®

Mailers Technical Advisory Committee Washington, DC

Jim Cochrane, VP Product VisibilityJim Wilson, Mgr Address Management

May 25, 2011

®

Q3 is showing significant migration to IMb FS Mailer Certification has been suspended Expanding Test Environment for Mailers (TEM)

process Commercial service scores continue to trend

upward

Operational Metrics Summary

2

®

3

FY11 (October 2010 - May 2011) IMb Full Service

®FY11-YTD

Full-Service Production Trends

Full-Service Customer Sites Approved For Production 48

Full-Service Postage Statements Finalized 363,206

Total Piece Volume for Full-Service 29,311,564

Note: Total Piece Volume for Full-Service includes Bound Printed MatterOct 1, 2010 – May 13, 2011

4

®FY11 (October 2010 - May 2011)

Full-Service IMb

5

®FY11 (October 2010 - April 2011)

First-Class Mail

ProcessCategory

IMb Full ServiceVolume

Total Commercial

Volume

PercentIMb

Full Service

Letters & Cards

12,700,504 26,644,141 47.67%

Flats 26,440 392,586 6.73%

Total 12,726,943 27,036,727 47.07%

6

Note: Volume (000s) FY10 percentage IMb 28%

®FY11 (October 2010 - April 2011)

Periodicals

ProcessCategory

IMb Full ServiceVolume

Total Commercial

Volume

PercentIMb

Full Service

Letters 361 44,961 0.80%

Flats 2,022,787 4,149,867 48.74%

Total 2,023,147 4,194,828 48.23%

7

Note: Volume (000s) FY10 percentage IMb 29%

®

ProcessCategory

IMb Full ServiceVolume

Total Commercial

Volume

PercentIMb

Full Service

Letters 9,576,663 33,779,435 28.35%

Flats 4,984,810 14,484,469 34.41%

Total 14,561,473 48,263,904 30.17%

8

Note: Volume (000s)

FY10 percentage IMb 18%

FY11 (October 2010 - April 2011)Standard Mail

®FY11 (October 2010 - April 2011)

Summary by Mail Class

Mail ClassIMb Full Service

Volume

Total Commercial

Volume

PercentIMb

Full Service

First-Class 12,726,943 27,036,727 47.07%

Periodicals 2,023,147 4,194,828 48.23%

Standard Mail

14,561,473 48,263,904 30.17%

Total 29,311,564 79,495,459 36.87%

9

Note: Volume (000s)

®

Full Service Volume has seen a 74% Growth From Q2-FY10 to Q2-FY11

Quarterly Volume Migration:POSTNET to IMb

10

®Intelligent Mail vs.

Full Service Volume Growth

Q2 FY 11 is showing increase in IMb adoption from POSTNET bar code

11

®Intelligent Mail vs.

Full Service Volume Growth - Weekly

Last 9 Weeks of data shows increase in IMb adoption from POSTNET bar code

12

®

National Composite First-Class Presort Overnight Two-Day Three-Day

 Certified Mailers Districts

Pieces Measured

% On-

Time Pieces

Measured

% On-Time

Pieces Measured

% On-

Time

QTR 2 100 65 139M 91.80% 206M 84.80% 316M 89.40%

QTR 1 13 12 29M 84.40% 61M 88.80% 114M 85.80%

% Increase over Qtr 1 669.23% 441.67% 379.86% 8.77% 239.74% -4.50% 176.60% 4.20%

PQ2 Service Performance Measurement

SPM Metrics

13

® FC Commercial Mail Volumes

14

® Standard Commercial Mail Volumes

15

®

?

Commercial Mail Measurement Yield

16

® Issues Moving Forward

Irregularities Barcode (pallet, tray, piece)

● Uniqueness ● Content/Construct quality

eDocumentation ● Nesting● Intelligent Mail Range (IMR) vs.

Piece Detail Record (PDR)● Piece Barcode (PBC) – IDEAlliance (smaller record)

FAST appointment procedures Scanning consistency Redirects

17

®

6-digit Mailer ID Format

Field No.

Field Description

Field Size

Character Position

Logical Values

Allowable Values

1 Application Identifier 2 1-2 Numeric “99” (Only) 2 Type Indicator 1 3 Alpha “M” (Only) 3 Destination Facility

NASS Code 5 4-8 Alphanumeric USPS-assigned ID (1)

4 Mailer ID 6 9-14 Numeric USPS-assigned ID with the leading digit ranging from “0” through “8”

5 Serial Number 12 15-26 Alphanumeric Mailer-defined (2)

Intelligent Mail® Container Barcode

®

Benefits Increased visibility of containers within the

USPS network More consistent Start-the-Clock scans Enhanced handling efficiency Supports tray-to-container nesting

