Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, 11871-11878 [2017-03723]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
systems issued by both the Department
and the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). The Department
recently highlighted the emerging work
of States in The Integration of Early
Childhood Data: State Profiles and
Report from the U.S. Departments of
Health and Human Services and
Education.1 In addition, the Department
provided guidance on privacy
requirements under parts C and B of the
IDEA and the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act in Understanding the
Confidentiality Requirements
Applicable to IDEA Early Childhood
Programs Frequently Asked Questions,2
and the Center provided TA to States on
this guidance through a webinar and
other resources. Finally, HHS issued
new data-related regulations through its
2016 Head Start Performance Standards
(45 CFR 1303 Subpart C) and the Child
Care Development Fund (45 CFR part
98), and these regulations support the
existing efforts of many States to
develop or enhance early childhood
data systems.
Second, running a competition for a
new Center for early childhood data
would not be timely this year because
the Center currently coordinates
extensively with the work of the
Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection Program to more efficiently
and effectively meet the vertical data
coordination needs of States for serving
children with disabilities from birth
through age 21. An extension of the
current grantee’s project would align the
end of the current Center’s project
period with the expiration of the project
period for the technical assistance data
center that assists States with data for
school-aged children, namely the
National Technical Assistance Center to
Improve State Capacity to Accurately
Collect and Report IDEA Data (CFDA
number 84.373Y), and allow the
Department to better coordinate overall
its Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection Program and ensure
continued vertical data coordination for
another year.
For these reasons, the Secretary
proposes to waive the requirements in
34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project
periods exceeding five years, as well as
the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a)
and (c)(2), which allow the extension of
a project period only if the extension
does not involve the obligation of
additional Federal funds. The waiver
1 Document available online at: https://
www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/
integration-of-early-childhood-data.pdf.
2 Document available online at: https://
www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/
memosdcltrs/idea-confidentiality-requirementsfaq.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
would allow the Department to issue a
one-time FY 2017 continuation award of
$6,500,000 to the Center originally
funded in FY 2012.
Any activities carried out during the
year of this continuation award would
have to be consistent with, or a logical
extension of, the scope, goals, and
objectives of the grantee’s application as
approved in the 2012 competition. The
requirements for continuation awards
are set forth in the 2012 NIA and in 34
CFR 75.253.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that the
proposed waiver and extension of the
project period would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The only entities that would be affected
by the proposed waiver and extension of
the project period are the current
grantee and any other potential
applicants.
The Secretary certifies that the
proposed waiver and extension would
not have a significant economic impact
on these entities because the extension
of an existing project period imposes
minimal compliance costs, and the
activities required to support the
additional year of funding would not
impose additional regulatory burdens or
require unnecessary Federal
supervision.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This notice of proposed waiver and
extension of the project period does not
contain any information collection
requirements.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance. This
document provides early notification of
our specific plans and actions for this
program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11871
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: February 22, 2017.
Ruth E. Ryder,
Delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary
for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2017–03810 Filed 2–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process
Postal ServiceTM.
ACTION: Proposed rule; revision;
additional comment period.
AGENCY:
The Postal Service is revising
its pending proposal to amend Mailing
Standards of the United States Postal
Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM®), to introduce a newly proposed
measurement and assessment procedure
for evaluating address quality for
mailers who enter eligible letter- and
flat-size pieces of First-Class Mail®
(FCM) and USPS Marketing MailTM
(formerly Standard Mail®) that meet the
requirements for Basic or Full-Service
mailings. In addition, the Postal Service
is proposing to extend free Address
Change Service (ACSTM) to mailers who
enter qualifying mailpieces.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
March 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written
comments to the manager, Product
Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446,
Washington, DC 20260–5015. If sending
comments by email, include the name
and address of the commenter and send
to ProductClassification@usps.gov, with
a subject line of ‘‘Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process.’’ Faxed comments are not
accepted.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11872
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
You may inspect and photocopy all
written comments, by appointment
only, at the USPS® Headquarters
Library, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 11th
Floor North, Washington, DC 20260.
These records are available for review
on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.–4
p.m., by calling 202–268–2906.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Dyer, USPS Mail Entry, Phone:
(207) 482–7217, Email: heather.l.dyer@
usps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 23, 2014, the Postal Service
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (79 FR 76930–76931) to add
a process for measuring address quality.
In response to that proposed rule, the
mailing industry provided many
valuable comments, which prompted
the Postal Service to issue a revised
proposed rule on July 6, 2016 (81 FR
43965–43971). In response to the
revised proposed rule, the Postal
Service again received valuable
feedback from the mailing industry. The
Postal Service has elected to issue a
second revised proposed rule in order to
further clarify our proposal, more
thoroughly respond to mailer
comments, and clearly outline the ways
in which the proposal has changed
since the revised notice of proposed
rulemaking was published on July 6,
2016.
Implementation of this proposed
rulemaking will require action by Postal
Service management and the Postal
Regulatory Commission (PRC). In an
effort to facilitate compliance with the
requirements set forth in the DMM, the
full details of the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process, including step-by-step
instructions and explanatory charts,
would be set forth in Publication 6850,
Publication for Streamlined Mail
Acceptance for Letters and Flats, and
made available at https://
postalpro.usps.com/node/581.
The Postal Service continues to look
for opportunities to work with mailers
to improve address quality and reduce
undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) mail.
We have developed a newly proposed
procedure, the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process,
to measure address quality pertaining to
move-related changes. This proposed
process would allow the Postal Service
to provide valuable feedback to mailers
who enter eligible letter- and flat-size
pieces of FCM and USPS Marketing
Mail that meet the requirements for
Basic or Full-Service mailings.
The Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process
would utilize a scorecard for mailers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
that conveys information on address
hygiene as well as Move Update quality.
The scorecard provides mailers with
results of change-of-address (COA)
verifications along with details about
mailpieces that are UAA.
As announced in the proposed rule of
July 6, 2016, to encourage the further
adoption of Full-Service and to increase
the number of mailers that receive
address quality information, the Postal
Service is proposing to extend free ACS
to mailers who enter qualifying Basic
automation and non-automation
mailpieces; mailpieces that meet the
criteria of the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process;
and mailers who meet a Full-Service
threshold of 95 percent along with other
requirements that are outlined later in
this document. Although the basic
requirements for mailers to receive free
ACS have not changed, as discussed
below under the updated subheadings
Address Change Service and Correction
Notifications and Summary of Industry
Comments and Postal Service
Responses, the Postal Service has made
minor revisions to the free ACS
proposal.
The Postal Service has not changed
the proposal as it pertains to
Periodicals. Because some mailers who
enter Periodicals today could
potentially be charged for manual
address correction notices on mailpieces
using a Full-Service ACS Service Type
IDentifier (STID), the Postal Service is
proposing that mailers who enter FullService Periodicals mailings using a
Full-Service ACS STID would not be
required to pay for or receive manual
address correction notices, unless they
are requested by the mailer. Although
mailers who enter Periodicals would be
provided with address quality data,
these mailpieces would not be subject to
the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process.
The following updated subheadings
build upon the information furnished in
the preamble to the proposed rule of
July 6, 2016, and are intended to
provide a current snapshot of the
evolving Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment proposal.
Terms (Updated)
For purposes of clarification, the
Postal Service provides the following
definitions of several terms used in this
document:
D eDoc Submitter: The electronic
documentation (eDoc) Submitter is
determined using the Customer
Registration IDentifier (CRID) number
that is used to upload the eDoc to the
Postal Service for processing. The eDoc
submitter most often is the Mail
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Preparer but can also be the Mail
Owner. All results of the Address
Quality Measurement would be
displayed on the scorecards for the eDoc
Submitter and Mail Owner; however,
any additional postage assessments
would be presented to the eDoc
submitter.
D Legal Restraint: Mailers of FCM
pieces who assert that they are restricted
by law from incorporating Postal
Service COA information onto their
mailpieces without permission from
addressees could request Postal Service
approval to meet their Move Update
standard using the Legal Restraint
method. Such mailers must be able to
clearly demonstrate how the use of a
primary Move Update method would
violate the law. For details, consult
Guide to Move Update at: https://
beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/1116.
Pieces that meet the requirements for
the Legal Restraint method would be
excluded from the Mailer Scorecard and
the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process,
as long as the mailpieces use the
appropriate CRID or Mailer IDentifier
(MID).
D Mailer: The term mailer within this
document encompasses Mail Owners,
Mail Preparers, and Mail Service
Providers (MSPs).
D Mailer Scorecard: This is an
electronic report that contains mail
quality measurements and assessments
on mailings over a calendar month for
Move Update, Full-Service Intelligent
Mail, eInduction®, and Seamless
Acceptance. The Scorecard is accessible
through the Business Customer Gateway
(BCG) and provides views for both Mail
Owners and MSPs.
D Non-qualifying Mailings: The nonqualifying mailpieces listed below will
be excluded from the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process and the Mailer Scorecard:
• Mailpieces that are undeliverable
due to an address change that is
Temporary, Foreign, Moved Left No
Address (MLNA), and Box Closed No
Order (BCNO).
• Mailpieces that are priced as singlepiece.
• Mailpieces that qualify for the Legal
Restraint method.
• Mailpieces without the
documentation submitted electronically.
D Qualifying Mailings: An eDoc
submitter is eligible for the Address
Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process when at least one of
its mailings qualifies for Full-Service in
a calendar month. Thereafter, when
mailers enter eligible mailings of letterand flat-size pieces of FCM and USPS
Marketing Mail that meet the
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
requirements for Basic or Full-Service
mailings in a subsequent calendar
month, the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process
will be used, if the postage statement
and supporting documentation are
submitted electronically and a unique
Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb®) is
included in the eDoc.
