Archive for January 18th, 2013

New Postage Statements Effective January 27, 2013

without comments

From the DMM Advisory:

New postage statements associated with the January 2013 price change are available on Postal Explorer®. The Postage Statement link is in the left column under *NEW* Jan. 27, 2013 Price Change Info.

As of January 27, 2013, all postage statements dated prior to that date are obsolete. In some instances, consideration will be given to exception requests to use the January 2012 or June 2012 version, as applicable.

Manifest mailers may use postage statements dated January 2012 or June 2012 only if they reflect the January 27, 2013 prices.

Only the January 2013 postage statements can be used when a new product is launched or has been renamed or is no longer accepted through a BME or DMU. Examples include Parcel Post transferred to the competitive product list and rebranded as the Retail product “Standard Post” and mailings of rolls and packages transferred from First-Class Mail International to the competitive product list and rebranded as First-Class Package International Service (FCPIS).

If vendors, software providers, or mailers encounter difficulty submitting January 2013 postage statements, please contact your local acceptance office or Manager of Business Mail Entry to determine the best solution. Mailers using the Electronic Verification System (eVS®) for manifesting who need assistance should contact their Strategic Account or Business Alliance Manager.

Written by Lisa.Bowes

January 18th, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Posted in USPS

2 arrested, a third sought in Postal Service plastics theft

without comments

Written by Lisa.Bowes

January 18th, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Posted in USPS

POSTCOM REQUESTS REJECTION OF USPS CHANGE TO RESIDUAL SP FCM

without comments

The Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom), along with the Association of Marketing Service Providers (AMSP) submitted
comments this week in response to the Postal Service’s to the U.S. Postal Service’s filing related to First-Class Mail Single-Piece
Residual and its corresponding price table.

The parties found major issue with 1) the USPS further altering the implementing rule, as that same footnote states, “This price
applies only to mixed mailings of residual one ounce and two-ounce machinable letters, and 2) this change being a MAJOR
classification change and not a minor as the USPS says. The Associations go further to say that “rather, by suggesting that if all the
residual pieces of a presort mailing are two ounce pieces, those residual pieces are not eligible for the 48 cent residual rate, it
completely alters the implementing rules in a way which not only upsets any value to the category but, more importantly, nullifies the
very substantial programming and other costs that mailers have incurred to be in a position to comply with the new prices which
become effective in less than two weeks.”

The Postal Service, through an MTAC task team, has been in discussion with the industry to help resolve issues around Commercial
Residual SP FCM. Through these discussions a different solution has been accepted by the Postal Service. To address this, the
Associations said, “while the Postal Service has suggested in subsequent discussions with mailers that it did not intend to disqualify
all two ounce residual mailings from the mixed residual rate, mailers can only rely on what the Postal Service has filed with the
Commission.”

Therefore, the Associations ask the Commission to “. . . simply reject the classification change the Postal Service has proposed in this
Docket but should leave the already approved Residual Rate Category in place exactly as it is.” In closing, they say, “with the
encouragement of the Commission, we are confident that mailers and the Postal Service can, working together, resolve the question of
what mail qualifies for the residual rate category through implementing rules that do not needlessly burden either the Postal Service or mailers. While this remedy may mean that both the Postal Service and mailers will be denied the advantages that the new residual
category offers in terms cost reduction until an agreement is reached, the delay provides an incentive to both sides to come to terms on implementing rules as quickly as possible.”

The full filing can be accessed here:  http://www.prc.gov/docs/86/86235/PCom%20Comments%20MC2013-30.pdf

This article is reprinted with permission, from the Postcom bulletin – a benefit of Postcom membership.  To learn more about becoming a Postcom member, click here.
——————————
My comments – this is a result of rushed schedules, a disconnect between preparation standards to programming requirements, and a completely inadequeate testing timeline, plan, and resources allocated.  Items like this will continue to plague PostalOne releases.

Written by Lisa.Bowes

January 18th, 2013 at 10:42 am

Posted in USPS