Establishing MTAC workgroups on tray and container barcodes

Intelligent Mail® Container Barcode

®

National CAT/CETs have been identified for operational scenarios, established service standards, involving induction method, mail class, and preparation

National CAT/CET

First-Class Standard Periodicals BPMNon-Co-Located 1500 1500 TBD 1500Co-Located 1800 1500 TBD 1500

No Separation 1900

Working 2000Presort 2100Presort

Assigned2200

Hub - STC 2400Hub - THS 0200P

Origin

BMEU

Mailer and USPS

Transported1500 TBD 1500

Drop-ShipDestination

Mail Class

NDC, ADC, SCF, DDU

N/A 1600 TBD 1600

20

® CET Matrix

Type 

No Bundle Sort Needed

5-Digit / Scheme Container

Bundle Sort Needed

3-Digit and Up Container

NonFSS 1700 1600

FSS 1100 0800

Critical Entry Time (CET)Periodicals

21

®

Proposal for Resolving

Periodical Issue with

Full Service ACS

22

® Issue

Inconsistent USPS performance in providing Full Service ACS notices to Periodical mailers● Disparity between scanning performance for

Change-of-Address and Nixie notices● Diminished value from Full Service adoption

Cost impacts to mailer where Traditional ACS notice provided instead of Full Service ACS● $ 0.26 per notice versus free

23

®

IMb defaced preventing scanning in CFS

CFS scanning efficiency and efforts● Scanner effectiveness● More “clicks than beeps”

Poor barcode quality on mail piece prevents scanning

Root Cause Assumptions

24

®

Increase scanning efficiency for Nixie notices to match COA scanning results

Reduce volumes and cost of Traditional ACS notices provided to mailer

Create appropriate incentive for continuous quality improvement in mailer IMb quality

Target Goals

25

®

Comparative analysis of MERLIN results to scanning results to analyze scanner effectiveness

Full Service IMb / Traditional ACS cross-reference data analysis to evaluate geographical performance

CFS software update to drive scanning improvements

Evaluated potential to use mail processing scan performance to determine ability to read IMb

Lean Six Sigma effort to review end-to-end process and identify opportunities for improvement

Efforts to Date

26

® Current Periodical Scanning (Feb – Apr)

Title Count Pct of Titles % using IMb90% 61 9.0% 15.6%80% 112 16.5% 28.7%70% 69 10.1% 17.7%60% 65 9.6% 16.7%50% 30 4.4% 7.7%

Below 50% 53 7.8% 13.6%Equal 0% 290 42.6%

680 100% 100%

Actual COA Scan Performance

27

®

Establish best CFS scanning performance of COAs for each magazine title in each Area and use as the baseline expected across the Area● Combine Average and Median scores for each

Area to determine baseline value to adjust all COA and Nixie charges

● Retain Area’s score when higher than combined Average or Median score

● Recalculate monthly using past 90-day results

Proposal to Resolve Issue

28

®

Impact to Low Scan Rate TitleAll Area Average 3.34%All Area Median 3.58%

Higher Avg/Median 3.58%

Area Actual Scan Rate Adj Scan Rate

2.27% 3.58% CAPITAL METRO4.35% 4.35% EASTERN4.16% 4.16% GREAT LAKES3.05% 3.58% NORTHEAST2.39% 3.58% PACIFIC3.34% 3.58% SOUTHWEST3.82% 3.82% WESTERN

Total Charges (Original)

Total Charges (Recalculated) Savings

19,561.10$ 18,976.88$ 584.22$

Impact to Average Scan Rate Title

29

® Impact to Average Scan Rate Title

All Area Average 82.70%All Area Median 82.82%

Higher Avg/Median 82.82%

Area Actual Scan Rate Adj Scan Rate

76.88% 82.82% CAPITAL METRO90.85% 90.85% EASTERN92.71% 92.71% GREAT LAKES82.30% 82.82% NORTHEAST86.55% 86.55% PACIFIC66.82% 82.82% SOUTHWEST82.82% 82.82% WESTERN

Total Charges (Original)

Total Charges (Recalculated) Savings

15,374.84$ 6,678.10$ 8,696.74$ 30

®

All Area Average 96.78%All Area Median 96.19%

Higher Avg/Median 96.78%

Area Actual Scan Rate Adj Scan Rate

94.59% 96.78% CAPITAL METRO100.00% 100.00% EASTERN100.00% 100.00% GREAT LAKES93.94% 96.78% NORTHEAST94.40% 96.78% PACIFIC96.19% 96.78% SOUTHWEST98.37% 98.37% WESTERN

Total Charges (Original)

Total Charges (Recalculated) Savings

1,400.36$ 87.36$ 1,313.00$

Impact to Average Scan Rate Title

31

® Adjusted COA Scan Percentages

Title Count Pct of Titles % using IMb90% 219 32.2% 56.2%80% 75 11.0% 19.2%70% 39 5.7% 10.0%60% 18 2.6% 4.6%50% 12 1.8% 3.1%