Summary of Industry Comments and
Postal Service Responses (Updated)
The Postal Service appreciates all of
the comments that were provided by the
mailing industry in response to the
original proposed rule of December 23,
2014, and the revised proposal of July
6, 2016. This valuable feedback was
used to establish this further revised
proposal. These comments and replies
can serve as frequently asked questions
(FAQs) to help clarify the Address
Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process. The mailers’
comments and corresponding Postal
Service responses are outlined as
follows:
Mailer Comment
In the proposed rule, the Postal
Service mentioned multiple times that
Periodicals would not be part of the
Move Update requirement. This makes
sense since Periodicals already have a
requirement to receive address
corrections. However, Periodicals
appear to be removed from getting free
ACS for the small portion of their
mailing that may be Basic. Would the
small portion of Periodicals mailing
entered as Basic, which meet all of the
other requirements, receive free ACS as
the other classes of mail mentioned?
would continue to receive their ACS
notices at no charge.
before and during the 10-day mailer
review period.
Mailer Comment
Mailer Comment
It was mentioned that mailers who
enter mailings of Full-Service
Periodicals using a Full-Service ACS
STID would not be required to receive
or pay for manual address correction
notices unless they are requested. Please
provide clarification. We don’t want to
pay for something that we did not
request; however, we still need to
receive the notice if it is not being sent
to us electronically. If we don’t receive
the manual notice about a correction,
then the next issue of the publication
would still go to the incorrect address.
Should this be worded as ‘‘. . . will not
be required to pay for manual address
corrections unless they are requested.’’?
The proposed rule indicated that the
error threshold under consideration is
0.5 percent; however, the assessment
amount for each non-compliant
mailpiece beyond the threshold was not
identified. It was indicated that ‘‘The
Address Quality Assessment Fee is
currently pending management and
regulatory approval.’’ When will the
assessment details be communicated?
Postal Service Response
Only mailpieces for which mailers
request and receive manual ACS notices
would be charged the applicable fee.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service is proposing to
charge the eDoc submitter, if they
exceed the address quality error
threshold. However, we feel that the
Mail Owner should incur the charge
since the eDoc submitter is rarely
responsible for maintaining address
quality. Additionally, since the purpose
is to reduce UAA mail, the process of
rolling all Move Update errors in an
entire month may not identify those
Mail Owners who are challenged with
maintaining quality address files.
Postal Service Response
No; the portions of Periodicals
mailings entered under Basic instead of
the Full-Service would not be eligible
for ACS without an associated fee.
As is the case with the current
verification processes, the Postal Service
proposes to charge the eDoc submitter
for all verification failures. Data
showing the source of errors by the Mail
Owner would be available.
Mailer Comment
Mailer Comment
For the last few years, many
Periodicals mailers have been going
through an ACS reconciliation process.
This was implemented and
administered by the National Customer
Support Center (NCSC) to prevent
Periodicals mailers from being charged
for traditional ACS that should have
been scanned as Full-Service at no
charge. Would this process remain in
place with the new proposal?
We disagree with the proposed
process that would allow the eDoc
submitter to charge assessments to any
permit during that month without the
owner of the permit having the ability
to dispute the charges.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Postal Service Response
Postal Service Response
The Reconciliation process would be
discontinued with implementation of
the proposed process. Those Periodicals
mailers using a Full-Service ACS STID
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
11873
Postal Service Response
At this time, the eDoc submitter has
the option to request review of an
assessment. Upon payment of an
assessment the Mail Owner whose
permit is used receives email
notification of the transaction. Mail
quality data are available throughout the
month, allowing eDoc submitters and
Mail Owners to discuss assessments
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Postal Service Response
The assessment charge will be
communicated in the filing at the Postal
Regulatory Commission (PRC).
Mailer Comment
There is some concern regarding the
timing of the reconciliations and
incoming address corrections. Since the
reconciliation does not occur until the
10th of the month for the previous
month’s activity, a mailer would be
unable to determine whether an
assessment would apply, if the errors
occurred relatively close to the
threshold. In addition, after the
notification is sent on the 10th of the
month, the eDoc submitter has only 10
days to research and dispute an
assessment. The amount of research
required to validate an error can be
extensive, and this narrow window of
opportunity may not be sufficient.
Postal Service Response
At this time, the Postal Service does
not propose changing the review period
of 10 business days. Mail quality and
estimated assessment data are available
throughout the month, which allows
eDoc submitters and Mail Owners to
review assessments before and during
the 10-day mailer review period.
Mailer Comment
Mailers need clarification on the role
and engagement of the United States
Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) with
regard to use of the Mailer Scorecard.
Please outline the process that details
how the USPIS can no longer assess
mailers for non-compliance without first
validating the scorecard/performance
results and working with the Postal
Service prior to discussing compliance
with the mailer. Mailers should not be
put at risk of double jeopardy between
the Postal Service and USPIS. This is a
critical concern that needs to be
addressed.
Postal Service Response
All mailings using postage rates that
require compliance with the Move
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
11874
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Update standard, regardless of whether
they qualify for verification under the
Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process, may be subject
to a separate assessment in the event
that they do not comply with the Move
Update standard pursuant to DMM
602.5. A mailer has not complied with
the Move Update standard if a USPSapproved Move Update method (DMM
602.5.2) was not used to update the
mailer’s address list with correct
addresses (unless the mail bears an
alternative address format under DMM
602.3). In those circumstances, the
mailer did not qualify for the presort or
automation price claimed on the postage
statement or electronic documentation.
The separate assessment could be
applied to every mailpiece in a mailing
for which the mailer did not comply
with the Move update standard, and
would be limited to the difference
between the postage previously paid
(including the Move Update assessment
charge, if applicable) and the applicable
First-Class Mail single-piece rate.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Mailer Comment
This proposal for a 95 percent FullService threshold for ACS (Address
Change Services) might not drive the
behavior the Postal Service is looking
for. Overall, the goal should be working
to improve the mail quality results and
making it simpler for mailers to
automate address quality improvements
that would help both mailers and the
Postal Service. The Postal Service is
making this more complicated than
needed.
This threshold proposal increases
complexity and would add an
unnecessary burden on the Postal
Service to support the administrative
costs for explaining what is and isn’t
free. It would also put an extra burden
on mail service providers and Mail
Owners in managing their overhead.
The Postal Service previously
announced that free ACS would be
offered to customers for all basic and
nonautomation rates. The Postal Service
should offer the ACS service for free to
continue to promote the use of ACS and
improve overall address quality.
Establishing a threshold is the wrong
approach to ‘‘On-Board’’ mailers to FullService and does not help drive toward
greater address quality. At the very
least, another approach to consider is
that once a mailer reaches 95 percent
eligible they are qualified going forward.
Tying eligibility to the data from the
previous month is overly complex and
problematic as well.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
Postal Service Response
We have re-evaluated this process and
revised the proposal accordingly. Once
a mailer qualifies for free ACS for basic
automation and nonautomation pieces
by reaching 95 percent Full-Service,
ACS information would be provided for
free on all qualifying pieces. We would
then review compliance on a quarterly
basis and provide notification if a mailer
would be removed from the program for
falling below the threshold. Once the 95
percent threshold is met again, free ACS
information would be provided in the
next calendar month.
Mailer Comment
Please outline the process for
establishing and changing thresholds.
Changes to the thresholds could have a
significant financial impact on mailers,
so it is important to clarify and
understand this process across all
parties.
Postal Service Response
The Postal Service sets and revises
error thresholds through a periodic
statistical analysis of quality for all
mailings. The Postal Service has
committed to providing at least 90 days
of notice prior to changing a threshold.
Mailer Comment
Changes are needed on the actual
scorecard that makes it clearer to
mailers whether they could be at risk for
ACS charges. The Postal Service should
add a yes/no indicator for free ACS
eligibility on the scorecard.
Postal Service Response
The Postal Service will evaluate
adding this indicator to the Mailer
Scorecard as a future enhancement.
Mailer Comment
Please clarify which IMb Basic pieces
would qualify for free ACS. What is
required for uniqueness for the data
provisioning? The Postal Service has
IMb Basic mail as well as Basic nonautomation pricing for postage. The
Postal Service needs to further clarify
their reference to Basic mail as it is
impacted by free ACS.
Postal Service Response
IMb Basic mailings would be eligible
for no-fee ACS along with nonautomation mailpieces. However, the
mailpieces must meet all of the
following requirements:
D Bear a unique IMb printed on the
mailpiece;
D Include a Full-Service or OneCode
ACS STID in the IMb;
D Include the unique IMb in eDoc;
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D Be sent by an eDoc submitter that
provides accurate Mail Owner
identification in eDoc, and;
D Be sent by an eDoc submitter
entering more than 95 percent of eligible
volume as Full-Service.
Mailer Comment
We propose that the Postal Service
should create a STID that mailers can
use if they are above the threshold, so
if they dip below the threshold they
would not be provided with data and
charged.
Postal Service Response
At this time, the Postal Service will
not be introducing a STID for mailers
who do or do not qualify for no-fee ACS.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service needs to clarify
how the ACS data would be provisioned
when single-piece and presort mail is
free over the 95 percent threshold. The
process is not clear and could create a
potential Move Update compliance
issue for mailers using ACS through
Full-Service if the data is not
provisioned to them when a mailer is
below the threshold.
