postal Service informed the
Commission of its intent to institute an internal measurement system
for SFS and asked for Commission comment.\3\ The Postal Service
proposed service standards, measurement methodologies, and reporting
requirements. The Postal Service indicated that it would formalize its
proposed service standards through a Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter from Kevin A. Calamoneri, Managing Counsel Corporate
& Postal Business Law, United States Postal Service to Shoshana M.
Grove, Secretary, Postal Regulatory Commission, July 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 2011, the Commission responded to the Postal Service
request for comment.\4\ The Commission concurred with the measurement
approach that the Postal Service proposed and indicated that the
Commission would initiate a rulemaking to make the Commission's
reporting rules consistent with the Postal Service's reporting
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary, Postal Regulatory
Commission to Kevin A. Calamoneri, Managing Counsel Corporate &
Postal Business Law, United States Postal Service, August 25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 1, 2011, the Commission initiated the instant
proceeding to consider rules for periodic reporting SFS service
performance measurements.\5\ The Public Representative and David B.
Popkin (Popkin) commented on the proposed rules.\6\ The Postal Service
filed reply comments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Periodic Reporting of
Service Performance Measurements for Stamp Fulfillment Services,
September 1, 2011 (Order No. 837).
\6\ Public Representative's Comments in Response to Order No.
837 (PR Comments); Comments/Motion of David B. Popkin, September 22,
2011 (Popkin Comments); Additional Comments of David B. Popkin,
October 4, 2011 (Popkin Additional Comments). In response to the
Popkin Comments, the Postal Service filed a Response of United
States Postal Service to Comments/Motion of David B. Popkin,
September 28, 2011. The Postal Service attached the Kevin A.
Calamoneri and Shoshana M. Grove letters cited in footnotes 3 and 4,
respectively, a description of the Postal Service's proposed service
performance measurement plan, and a copy of its proposed Federal
Register notice for SFS.
\7\ Reply Comments of United States Postal Service, October 12,
2011 (Postal Service Reply Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background of Postal Service Proposals
A. Proposed Measurement System
The Postal Service proposed to measure the time from SFS order
entry to the time a SFS order is placed on a mail truck manifest for
entry into the mailstream. The transit time once an order is entered
into the mailstream to delivery is not included as part of the SFS
measurement.
A measurement starts when an order is entered into the National
Customer Management System (NCMS). NCMS manages SFS inventory, general
ledger, order history, and customer accounts.
A measurement ends when the order is logically closed out in the
Automated Fulfillment Equipment System (AFES).\8\ The AFES system
interacts with NCMS and is used to fulfill orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A logical closure is an indication that an order has been
fulfilled, packaged, labeled, and placed on a manifest for pickup by
a Postal Service truck before entering the mailstream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Service Standards
The Postal Service's proposed service standards vary depending upon
how a customer's order was received.\9\ The Postal Service proposes the
following three service standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As previously stated, the Postal Service's proposed service
standards are not the subject of this rulemaking and can best be
addressed by interested persons through a response to the Postal
Service's Federal Register notice on this subject matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Orders: Non-Philatelic/Non-Custom
Less than or equal to 2 business days
Business Level Orders
Less than or equal to 5 business days
Philatelic/Custom and all Other Order Sources
Less than or equal to 10 business days
C. Proposed Service Goals
For each of the three proposed service standards, the Postal
Service proposes a service goal or target of achieving each service
standard at least 90 percent of the time.
IV. Service Performance Measurement Reporting
The Postal Service proposed to report the percentage of time that
SFS meets or exceeds the applicable proposed service standard. The
Postal Service also proposed to report service variances. Service
variances will report the total percentage of orders fulfilled within
the applicable service standard, plus the percentage that are fulfilled
1, 2, or 3 days late. Reporting is to be disaggregated by how a
customer's order was received. Percentage on time and service variance
reporting are to be provided to the Commission both on a quarterly and
on an annual basis.
V. Service Performance Measurement Reporting Rules
The Commission proposed to modify 39 CFR 3055.65 to include a
special reporting requirement for SFS. Section 3055.65 specifies the
requirements for the periodic reporting (quarterly) of service
performance achievements for special services, which includes SFS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Note that section 3055.31(e) currently requires quarterly
data to be aggregated to an annual level and reported to the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The special reporting requirement specifies that the Postal Service
will report (1) SFS on-time service performance (as a percentage
rounded to one decimal place); and (2) SFS service variance (as a
percentage rounded to one decimal place) for orders fulfilled within +1
day, +2 days, and +3 days of their applicable service standard.