Postal Service Response
This data would be available through
either the Full-Service ACS data feed in
PostalOne! ® or through Single Source
ACS. Full-Service ACS data through
PostalOne! is provisioned to the Mail
Owner identified in eDoc or the
established delegate. SingleSource ACS
is available for mailers that wish to
receive all ACS notices, subject to the
appropriate fees for notices provided on
mail that does not qualify for the FullService discounts and benefits.
SingleSource ACS data is provisioned to
the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or
the established delegate.
Mailer Comment
Please outline the fees associated with
COA assessments. Mailers need to
understand the specific risk or potential
business impact.
Postal Service Response
The Move Update assessment charge
under the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process
will be communicated in the PRC filing.
Mailer Comment
What is the appeal procedure if a
mailer does not agree with a BME
assessment? How does this change using
the Census method?
Postal Service Response
Mailers may appeal postage
assessments by following the dispute
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
process that is outlined in the current
Guide to Postage Assessment available
on PostalPro at: https://
beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/847.
errors, not just the first 1,000 records.
To the extent the data are driving the fee
assessments; the data must be reliable,
timely, and comprehensive.
Mailer Comment
Postal Service Response
Mailers utilizing National Change of
Address Linkage System (NCOALink®)
End-User licenses have only 18 months
of data and not 48 months of data when
using NCOALink. Does this put End-User
licensees at a disadvantage? Confirm the
time period for the data used in the
Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process. If it is not 18
months or less, mailers utilizing
NCOALink End-User licenses would be
at a disadvantage.
Piece-level data for all COA errors is
available through the bulk data request
process. The Postal Service currently
provides error information on a weekly
and monthly basis upon request.
Postal Service Response
Move Update errors are generated
only for COAs that are between 95 days
and 18 months. A COA over 18 months
old disadvantages End-User licensees
because it generates a Nixie notice for
the sender.
Mailer Comment
It appears that NCOALink and ACS are
not in sync. What reconciliation of files,
processes, and addresses would occur
between NCOALink and ACS?
Postal Service Response
The COA data for NCOALink and ACS
are from the same source (the moving
customer), and they are in sync. If the
mailer has a record with a name or
address that cannot be matched to the
addressee’s COA request, the update
may not be provided via NCOALink but
may be available through ACS. These
scenarios are encompassed within the
threshold determined for Move Update
errors.
Mailer Comment
The error tolerance applied to
mailings should be based on the average
accuracy observed through census-based
verification over an extended period of
time. Accordingly, the validity of the
proposed 0.5 percent error tolerance
should be measured against this
standard before being implemented, and
should be re-evaluated annually.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Postal Service Response
The Postal Service currently sets and
revises error tolerances through a
periodic statistical analysis of quality
for all mailings. The Postal Service has
committed to providing at least 90 days
of notice prior to changing a threshold.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should clarify
whether the eDoc submitter would be
provided piece-level data for all COA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:20 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should also clarify
how the newly proposed Address
Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process would handle
mailpieces that are processed using the
NCOALink Mail Processing Equipment
(MPE) enabled Multiline Optical
Character Reader (MLOCR).
Specifically, the Postal Service should
clarify that COA matches that are not
identified by an MPE solution would be
excluded from the error threshold
calculation for the purpose of
determining the assessment fee.
Postal Service Response
Piece-level data for all COA errors is
available through the bulk data request
process. The Postal Service currently
provides error information on a weekly
and monthly basis upon request.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should also clarify
how it would reconcile different results
from NCOALink, NCOALink MPE, and
ACS. Currently, those systems do not
always return the same results; it would
be unfair to charge mailers and mail
service providers for COA records that
were not identified by a USPS-approved
Move Update methodology. The Postal
Service should also clarify how COAs
older than 18 months would be treated.
Postal Service Response
The COA data for NCOALink and ACS
are from the same source (the moving
customer), and they are in sync. If the
mailer has a record with a name or
address that is unable to match to the
addressee’s COA request, the updated
information may not be provided via
NCOALink but may be available through
ACS. These scenarios are encompassed
within the threshold determined for
Move Update errors.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should clarify
what are the database address update
requirements for NCOALink MPE with
the new census method. NCOALink MPE
Mail Owners are currently not required
(though they are encouraged) to update
their addresses in the database. This is
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11875
because each address is run through this
Move Update process and updated
above the clear zone and in the IMb
before every mailing. It would be
impossible for every small mailer that
uses a commingling service to update
their addresses from COA data. It would
also cause significant operational costs
for the MSP to separately profile every
Mail Owner while processing, because
Full-Service standards only require
profiling for Mail Owners over 5,000
pieces.
Postal Service Response
At this time, the Postal Service does
not plan to change the established
requirements on database address
updates for NCOALink MPE.
Mailer Comment
In the paragraph labeled Address
Change Service and Correction
Notifications, the Postal Service stated
that any address change information
that does not qualify for free ACS would
be provided through SingleSource while
there is no similar comment in the
actual DMM language. Will the Postal
Service continue to support returning
all the current methods of address
correction since our mutual clients do
not all subscribe to SingleSource?
Postal Service Response
This information would be available
through either the Full-Service ACS
data feed in PostalOne! or through
SingleSource ACS. Full-Service ACS
data through PostalOne! is provided to
the Mail Owner identified in eDoc or
the established delegate. SingleSource
ACS is available for mailers that wish to
receive all ACS notices, subject to the
appropriate fees for notices provided on
mail that does not qualify for the FullService discounts and benefits.
SingleSource ACS data is provided to
the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or
the established delegate.
Mailer Comment
Can you clarify how ‘‘or Current
Resident’’ affects the electronic flagging
of pieces in the census method? Our
expectation is that if a mailpiece is
addressed to ‘‘John Doe or Current
Resident’’ with a valid physical address,
that even if a COA would have been
generated for John Doe at that address
the piece would NOT be flagged as a
Move Update failure.
Postal Service Response
When a mailpiece is processed
through Postal Automated Redirection
System (PARS)/Computerized Forward
System (CFS) as UAA, it would be
logged as a Nixie not a COA error. PARS
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
11876
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
normally identifies the ‘‘or Current
Resident’’ wording in the address block
and returns it to the carrier with a label
stating, ‘‘Mailpiece to be delivered as
addressed.’’
Background (Updated)
The Postal Service requires mailers to
update address-related changes through
the Move Update requirements process.
Currently, Move Update compliance is
measured at the mailing level using the
Mail Evaluation Readability and Lookup
INstrument (MERLIN®) as follows:
D At the point of acceptance, mailings
are randomly selected for address
quality assessment, and samples of the
selected mailings are processed through
MERLIN.
D PostalOne! sends an electronic
version of the mailer’s Postage
Statement Message (PSM) to the
MERLIN Maintenance and Operations
Database (MMOD).
D MMOD routes the PSM to the
appropriate site and MERLIN machine.
D Postal Service personnel generate a
verification report, and the report
produces a set of results that are routed
back to the MMOD system.
D MERLIN generates a report that
provides the details on mail quality.
D MMOD sends an Address Quality
Validation System (AQVS) messagestream of addresses, names, and ZIP
Codes to the NCSC for Move Update
processing.
D MERLIN captures the address
information from the mailpiece and
electronically sends each record to the
NCSC to see if there is a COA on file.
D The piece is identified as an error
if the mailer did not use the updated
address indicated in the COA on file,
and the COA ‘‘filing date’’ is between 95
days and 18 months of the postage
statement finalization date.
D MMOD sends mail verification
results (whether the mailer passed) to
the PostalOne! system.
D NCSC processes the AQVS data
stream and sends the results to
PostalOne! which addresses the Move
Update failures.
D PostalOne! uses the mail
verification and NCSC Move Update
results to formulate the final charges.
In 2013, the Postal Service introduced
the concept of measuring and assessing
mail quality for mailings over a calendar
month for Full-Service Intelligent Mail,
electronic induction (eInduction), and
Seamless Acceptance. Since August
2014, Postal Service technology has
further evolved so that, when mailers
use an IMb and submit their postage
statements and supporting
documentation electronically, data
collection scans from MPE can be used
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
to evaluate the address and moverelated quality of mail being processed.
Accordingly, the Postal Service is using
this technology as an alternative to
measure and evaluate the quality of
mailings.
Future Process (Updated)
The Postal Service has revised its
earlier proposal, and is now proposing
to replace the existing MERLIN Move
Update verification process with the
Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process. In other words,
MERLIN Move Update verification
would terminate upon implementation
of the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process.
As previously proposed, the new
method would apply to mailing of
letter- and flat-size pieces FCM and
USPS Marketing Mail that meet the
requirements for Basic and Full-Service
mailings.
In addition, the revised proposal of
July 6, 2016, has been modified to
reflect the fact that qualifying mailings
would still be required to document
Move Update compliance methods on a
postage statement, mail.dat, or mail.xml
once the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process is
in place. Documents demonstrating the
method used should be available upon
request by the Postal Service, and
mailers would continue to use a Move
Update method in order to remain
below the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process
error threshold, expedite the delivery of
mail by avoiding mail forwarding, and
increase the security and privacy of
sensitive customer information.
The proposal has not changed with
regard to Periodicals; mailers who enter
Periodicals would be provided with
address quality data, but the Move
Update mailers of Periodicals would not
be verified under the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process, because the Move Update
Standard in DMM 602.5 does not extend
to Periodicals.
The Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process is
a much more robust method to verify
address quality, and would generate
several benefits, including enhanced
mailing visibility and improved mail
quality metrics on all mailings entered
within a calendar month, rather than
sampled mailings. The Postal Service
has not changed the overall method for
measuring all applicable mailings
within a calendar month under the
Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process, which would
be accomplished according to the
following process:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D Mailpieces would be scanned on
MPE.
D Address information captured from
mailpieces identified as UAA would be
evaluated to determine if COA
information is on file.
D The address information for
mailpieces matching an active COA
would be sent electronically to NCSC.
D NCSC would forward COA
information to the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process for evaluation.
D Move Update validations would be
performed by comparing the MID +
Serial Number of the IMb from the COArelated mailpiece data. If the COA is
between 95 days and 18 months old,
and the address has not been updated,
then a COA error for the associated IMb
would be logged and allocated under
the CRID of the eDoc submitter.
D All qualifying mailpieces entered by
an eDoc submitter in a calendar month
would be subject to the proposed error
threshold for the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process. The proposed error threshold is
0.5 percent, and is subject to review at
the PRC.
D The Postal Service would assess the
relevant eDoc submitter CRID the Move
Update Assessment Charge for each
mailpiece with a COA error beyond the
threshold.
D The data would be collected and
reported on the Mailer Scorecard under
the eDoc submitter CRID.
Move Update Assessment Charge
(Updated)
Because the new method of
verification would replace the MERLIN
method, the charge would still be
termed the Move Update assessment
charge, and not renamed the address
quality assessment fee. When the ratio
of qualifying mailpieces with COA
errors to total qualifying mailpieces
submitted in the calendar month by the
eDoc submitter exceeds the Address
Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process error threshold, the
Move Update assessment charge would
apply to the mailpieces with COA errors
above the threshold. The Move Update
assessment charge will be
communicated to the public upon filing
with the PRC.
Mailer Scorecard (Updated)
The Mailer Scorecard is currently
available to mailers, and this report
provides data that allow mailers to
gauge address quality on their
mailpieces. Mailers would be charged
only for mailpieces above the errors
threshold after the PRC review is
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
completed and the Postal Service
implements the final rule.
Criteria (Updated)
The Postal Service has retained the
proposed criteria to qualify for
verification under the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process. Mailers would be verified
under the process when they:
D Submit any mailpieces during a
calendar month as Full-Service;
D Use a unique Basic or Full-Service
IMb on mailings of letter- and flat-size
pieces for FCM and USPS Marketing
Mail, and;
D Use eDoc to submit mailing
information.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Specifications (Updated)
The Postal Service has retained the
proposed specifications for assessing
address quality. Once the Postal Service
implements the proposed process,
address quality would be measured as
follows:
D Analysis would be performed on all
pieces in the mailing, rather than on a
sample.
D The assessment would be
determined by the number of COA
errors, in a calendar month, divided by
the total number of pieces mailed that
were subject to analysis. The resulting
percentage would be compared to the
established Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process
error threshold.
D There are a number of exclusions to
the measurement and assessment
process. Generally, mailpieces with
addresses that have the following COA
characteristics would not be included in
the assessment: Temporary moves,
MLNA, BCNO, and COA data for foreign
addresses.
D Mailpieces authorized for the Legal
Restraint alternate Move Update method
(See Guide to Move Update) would be
excluded at the CRID level of the Mail
Owner, during a short transition period.
After the transition period, an
established MID would be identified for
use on mailpieces that fall under the
Legal Restraint method.
Mailpiece Results (Updated)
Once qualifying mailings were
processed on MPE, the data from
mailpieces would be reconciled with
eDoc. These results would be available
on the BCG and displayed on the
Electronic Verification tab of the Mailer
Scorecard, which would be easily
accessible at https://gateway.usps.com/
eAdmin/view/signin. Mailers would be
able to review the Mailer Scorecard and
corresponding detailed reports to
identify any anomalies or issues.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
To resolve Mailer Scorecard
irregularities, mailers should contact the
PostalOne! Help Desk at 800–522–9085
or their local Business Mail Entry Unit
(BMEU).
Address Change Service and Correction
Notifications (Updated)
As announced in the proposed rule of
July 6, 2016, to encourage the further
adoption of Full-Service, the Postal
Service is proposing to extend free FullService ACS to qualifying Basic
automation and non-automation
mailpieces for mailers who enter at least
95 percent of their mail as Full-Service
in a calendar month. The Basic
mailpieces must be prepared as follows:
D Bear a unique IMb printed on the
mailpiece;
D Include a Full-Service ACS or
OneCode ACS® STID in the IMb;
D Include the unique IMb in eDoc,
and;
D Be sent by an eDoc submitter
providing accurate Mail Owner
identification in eDoc.
As clarification, if mailers meet the 95
percent threshold during a calendar
month, they would be enrolled to
receive free Full-Service ACS for all
Basic automation and non-automation
mailpieces in the following month. The
Postal Service would monitor FullService compliance for these mailers on
a quarterly basis. If an enrolled mailer’s
average Full-Service volume dropped
below the 95 percent threshold for a
given quarter, that mailer would receive
notification of its removal from
receiving free ACS in the next billing
cycle. If the 95 percent threshold were
met in a subsequent month, the
removed mailer would be re-enrolled to
receive free Full-Service ACS for Basic
automation and non-automation
mailpieces for the next billing cycle.
Address change information would be
provided through Full-Service ACS
feedback to the Mail Owner identified
in eDoc or its delegee. ACS information
would continue to be distributed
through SingleSource to the Mail Owner
identified in the IMb or its delegee.
The revised proposal has not changed
with regard to Periodicals; mailers who
enter mailings of Full-Service
Periodicals would no longer be required
to receive and pay for manual address
corrections when a Full-Service ACS
STID is used. However, these mailers
might elect to receive and pay for
manual address correction notifications
by including the appropriate STID
within the IMb.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
Administrative practice and
procedure, Postal Service.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11877
Although exempt from the notice and
comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(b), (c)) regarding proposed
rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the
Postal Service invites public comments
on the following proposed revisions to
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM), incorporated by reference in the
Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR
111.1.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 111—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR
part 111 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301–
307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101,
401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–
3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632,
3633, and 5001.
2. Revise the following sections of
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM) as follows:
■
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM)
*
*
*
*
*
507
Mailer Services
1.0
Treatment of Mail
*
*
*
*
*
1.5 Treatment for Ancillary Services
by Class of Mail
*
*
1.5.2
*
*
*
Periodicals
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise 507.1.5.2c by changing the
last word of the sentence to ‘‘received’’
as follows:]
c. Address correction service is
mandatory for all Periodicals
publications, and the address correction
service fee must be paid for each notice
received.
*
*
*
*
*
4.0
Address Correction Services
*
*
4.2
Address Change Service (ACS)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.2.2 Service Options
[Revise 507.4.2.2 by modifying the
introductory sentence and adding a new
item ‘‘d’’ as follows:]
ACS offers four levels of service, as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
d. A Full-Service option available to
mailings of First-Class Mail automation
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
11878
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 37 / Monday, February 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
cards, letters, and flats; USPS Marketing
Mail automation letters and flats; USPS
Marketing Mail Carrier Route, High
Density, and Saturation letters;
Periodicals Outside County barcoded or
Carrier Route letters and flats;
Periodicals In-County automation or
Carrier Route letters and flats; and
Bound Printed Matter Presorted, nonDDU barcoded flats. Mailers who
present at least 95 percent of their
eligible First-Class Mail and USPS
Marketing Mail volume as Full-Service
in a calendar month would receive
electronic address correction notices for
their qualifying Basic automation and
non-automation First-Class Mail and
USPS Marketing Mail pieces, at the
address correction fee for pieces eligible
for the Full-Service Intelligent Mail
option as described in DMM 705.23.0
for future billing cycles. The Basic FirstClass Mail and USPS Marketing Mail
mailpieces must:
1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the
mailpiece;
2. Include a Full-Service or OneCode
ACS STID in the IMb;
3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc;
4. Be sent by an eDoc submitter
providing accurate Mail Owner
identification in eDoc, and;
5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter
maintaining 95 percent Full-Service
compliance to remain eligible for this
service and undergo periodic Postal
Service re-evaluation.
*
*
*
*
*
4.2.8 Address Correction Service Fee
[Revise 507.4.2.8 by deleting the old
language and replacing with new
language as follows:]
ACS fees would be assessed as
follows:
a. The applicable fee for address
correction is charged for each separate
notification of address correction or the
reason for nondelivery provided, unless
an exception applies.
b. Once the ACS fee charges have
been invoiced, any unpaid fees for the
prior invoice cycle (month) would be
assessed an annual administrative fee of
10 percent for the overdue amount.
c. Mailers who present at least 95
percent of their eligible First-Class Mail
and USPS Marketing Mail volume as
Full-Service in a calendar month would
receive electronic address correction
notices for their qualifying Basic
automation and non-automation FirstClass Mail and USPS Marketing Mail
mailpieces, as specified in 4.2.2. The
electronic address correction notices are
charged at the applicable Full-Service
address correction fee for all future
billing cycles.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Feb 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
600 Basic Mailing Standards for All
Mailing Services
*
*
*
*
*
602
Addressing
*
*
5.0
Move Update Standards
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise 602.5.3 by deleting former
contents and replacing with new title
and contents as follows:]
5.3 Move Update Verification
Mailers who submit any Full-Service
volume in a calendar month will be
verified pursuant to the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment
Process beginning in the next calendar
month. First-Class Mail and USPS
Marketing Mail letter and flat-size
mailpieces with addresses that have not
been updated in accordance with the
Move Update Standard will be subject
to the Move Update assessment charge,
if submitted via eDoc with unique Basic
or Full-Service IMbs. Supporting details
are described in Publication 6850,
Publication for Streamlined Mail
Acceptance for Letters and Flats,
available at www.postalpro.usps.com.