Both items shall be disaggregated by customer order entry method.
The Postal Service currently proposed three customer order entry
methods: (1) Internet Orders: Non-Philatelic/Non-Custom; (2) Business
Level Orders; and
[[Page 70655]]
(3) Philatelic/Custom and all Other Order Sources. By generically
referring to the three proposed methods as ``customer order entry
method,'' the Postal Service is provided flexibility to propose other
methods to the Commission for future implementation without requiring a
rule change.
VI. Review of Comments
Three parties, the Public Representative, Popkin, and the Postal
Service, provided comments in this docket. No party opposed adoption of
the reporting rules as proposed. However, both the Public
Representative and Popkin provided significant comments on the Postal
Service's proposed measurement system and service standards.
A. Public Representative Comments
The Public Representative questions whether the data reported will
be meaningful based upon the Postal Service's selection of service
standards. He submits that ``one purpose of service performance
reporting is to make public service performance results that ultimately
prompt further improvements in service by the Postal Service.'' PR
Comments at 3. He contends that the Postal Service has selected service
standards that are relatively easy to meet. Thus, he asserts there will
be no impetus to improve the fulfillment of SFS orders.
To develop meaningful service standards, the Public Representative
suggests that the Postal Service be required to report, for the first 3
years after implementation, the percentage of orders fulfilled for each
business day of the 2-, 5-, and 10-day service standards. He argues
that this would establish a service performance baseline for
determining whether the reported results are meaningful. Id. at 3-4.
The Public Representative further suggests that the Postal Service
be required to define and describe the service standards for Internet
Orders: (1) Non-Philatelic/Non-Custom; (2) Business Level Orders; and
(3) Philatelic/Custom and all Other Order Sources so it is clear what
is being measured. Id. at 4.
B. Popkin Comments
Popkin, like the Public Representative, questions whether the data
reported will be meaningful. Popkin Comments at 2. Based on his
observations, Popkin contends that the 10 business day standard will be
met virtually all the time, thus not providing any challenge to the
Postal Service to improve service. Id.; Popkin Additional Comments at
2-3. Popkin suggests that the Postal Service be required to provide
data over the past few years to evaluate the 10-day standard. Popkin
Comments at 2; Popkin Additional Comments at 2-3, 4-5.
Popkin complains of the lack of opportunity to comment on the
Postal Service's SFS service standards because the standards appear as
a final rule in the Federal Register. He is also critical of the
Commission for focusing on the reporting requirements instead of the
Postal Service's service standards. Popkin Additional Comments at 1-2.
During the comment period, Popkin submitted a Freedom of
Information Act request directed to the Postal Service seeking
information on SFS order fulfillments. Id. at 3. Popkin contends the
information provided supports his allegation that orders are being
processed in substantially less time than indicated by the service
standards.
Popkin notes that orders received during system downtime or
catastrophic system failure, and pre-orders will be excluded from
service standard reporting. He argues that these situations should not
be excluded from reporting. Id. at 4-5.
Popkin also argues that the reporting categories should be
clarified and better defined. Id. at 5.
C. Postal Service Reply Comments
The Postal Service's Reply Comments address the issues raised by
the Public Representative and Popkin and conclude that no change is
necessary to its proposed measurement system and service standards.
The Postal Service states that it considered the questions raised
by the Public Representative and Popkin while establishing a
measurement system and service standards. Postal Service Reply Comments
at 4. The Postal Service discusses the data it had available in making
its decisions and the limitations of the data provided to Popkin. Id.
at 4-5. It comments on its selection of reporting categories associated
with its measurement system design. Id. at 5. It explains that customer
expectations and volumes associated with the publication of a catalog
and the holiday season play a role in establishing service standards.
Id. at 5-6. Noting that Popkin's comments are based on his personal
perception (one of 3 million orders received yearly), the Postal
Service contends that it has to consider a variety of order scenarios
when establishing service standards. Id. at 7-8.
The Postal Service believes that pre-orders are properly excluded
from measurement because the creation date for the order could be weeks
before the product is allowed to ship. The Postal Service notes that an
order containing a pre-ordered item is split into two orders, with the
items that can be fulfilled processed immediately. Id. at 7.