[Revise 602.5.4 as follows:]
5.4 Mailer Certification
The mailer’s signature on the postage
statement or electronic confirmation
during eDoc submission certifies that
the Move Update standard has been met
for the address records including each
address in the corresponding mailing
presented to the USPS.
*
*
*
*
*
700
*
*
*
*
705 Advanced Preparation and
Special Postage Payment Systems
*
*
23.0
*
*
*
Full-Service Automation Option
*
23.5
*
*
*
*
23.5.2
*
*
*
Address Correction Notices
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise 705.23.5.2a as follows:]
a. Address correction notices would
be provided at the applicable FullService address correction fee for letters
and flats eligible for the Full-Service
option, except for USPS Marketing Mail
ECR flats, BPM flats dropshipped to
DDUs, or BPM carrier route flats.
Mailers who present at least 95 percent
of their eligible First-Class Mail and
USPS Marketing Mail volume as Full-
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FR Doc. 2017–03723 Filed 2–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0763; FRL–9959–74]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency
response.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
availability of EPA’s response to a
petition it received on November 23,
2016, under section 21 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). The
TSCA section 21 petition was received
from the Fluoride Action Network, Food
& Water Watch, Organic Consumers
Association, the American Academy of
Environmental Medicine, the
International Academy of Oral Medicine
and Toxicology, and other individual
petitioners. The TSCA section 21
petition requested that EPA exercise its
authority under TSCA section 6 to
‘‘prohibit the purposeful addition of
fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water
supplies.’’ After careful consideration,
SUMMARY:
*
Additional Standards
*
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water;
TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for
Agency Response
Special Standards
*
Service in a calendar month would
receive electronic address correction
notices for their qualifying Basic
automation and non-automation FirstClass Mail and USPS Marketing
mailpieces charged at the applicable
Full-Service address correction fee for
future billing cycles. The Basic
automation and non-automation FirstClass Mail and USPS Marketing Mail
mailpieces must:
1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the
mailpiece.
2. Include a Full-Service or OneCode
ACS STID in the IMb.
3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc.
4. Be sent by an eDoc submitter
providing accurate Mail Owner
identification in eDoc.
5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter
maintaining 95 percent Full-Service
compliance to remain eligible for this
service and undergo periodic USPS reevaluation.
*
*
*
*
*
We will publish an appropriate
amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect
these changes, if our proposal is
adopted.
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 37 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11871-11878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process
AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.
ACTION: Proposed rule; revision; additional comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Postal Service is revising its pending proposal to amend
Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail
Manual (DMM[supreg]), to introduce a newly proposed measurement and
assessment procedure for evaluating address quality for mailers who
enter eligible letter- and flat-size pieces of First-Class Mail[supreg]
(FCM) and USPS Marketing MailTM (formerly Standard
Mail[supreg]) that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service
mailings. In addition, the Postal Service is proposing to extend free
Address Change Service (ACSTM) to mailers who enter
qualifying mailpieces.
DATES: Submit comments on or before March 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product
Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446,
Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the
name and address of the commenter and send to
ProductClassification@usps.gov, with a subject line of ``Address
Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.'' Faxed comments are
not accepted.
[[Page 11872]]
You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment
only, at the USPS[supreg] Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW.,
11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for
review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-
2906.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Dyer, USPS Mail Entry, Phone:
(207) 482-7217, Email: heather.l.dyer@usps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 23, 2014, the Postal Service
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 76930-76931) to add a
process for measuring address quality. In response to that proposed
rule, the mailing industry provided many valuable comments, which
prompted the Postal Service to issue a revised proposed rule on July 6,
2016 (81 FR 43965-43971). In response to the revised proposed rule, the
Postal Service again received valuable feedback from the mailing
industry. The Postal Service has elected to issue a second revised
proposed rule in order to further clarify our proposal, more thoroughly
respond to mailer comments, and clearly outline the ways in which the
proposal has changed since the revised notice of proposed rulemaking
was published on July 6, 2016.
Implementation of this proposed rulemaking will require action by
Postal Service management and the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC).
In an effort to facilitate compliance with the requirements set forth
in the DMM, the full details of the Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process, including step-by-step instructions and
explanatory charts, would be set forth in Publication 6850, Publication
for Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters and Flats, and made
available at https://postalpro.usps.com/node/581.
The Postal Service continues to look for opportunities to work with
mailers to improve address quality and reduce undeliverable-as-
addressed (UAA) mail. We have developed a newly proposed procedure, the
Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, to measure
address quality pertaining to move-related changes. This proposed
process would allow the Postal Service to provide valuable feedback to
mailers who enter eligible letter- and flat-size pieces of FCM and USPS
Marketing Mail that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service
mailings.
The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process would
utilize a scorecard for mailers that conveys information on address
hygiene as well as Move Update quality. The scorecard provides mailers
with results of change-of-address (COA) verifications along with
details about mailpieces that are UAA.
As announced in the proposed rule of July 6, 2016, to encourage the
further adoption of Full-Service and to increase the number of mailers
that receive address quality information, the Postal Service is
proposing to extend free ACS to mailers who enter qualifying Basic
automation and non-automation mailpieces; mailpieces that meet the
criteria of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment
Process; and mailers who meet a Full-Service threshold of 95 percent
along with other requirements that are outlined later in this document.
Although the basic requirements for mailers to receive free ACS have
not changed, as discussed below under the updated subheadings Address
Change Service and Correction Notifications and Summary of Industry
Comments and Postal Service Responses, the Postal Service has made
minor revisions to the free ACS proposal.
The Postal Service has not changed the proposal as it pertains to
Periodicals. Because some mailers who enter Periodicals today could
potentially be charged for manual address correction notices on
mailpieces using a Full-Service ACS Service Type IDentifier (STID), the
Postal Service is proposing that mailers who enter Full-Service
Periodicals mailings using a Full-Service ACS STID would not be
required to pay for or receive manual address correction notices,
unless they are requested by the mailer. Although mailers who enter
Periodicals would be provided with address quality data, these
mailpieces would not be subject to the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process.
The following updated subheadings build upon the information
furnished in the preamble to the proposed rule of July 6, 2016, and are
intended to provide a current snapshot of the evolving Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment proposal.
Terms (Updated)
For purposes of clarification, the Postal Service provides the
following definitions of several terms used in this document:
[ssquf] eDoc Submitter: The electronic documentation (eDoc)
Submitter is determined using the Customer Registration IDentifier
(CRID) number that is used to upload the eDoc to the Postal Service for
processing. The eDoc submitter most often is the Mail Preparer but can
also be the Mail Owner. All results of the Address Quality Measurement
would be displayed on the scorecards for the eDoc Submitter and Mail
Owner; however, any additional postage assessments would be presented
to the eDoc submitter.
[ssquf] Legal Restraint: Mailers of FCM pieces who assert that they
are restricted by law from incorporating Postal Service COA information
onto their mailpieces without permission from addressees could request
Postal Service approval to meet their Move Update standard using the
Legal Restraint method. Such mailers must be able to clearly
demonstrate how the use of a primary Move Update method would violate
the law. For details, consult Guide to Move Update at: https://beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/1116. Pieces that meet the requirements
for the Legal Restraint method would be excluded from the Mailer
Scorecard and the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment
Process, as long as the mailpieces use the appropriate CRID or Mailer
IDentifier (MID).
[ssquf] Mailer: The term mailer within this document encompasses
Mail Owners, Mail Preparers, and Mail Service Providers (MSPs).
[ssquf] Mailer Scorecard: This is an electronic report that
contains mail quality measurements and assessments on mailings over a
calendar month for Move Update, Full-Service Intelligent Mail,
eInduction[supreg], and Seamless Acceptance. The Scorecard is
accessible through the Business Customer Gateway (BCG) and provides
views for both Mail Owners and MSPs.
[ssquf] Non-qualifying Mailings: The non-qualifying mailpieces
listed below will be excluded from the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process and the Mailer Scorecard:
Mailpieces that are undeliverable due to an address change
that is Temporary, Foreign, Moved Left No Address (MLNA), and Box
Closed No Order (BCNO).
Mailpieces that are priced as single-piece.
Mailpieces that qualify for the Legal Restraint method.
Mailpieces without the documentation submitted
electronically.
[ssquf] Qualifying Mailings: An eDoc submitter is eligible for the
Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process when at least
one of its mailings qualifies for Full-Service in a calendar month.
Thereafter, when mailers enter eligible mailings of letter- and flat-
size pieces of FCM and USPS Marketing Mail that meet the
[[Page 11873]]
requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings in a subsequent
calendar month, the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment
Process will be used, if the postage statement and supporting
documentation are submitted electronically and a unique Intelligent
Mail barcode (IMb[supreg]) is included in the eDoc.
Summary of Industry Comments and Postal Service Responses (Updated)
The Postal Service appreciates all of the comments that were
provided by the mailing industry in response to the original proposed
rule of December 23, 2014, and the revised proposal of July 6, 2016.
This valuable feedback was used to establish this further revised
proposal. These comments and replies can serve as frequently asked
questions (FAQs) to help clarify the Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process. The mailers' comments and corresponding Postal
Service responses are outlined as follows:
Mailer Comment
In the proposed rule, the Postal Service mentioned multiple times
that Periodicals would not be part of the Move Update requirement. This
makes sense since Periodicals already have a requirement to receive
address corrections. However, Periodicals appear to be removed from
getting free ACS for the small portion of their mailing that may be
Basic. Would the small portion of Periodicals mailing entered as Basic,
which meet all of the other requirements, receive free ACS as the other
classes of mail mentioned?
Postal Service Response
No; the portions of Periodicals mailings entered under Basic
instead of the Full-Service would not be eligible for ACS without an
associated fee.
Mailer Comment
For the last few years, many Periodicals mailers have been going
through an ACS reconciliation process. This was implemented and
administered by the National Customer Support Center (NCSC) to prevent
Periodicals mailers from being charged for traditional ACS that should
have been scanned as Full-Service at no charge. Would this process
remain in place with the new proposal?
Postal Service Response
The Reconciliation process would be discontinued with
implementation of the proposed process. Those Periodicals mailers using
a Full-Service ACS STID would continue to receive their ACS notices at
no charge.
Mailer Comment
It was mentioned that mailers who enter mailings of Full-Service
Periodicals using a Full-Service ACS STID would not be required to
receive or pay for manual address correction notices unless they are
requested. Please provide clarification. We don't want to pay for
something that we did not request; however, we still need to receive
the notice if it is not being sent to us electronically. If we don't
receive the manual notice about a correction, then the next issue of
the publication would still go to the incorrect address. Should this be
worded as ``. . . will not be required to pay for manual address
corrections unless they are requested.''?
Postal Service Response
Only mailpieces for which mailers request and receive manual ACS
notices would be charged the applicable fee.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service is proposing to charge the eDoc submitter, if
they exceed the address quality error threshold. However, we feel that
the Mail Owner should incur the charge since the eDoc submitter is
rarely responsible for maintaining address quality. Additionally, since
the purpose is to reduce UAA mail, the process of rolling all Move
Update errors in an entire month may not identify those Mail Owners who
are challenged with maintaining quality address files.
Postal Service Response
As is the case with the current verification processes, the Postal
Service proposes to charge the eDoc submitter for all verification
failures. Data showing the source of errors by the Mail Owner would be
available.
Mailer Comment
We disagree with the proposed process that would allow the eDoc
submitter to charge assessments to any permit during that month without
the owner of the permit having the ability to dispute the charges.
Postal Service Response
At this time, the eDoc submitter has the option to request review
of an assessment. Upon payment of an assessment the Mail Owner whose
permit is used receives email notification of the transaction. Mail
quality data are available throughout the month, allowing eDoc
submitters and Mail Owners to discuss assessments before and during the
10-day mailer review period.
Mailer Comment
The proposed rule indicated that the error threshold under
consideration is 0.5 percent; however, the assessment amount for each
non-compliant mailpiece beyond the threshold was not identified. It was
indicated that ``The Address Quality Assessment Fee is currently
pending management and regulatory approval.'' When will the assessment
details be communicated?
Postal Service Response
The assessment charge will be communicated in the filing at the
Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC).
Mailer Comment
There is some concern regarding the timing of the reconciliations
and incoming address corrections. Since the reconciliation does not
occur until the 10th of the month for the previous month's activity, a
mailer would be unable to determine whether an assessment would apply,
if the errors occurred relatively close to the threshold. In addition,
after the notification is sent on the 10th of the month, the eDoc
submitter has only 10 days to research and dispute an assessment. The
amount of research required to validate an error can be extensive, and
this narrow window of opportunity may not be sufficient.
Postal Service Response
At this time, the Postal Service does not propose changing the
review period of 10 business days. Mail quality and estimated
assessment data are available throughout the month, which allows eDoc
submitters and Mail Owners to review assessments before and during the
10-day mailer review period.
Mailer Comment
Mailers need clarification on the role and engagement of the United
States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) with regard to use of the
Mailer Scorecard. Please outline the process that details how the USPIS
can no longer assess mailers for non-compliance without first
validating the scorecard/performance results and working with the
Postal Service prior to discussing compliance with the mailer. Mailers
should not be put at risk of double jeopardy between the Postal Service
and USPIS. This is a critical concern that needs to be addressed.
Postal Service Response
All mailings using postage rates that require compliance with the
Move
[[Page 11874]]
Update standard, regardless of whether they qualify for verification
under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process,
may be subject to a separate assessment in the event that they do not
comply with the Move Update standard pursuant to DMM 602.5. A mailer
has not complied with the Move Update standard if a USPS-approved Move
Update method (DMM 602.5.2) was not used to update the mailer's address
list with correct addresses (unless the mail bears an alternative
address format under DMM 602.3). In those circumstances, the mailer did
not qualify for the presort or automation price claimed on the postage
statement or electronic documentation. The separate assessment could be
applied to every mailpiece in a mailing for which the mailer did not
comply with the Move update standard, and would be limited to the
difference between the postage previously paid (including the Move
Update assessment charge, if applicable) and the applicable First-Class
Mail single-piece rate.
Mailer Comment
This proposal for a 95 percent Full-Service threshold for ACS
(Address Change Services) might not drive the behavior the Postal
Service is looking for. Overall, the goal should be working to improve
the mail quality results and making it simpler for mailers to automate
address quality improvements that would help both mailers and the
Postal Service. The Postal Service is making this more complicated than
needed.
This threshold proposal increases complexity and would add an
unnecessary burden on the Postal Service to support the administrative
costs for explaining what is and isn't free. It would also put an extra
burden on mail service providers and Mail Owners in managing their
overhead. The Postal Service previously announced that free ACS would
be offered to customers for all basic and nonautomation rates. The
Postal Service should offer the ACS service for free to continue to
promote the use of ACS and improve overall address quality.
Establishing a threshold is the wrong approach to ``On-Board'' mailers
to Full-Service and does not help drive toward greater address quality.
At the very least, another approach to consider is that once a mailer
reaches 95 percent eligible they are qualified going forward. Tying
eligibility to the data from the previous month is overly complex and
problematic as well.
Postal Service Response
We have re-evaluated this process and revised the proposal
accordingly. Once a mailer qualifies for free ACS for basic automation
and nonautomation pieces by reaching 95 percent Full-Service, ACS
information would be provided for free on all qualifying pieces. We
would then review compliance on a quarterly basis and provide
notification if a mailer would be removed from the program for falling
below the threshold. Once the 95 percent threshold is met again, free
ACS information would be provided in the next calendar month.
Mailer Comment
Please outline the process for establishing and changing
thresholds. Changes to the thresholds could have a significant
financial impact on mailers, so it is important to clarify and
understand this process across all parties.
Postal Service Response
The Postal Service sets and revises error thresholds through a
periodic statistical analysis of quality for all mailings. The Postal
Service has committed to providing at least 90 days of notice prior to
changing a threshold.
Mailer Comment
Changes are needed on the actual scorecard that makes it clearer to
mailers whether they could be at risk for ACS charges. The Postal
Service should add a yes/no indicator for free ACS eligibility on the
scorecard.
Postal Service Response
The Postal Service will evaluate adding this indicator to the
Mailer Scorecard as a future enhancement.
Mailer Comment
Please clarify which IMb Basic pieces would qualify for free ACS.
What is required for uniqueness for the data provisioning? The Postal
Service has IMb Basic mail as well as Basic non-automation pricing for
postage. The Postal Service needs to further clarify their reference to
Basic mail as it is impacted by free ACS.
Postal Service Response
IMb Basic mailings would be eligible for no-fee ACS along with non-
automation mailpieces. However, the mailpieces must meet all of the
following requirements:
[ssquf] Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece;
[ssquf] Include a Full-Service or OneCode ACS STID in the IMb;
[ssquf] Include the unique IMb in eDoc;
[ssquf] Be sent by an eDoc submitter that provides accurate Mail
Owner identification in eDoc, and;
[ssquf] Be sent by an eDoc submitter entering more than 95 percent
of eligible volume as Full-Service.
Mailer Comment
We propose that the Postal Service should create a STID that
mailers can use if they are above the threshold, so if they dip below
the threshold they would not be provided with data and charged.
Postal Service Response
At this time, the Postal Service will not be introducing a STID for
mailers who do or do not qualify for no-fee ACS.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service needs to clarify how the ACS data would be
provisioned when single-piece and presort mail is free over the 95
percent threshold. The process is not clear and could create a
potential Move Update compliance issue for mailers using ACS through
Full-Service if the data is not provisioned to them when a mailer is
below the threshold.
Postal Service Response
This data would be available through either the Full-Service ACS
data feed in PostalOne! [supreg] or through Single Source ACS. Full-
Service ACS data through PostalOne! is provisioned to the Mail Owner
identified in eDoc or the established delegate. SingleSource ACS is
available for mailers that wish to receive all ACS notices, subject to
the appropriate fees for notices provided on mail that does not qualify
for the Full-Service discounts and benefits. SingleSource ACS data is
provisioned to the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or the established
delegate.
Mailer Comment
Please outline the fees associated with COA assessments. Mailers
need to understand the specific risk or potential business impact.
Postal Service Response
The Move Update assessment charge under the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process will be communicated in the PRC
filing.
Mailer Comment
What is the appeal procedure if a mailer does not agree with a BME
assessment? How does this change using the Census method?
Postal Service Response
Mailers may appeal postage assessments by following the dispute
[[Page 11875]]
process that is outlined in the current Guide to Postage Assessment
available on PostalPro at: https://beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/847.
Mailer Comment
Mailers utilizing National Change of Address Linkage System
(NCOALink[reg]) End-User licenses have only 18 months of
data and not 48 months of data when using NCOA\Link\. Does this put
End-User licensees at a disadvantage? Confirm the time period for the
data used in the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment
Process. If it is not 18 months or less, mailers utilizing NCOA\Link\
End-User licenses would be at a disadvantage.