The Postal Service also contends that planned system downtimes and
system failures are properly excluded from measurement. Id. The Postal
Service describes system downtimes as audit periods or planned system
upgrade periods. It states that during system downtimes customers are
told to ``please expect longer timeframe for delivery.'' Id.
The Postal Service does not believe it is necessary to report daily
fulfillments as suggested by the Public Representative and Popkin for
the purpose of evaluating the appropriateness of the selected service
standards. Id. at 8-9. The Postal Service argues that this is asking
the Commission to substitute its judgment for that of the Postal
Service in an area that is within the realm of the Postal Service. The
Postal Service acknowledges that the Commission has a range of
regulatory tools at its disposal if there is reason to believe that the
service standards are not meaningful.
Finally, the Postal Service contends that it cannot provide further
definitions regarding service standard categories because data is not
fully available at this time. Id. at 9.
VII. Final Rule
The Commission adopts the SFS service performance reporting
requirements as proposed. The rules will be incorporated into the
Commission's rules of practice and procedure by modifying the periodic
reporting of service performance achievements for special services
found in 39 CFR 3055.65.
Both the Public Representative and Popkin believe the Postal
Service's proposed service standards will be exceptionally easy to meet
and provide little incentive for improvement in service. Both suggest
temporarily reporting time to fulfillment on a daily basis to judge the
appropriateness of the proposed standards.
The Commission concurs that a purpose of service performance
measurement is to drive improvement in service. However, costs that
drive some improvement must be balanced with the value of results. To
justify improvements in service, other factors also must be considered,
such as customer needs and expectations, and the capabilities of the
system to provide that service. The Postal Service indicates that it
has considered these factors in formulating its initial
[[Page 70656]]
proposals. The Commission will not require reporting of time to
fulfillment on a daily basis at this point. The Commission first would
like to review the ability of the Postal Service to meet its service
standards as proposed before suggesting any changes. A Commission
review of this service could be initiated if future demonstration that
customer needs or expectations are not being met. As noted by the
Postal Service, if in the future the Commission does not believe SFS
service performance reporting is providing meaningful data, the
Commission has the authority to direct changes in measurement systems
and standards.
Popkin contends that orders received during system downtime or
catastrophic system failure, and pre-orders should not be excluded from
service standard reporting. The Commission currently is willing to
accept excluding planned downtimes so long as customers are notified of
these occurrences as indicated by the Postal Service. However, the
Commission believes that system failures (unscheduled events) should be
included in the reporting of service performance. Infrequent events can
be explained within the data reports. Frequent events might indicate a
systemic problem that requires immediate attention. The Commission
recommends that the Postal Service revisit the decision to exclude
system failures.
The Postal Service states that pre-orders may be received well in
advance of fulfillment. This creates a problem for determining when to
start-the-clock on measurement. The Commission agrees that pre-orders
create a start-the-clock issue and that it need not be addressed at
this time.
The Public Representative and Popkin contend that the reporting
categories should be clarified and better defined. The Commission
reminds the Postal Service that it must provide a description of what
is being measured with each annual report to the Commission. See 39 CFR
3055.2(e)(1). The Postal Service is directed to ensure that accurate
descriptions of the reporting categories are provided at that time.
VIII. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission amends its rules of practice and procedure by
modifying the periodic reporting of service performance achievements
for special services found in 39 CFR 3055.65. The changes to 39 CFR
3055.65 appear following the signature of this order.
2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3055
Administrative practice and procedure; Postal service; Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory
Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 3055--SERVICE PERFORMANCE AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION REPORTING
0
1. The authority citation for part 3055 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503, 3622(a), 3652(d) and (e), 3657(c).
0
2. In Sec. 3055.65, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 3055.65 Special Services.
* * * * *
(d) Additional reporting for Stamp Fulfillment Service. For Stamp
Fulfillment Service, report:
(1) The on-time service performance (as a percentage rounded to one
decimal place), disaggregated by customer order entry method; and
(2) The service variance (as a percentage rounded to one decimal
place) for orders fulfilled within +1 day, +2 days, and +3 days of
their applicable service standard, disaggregated by customer order
entry method.
[FR Doc. 2011-29391 Filed 11-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