Postal Service Response
Move Update errors are generated only for COAs that are between 95
days and 18 months. A COA over 18 months old disadvantages End-User
licensees because it generates a Nixie notice for the sender.
Mailer Comment
It appears that NCOA\Link\ and ACS are not in sync. What
reconciliation of files, processes, and addresses would occur between
NCOA\Link\ and ACS?
Postal Service Response
The COA data for NCOA\Link\ and ACS are from the same source (the
moving customer), and they are in sync. If the mailer has a record with
a name or address that cannot be matched to the addressee's COA
request, the update may not be provided via NCOA\Link\ but may be
available through ACS. These scenarios are encompassed within the
threshold determined for Move Update errors.
Mailer Comment
The error tolerance applied to mailings should be based on the
average accuracy observed through census-based verification over an
extended period of time. Accordingly, the validity of the proposed 0.5
percent error tolerance should be measured against this standard before
being implemented, and should be re-evaluated annually.
Postal Service Response
The Postal Service currently sets and revises error tolerances
through a periodic statistical analysis of quality for all mailings.
The Postal Service has committed to providing at least 90 days of
notice prior to changing a threshold.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should clarify whether the eDoc submitter would
be provided piece-level data for all COA errors, not just the first
1,000 records. To the extent the data are driving the fee assessments;
the data must be reliable, timely, and comprehensive.
Postal Service Response
Piece-level data for all COA errors is available through the bulk
data request process. The Postal Service currently provides error
information on a weekly and monthly basis upon request.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should also clarify how the newly proposed
Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process would handle
mailpieces that are processed using the NCOA\Link\ Mail Processing
Equipment (MPE) enabled Multiline Optical Character Reader (MLOCR).
Specifically, the Postal Service should clarify that COA matches that
are not identified by an MPE solution would be excluded from the error
threshold calculation for the purpose of determining the assessment
fee.
Postal Service Response
Piece-level data for all COA errors is available through the bulk
data request process. The Postal Service currently provides error
information on a weekly and monthly basis upon request.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should also clarify how it would reconcile
different results from NCOA\Link\, NCOA\Link\ MPE, and ACS. Currently,
those systems do not always return the same results; it would be unfair
to charge mailers and mail service providers for COA records that were
not identified by a USPS-approved Move Update methodology. The Postal
Service should also clarify how COAs older than 18 months would be
treated.
Postal Service Response
The COA data for NCOA\Link\ and ACS are from the same source (the
moving customer), and they are in sync. If the mailer has a record with
a name or address that is unable to match to the addressee's COA
request, the updated information may not be provided via NCOA\Link\ but
may be available through ACS. These scenarios are encompassed within
the threshold determined for Move Update errors.
Mailer Comment
The Postal Service should clarify what are the database address
update requirements for NCOA\Link\ MPE with the new census method.
NCOA\Link\ MPE Mail Owners are currently not required (though they are
encouraged) to update their addresses in the database. This is because
each address is run through this Move Update process and updated above
the clear zone and in the IMb before every mailing. It would be
impossible for every small mailer that uses a commingling service to
update their addresses from COA data. It would also cause significant
operational costs for the MSP to separately profile every Mail Owner
while processing, because Full-Service standards only require profiling
for Mail Owners over 5,000 pieces.
Postal Service Response
At this time, the Postal Service does not plan to change the
established requirements on database address updates for NCOA\Link\
MPE.
Mailer Comment
In the paragraph labeled Address Change Service and Correction
Notifications, the Postal Service stated that any address change
information that does not qualify for free ACS would be provided
through SingleSource while there is no similar comment in the actual
DMM language. Will the Postal Service continue to support returning all
the current methods of address correction since our mutual clients do
not all subscribe to SingleSource?
Postal Service Response
This information would be available through either the Full-Service
ACS data feed in PostalOne! or through SingleSource ACS. Full-Service
ACS data through PostalOne! is provided to the Mail Owner identified in
eDoc or the established delegate. SingleSource ACS is available for
mailers that wish to receive all ACS notices, subject to the
appropriate fees for notices provided on mail that does not qualify for
the Full-Service discounts and benefits. SingleSource ACS data is
provided to the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or the established
delegate.
Mailer Comment
Can you clarify how ``or Current Resident'' affects the electronic
flagging of pieces in the census method? Our expectation is that if a
mailpiece is addressed to ``John Doe or Current Resident'' with a valid
physical address, that even if a COA would have been generated for John
Doe at that address the piece would NOT be flagged as a Move Update
failure.
Postal Service Response
When a mailpiece is processed through Postal Automated Redirection
System (PARS)/Computerized Forward System (CFS) as UAA, it would be
logged as a Nixie not a COA error. PARS
[[Page 11876]]
normally identifies the ``or Current Resident'' wording in the address
block and returns it to the carrier with a label stating, ``Mailpiece
to be delivered as addressed.''
Background (Updated)
The Postal Service requires mailers to update address-related
changes through the Move Update requirements process. Currently, Move
Update compliance is measured at the mailing level using the Mail
Evaluation Readability and Lookup INstrument (MERLIN[supreg]) as
follows:
[ssquf] At the point of acceptance, mailings are randomly selected
for address quality assessment, and samples of the selected mailings
are processed through MERLIN.
[ssquf] PostalOne! sends an electronic version of the mailer's
Postage Statement Message (PSM) to the MERLIN Maintenance and
Operations Database (MMOD).
[ssquf] MMOD routes the PSM to the appropriate site and MERLIN
machine.
[ssquf] Postal Service personnel generate a verification report,
and the report produces a set of results that are routed back to the
MMOD system.
[ssquf] MERLIN generates a report that provides the details on mail
quality.
[ssquf] MMOD sends an Address Quality Validation System (AQVS)
message-stream of addresses, names, and ZIP Codes to the NCSC for Move
Update processing.
[ssquf] MERLIN captures the address information from the mailpiece
and electronically sends each record to the NCSC to see if there is a
COA on file.
[ssquf] The piece is identified as an error if the mailer did not
use the updated address indicated in the COA on file, and the COA
``filing date'' is between 95 days and 18 months of the postage
statement finalization date.
[ssquf] MMOD sends mail verification results (whether the mailer
passed) to the PostalOne! system.
[ssquf] NCSC processes the AQVS data stream and sends the results
to PostalOne! which addresses the Move Update failures.
[ssquf] PostalOne! uses the mail verification and NCSC Move Update
results to formulate the final charges.
In 2013, the Postal Service introduced the concept of measuring and
assessing mail quality for mailings over a calendar month for Full-
Service Intelligent Mail, electronic induction (eInduction), and
Seamless Acceptance. Since August 2014, Postal Service technology has
further evolved so that, when mailers use an IMb and submit their
postage statements and supporting documentation electronically, data
collection scans from MPE can be used to evaluate the address and move-
related quality of mail being processed. Accordingly, the Postal
Service is using this technology as an alternative to measure and
evaluate the quality of mailings.
Future Process (Updated)
The Postal Service has revised its earlier proposal, and is now
proposing to replace the existing MERLIN Move Update verification
process with the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment
Process. In other words, MERLIN Move Update verification would
terminate upon implementation of the Address Quality Census Measurement
and Assessment Process. As previously proposed, the new method would
apply to mailing of letter- and flat-size pieces FCM and USPS Marketing
Mail that meet the requirements for Basic and Full-Service mailings.
In addition, the revised proposal of July 6, 2016, has been
modified to reflect the fact that qualifying mailings would still be
required to document Move Update compliance methods on a postage
statement, mail.dat, or mail.xml once the Address Quality Census
Measurement and Assessment Process is in place. Documents demonstrating
the method used should be available upon request by the Postal Service,
and mailers would continue to use a Move Update method in order to
remain below the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment
Process error threshold, expedite the delivery of mail by avoiding mail
forwarding, and increase the security and privacy of sensitive customer
information.
The proposal has not changed with regard to Periodicals; mailers
who enter Periodicals would be provided with address quality data, but
the Move Update mailers of Periodicals would not be verified under the
Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, because the
Move Update Standard in DMM 602.5 does not extend to Periodicals.
The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process is a
much more robust method to verify address quality, and would generate
several benefits, including enhanced mailing visibility and improved
mail quality metrics on all mailings entered within a calendar month,
rather than sampled mailings. The Postal Service has not changed the
overall method for measuring all applicable mailings within a calendar
month under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment
Process, which would be accomplished according to the following
process:
[ssquf] Mailpieces would be scanned on MPE.
[ssquf] Address information captured from mailpieces identified as
UAA would be evaluated to determine if COA information is on file.
[ssquf] The address information for mailpieces matching an active
COA would be sent electronically to NCSC.
[ssquf] NCSC would forward COA information to the Address Quality
Census Measurement and Assessment Process for evaluation.
[ssquf] Move Update validations would be performed by comparing the
MID + Serial Number of the IMb from the COA-related mailpiece data. If
the COA is between 95 days and 18 months old, and the address has not
been updated, then a COA error for the associated IMb would be logged
and allocated under the CRID of the eDoc submitter.
[ssquf] All qualifying mailpieces entered by an eDoc submitter in a
calendar month would be subject to the proposed error threshold for the
Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The proposed
error threshold is 0.5 percent, and is subject to review at the PRC.
[ssquf] The Postal Service would assess the relevant eDoc submitter
CRID the Move Update Assessment Charge for each mailpiece with a COA
error beyond the threshold.
[ssquf] The data would be collected and reported on the Mailer
Scorecard under the eDoc submitter CRID.
Move Update Assessment Charge (Updated)
Because the new method of verification would replace the MERLIN
method, the charge would still be termed the Move Update assessment
charge, and not renamed the address quality assessment fee. When the
ratio of qualifying mailpieces with COA errors to total qualifying
mailpieces submitted in the calendar month by the eDoc submitter
exceeds the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process
error threshold, the Move Update assessment charge would apply to the
mailpieces with COA errors above the threshold. The Move Update
assessment charge will be communicated to the public upon filing with
the PRC.
Mailer Scorecard (Updated)
The Mailer Scorecard is currently available to mailers, and this
report provides data that allow mailers to gauge address quality on
their mailpieces. Mailers would be charged only for mailpieces above
the errors threshold after the PRC review is
[[Page 11877]]
completed and the Postal Service implements the final rule.
Criteria (Updated)
The Postal Service has retained the proposed criteria to qualify
for verification under the Address Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process. Mailers would be verified under the process when
they:
[ssquf] Submit any mailpieces during a calendar month as Full-
Service;
[ssquf] Use a unique Basic or Full-Service IMb on mailings of
letter- and flat-size pieces for FCM and USPS Marketing Mail, and;
[ssquf] Use eDoc to submit mailing information.
Specifications (Updated)
The Postal Service has retained the proposed specifications for
assessing address quality. Once the Postal Service implements the
proposed process, address quality would be measured as follows:
[ssquf] Analysis would be performed on all pieces in the mailing,
rather than on a sample.
[ssquf] The assessment would be determined by the number of COA
errors, in a calendar month, divided by the total number of pieces
mailed that were subject to analysis. The resulting percentage would be
compared to the established Address Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process error threshold.
[ssquf] There are a number of exclusions to the measurement and
assessment process. Generally, mailpieces with addresses that have the
following COA characteristics would not be included in the assessment:
Temporary moves, MLNA, BCNO, and COA data for foreign addresses.
[ssquf] Mailpieces authorized for the Legal Restraint alternate
Move Update method (See Guide to Move Update) would be excluded at the
CRID level of the Mail Owner, during a short transition period. After
the transition period, an established MID would be identified for use
on mailpieces that fall under the Legal Restraint method.
Mailpiece Results (Updated)
Once qualifying mailings were processed on MPE, the data from
mailpieces would be reconciled with eDoc. These results would be
available on the BCG and displayed on the Electronic Verification tab
of the Mailer Scorecard, which would be easily accessible at https://gateway.usps.com/eAdmin/view/signin. Mailers would be able to review
the Mailer Scorecard and corresponding detailed reports to identify any
anomalies or issues.
To resolve Mailer Scorecard irregularities, mailers should contact
the PostalOne! Help Desk at 800-522-9085 or their local Business Mail
Entry Unit (BMEU).
Address Change Service and Correction Notifications (Updated)
As announced in the proposed rule of July 6, 2016, to encourage the
further adoption of Full-Service, the Postal Service is proposing to
extend free Full-Service ACS to qualifying Basic automation and non-
automation mailpieces for mailers who enter at least 95 percent of
their mail as Full-Service in a calendar month. The Basic mailpieces
must be prepared as follows:
[ssquf] Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece;
[ssquf] Include a Full-Service ACS or OneCode ACS[supreg] STID in
the IMb;
[ssquf] Include the unique IMb in eDoc, and;
[ssquf] Be sent by an eDoc submitter providing accurate Mail Owner
identification in eDoc.
As clarification, if mailers meet the 95 percent threshold during a
calendar month, they would be enrolled to receive free Full-Service ACS
for all Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces in the following
month. The Postal Service would monitor Full-Service compliance for
these mailers on a quarterly basis. If an enrolled mailer's average
Full-Service volume dropped below the 95 percent threshold for a given
quarter, that mailer would receive notification of its removal from
receiving free ACS in the next billing cycle. If the 95 percent
threshold were met in a subsequent month, the removed mailer would be
re-enrolled to receive free Full-Service ACS for Basic automation and
non-automation mailpieces for the next billing cycle.
Address change information would be provided through Full-Service
ACS feedback to the Mail Owner identified in eDoc or its delegee. ACS
information would continue to be distributed through SingleSource to
the Mail Owner identified in the IMb or its delegee.
The revised proposal has not changed with regard to Periodicals;
mailers who enter mailings of Full-Service Periodicals would no longer
be required to receive and pay for manual address corrections when a
Full-Service ACS STID is used. However, these mailers might elect to
receive and pay for manual address correction notifications by
including the appropriate STID within the IMb.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed
rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public
comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of
the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM),
incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39
CFR 111.1.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 111--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-
1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219,
3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
0
2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United
States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as follows:
Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail
Manual (DMM)
* * * * *
507 Mailer Services
1.0 Treatment of Mail
* * * * *
1.5 Treatment for Ancillary Services by Class of Mail
* * * * *
1.5.2 Periodicals
* * * * *
[Revise 507.1.5.2c by changing the last word of the sentence to
``received'' as follows:]
c. Address correction service is mandatory for all Periodicals
publications, and the address correction service fee must be paid for
each notice received.
* * * * *
4.0 Address Correction Services
* * * * *
4.2 Address Change Service (ACS)
* * * * *
4.2.2 Service Options
[Revise 507.4.2.2 by modifying the introductory sentence and adding
a new item ``d'' as follows:]
ACS offers four levels of service, as follows:
* * * * *
d. A Full-Service option available to mailings of First-Class Mail
automation
[[Page 11878]]
cards, letters, and flats; USPS Marketing Mail automation letters and
flats; USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route, High Density, and Saturation
letters; Periodicals Outside County barcoded or Carrier Route letters
and flats; Periodicals In-County automation or Carrier Route letters
and flats; and Bound Printed Matter Presorted, non-DDU barcoded flats.
Mailers who present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-Class
Mail and USPS Marketing Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar month
would receive electronic address correction notices for their
qualifying Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and
USPS Marketing Mail pieces, at the address correction fee for pieces
eligible for the Full-Service Intelligent Mail option as described in
DMM 705.23.0 for future billing cycles. The Basic First-Class Mail and
USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces must:
1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece;
2. Include a Full-Service or OneCode ACS STID in the IMb;
3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc;
4. Be sent by an eDoc submitter providing accurate Mail Owner
identification in eDoc, and;
5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter maintaining 95 percent Full-Service
compliance to remain eligible for this service and undergo periodic
Postal Service re-evaluation.
* * * * *
4.2.8 Address Correction Service Fee
[Revise 507.4.2.8 by deleting the old language and replacing with
new language as follows:]
ACS fees would be assessed as follows:
a. The applicable fee for address correction is charged for each
separate notification of address correction or the reason for
nondelivery provided, unless an exception applies.
b. Once the ACS fee charges have been invoiced, any unpaid fees for
the prior invoice cycle (month) would be assessed an annual
administrative fee of 10 percent for the overdue amount.
c. Mailers who present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-
Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar
month would receive electronic address correction notices for their
qualifying Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and
USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces, as specified in 4.2.2. The electronic
address correction notices are charged at the applicable Full-Service
address correction fee for all future billing cycles.
* * * * *
600 Basic Mailing Standards for All Mailing Services
* * * * *
602 Addressing
* * * * *
5.0 Move Update Standards
* * * * *
[Revise 602.5.3 by deleting former contents and replacing with new
title and contents as follows:]
5.3 Move Update Verification
Mailers who submit any Full-Service volume in a calendar month will
be verified pursuant to the Address Quality Census Measurement and
Assessment Process beginning in the next calendar month. First-Class
Mail and USPS Marketing Mail letter and flat-size mailpieces with
addresses that have not been updated in accordance with the Move Update
Standard will be subject to the Move Update assessment charge, if
submitted via eDoc with unique Basic or Full-Service IMbs. Supporting
details are described in Publication 6850, Publication for Streamlined
Mail Acceptance for Letters and Flats, available at
www.postalpro.usps.com.
[Revise 602.5.4 as follows:]
5.4 Mailer Certification
The mailer's signature on the postage statement or electronic
confirmation during eDoc submission certifies that the Move Update
standard has been met for the address records including each address in
the corresponding mailing presented to the USPS.
* * * * *
700 Special Standards
* * * * *
705 Advanced Preparation and Special Postage Payment Systems
* * * * *
23.0 Full-Service Automation Option
* * * * *
23.5 Additional Standards
* * * * *
23.5.2 Address Correction Notices
* * * * *
[Revise 705.23.5.2a as follows:]
a. Address correction notices would be provided at the applicable
Full-Service address correction fee for letters and flats eligible for
the Full-Service option, except for USPS Marketing Mail ECR flats, BPM
flats dropshipped to DDUs, or BPM carrier route flats. Mailers who
present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-Class Mail and USPS
Marketing Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar month would receive
electronic address correction notices for their qualifying Basic
automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing
mailpieces charged at the applicable Full-Service address correction
fee for future billing cycles. The Basic automation and non-automation
First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail mailpieces must:
1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece.
2. Include a Full-Service or OneCode ACS STID in the IMb.
3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc.
4. Be sent by an eDoc submitter providing accurate Mail Owner
identification in eDoc.
5. Be sent by an eDoc submitter maintaining 95 percent Full-Service
compliance to remain eligible for this service and undergo periodic
USPS re-evaluation.
* * * * *
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to
reflect these changes, if our proposal is adopted.
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-03723 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