Below 50% 27 4.0% 6.9%Equal 0% 290 42.6%

680 100% 100%

Adusted COA Scan Performance

32

®

Treat any percentage above 90% at 100% to align with IMb readability requirements

Defer adoption of proposal to July 24th or later to allow mailers to review process

Provide report showing impact by title

Mailer Feedback

33

®

Address Quality Update

34

®

Overview

Federal Register Status

● MLNA / Move Update

SuiteLink & CASS Cycle N

ZIP Code Realignments

RIBBS Status

Address Quality Update

35

®

Federal Register published September 2010

Comments received from mailing industry reviewed and evaluated in preparation of Proposed Final Rule that will be published June 2011

Establish 1-year grace period from date of Final Rule publication

Define Guide to Move Update as resource for mailers to use to understand Move Update

Mailing industry will have an opportunity to provide comments to Proposed Final Rule

Final Rule scheduled to be published August 2011

Address Correction / Move Update Changes

Federal Register Proposed Rule

36

®

CASS Cycle N and SuiteLink

CASS & SuiteLink® Update

94 CASS products/platforms certified for Cycle N – 44 % complete

33 MASS products/platforms certified for Cycle N – 50% complete

SuiteLink printing requirement relaxed

● Suite number printing is optional on mailpiece

● DMM Advisory will be published informing new policy

SuiteLink database contains 21 million records

37

®

DSMART Statistics

Fiscal YearBusiness Delivery Points

w/ Business Names

% Complete

Avg. Monthly Default Volume

2009 2,565,196 1,653,169 64.40% 111,441,285

2010 2,598,362 1,893,486 72.90% 108,996,982

2011 YTD 2,642,269 1,983,910 75.10% 109,725,828

CASS & SuiteLink® Update

38

®

SuiteLink Statistics

FiscalYear

CandidateRecords

RecordsMatched

MatchRate

2007 486,635,644 12,906,405 2.65%

2008 2,583,525,310 103,016,280 3.99%

2009 3,250,109,421 160,676,448 4.94%

2010 5,352,228,944 288,570,848 5.39%

CASS & SuiteLink® Update

39

®

TRUE

SuiteLink® Requirements

RUNNING IN A NON-CASS CERTIFIED MODE

Return ZIP+4 & DPVValues from CASS CertifiedAddress Matching Engine;

NO CASS 3553 form generated

DPV Values from CASS CertifiedAddress Matching Engine;

NO ZIP+4 Return CASS 3553 formThese pieces are to be mailed at

non-automation rates

SuiteLinkactivated?

CASS resultsindicate candidate for SuiteLink

Processing (Hirise/StreetDefault Match)?

A Default Matchis in SuiteLink’s 9-Digit Table of

Candidate Records

ValidBusiness/Name

field defined & populated(assumes it’s populated with Name

Info that’ll appear onmailpiece)?

Match foundin SuiteLink?

UserElected to use SuiteLink

Updates *4

Records submitted forCASS Processing

Perform ZIP+4 & DPV lookupFrom CASS Certified Address Matching Engine

Call SuiteLink with EMDP ofDefault Address & Parsed Business/Name

TRUE

TRUE

TRUE

TRUE

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSEPerform CASS lookup with

secondary info from SuiteLink FALSE

Return ZIP+4 & DPV Values from CASS CertifiedAddress Matching Engine; Return CASS 3553 form

Piece qualifies for inclusion in mailing submitted for automation rate discounts

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

40

®

New CASS Schedule Alignment

CASS Schedule Update

Activities Summer (Major)

Announce CASS changes at Partners in Tomorrow (PIT) Meeting

February 15, 2012

Finalize CASS Requirements – receive feedback from PIT, post PIT minutes and finalized requirements

April 1, 2012

CASS Design and Development – begins with CASS Stage I file being posted

Begins: May 31, 2012Ends: June 10, 2013

CASS Testing / Certification – begins with CASS Stage II file being posted and submission of CASS tests

Begins: July 31, 2012Ends: June 24, 2013

Deploy June 24, 2013

41

®

May 14/15 June AIS Products Build

June 1 Customers Notified if Impacted by ZIP Code Change

June 4 USPS Sort Plans Updated

July 1 External Customers Begin Using New ZIP Codes

2011 ZIP Code Realignments

• 4 new delivery area ZIP Codes being activated• 6 ZIP Code boundary realignments• 58,480 total number of deliveries impacted

SCHEDULE

ZIP Code Realignment

42

®

Approved ZIP Code Changes – June 2011

ZIP Code Alignment

New ZIP Codes: Triboro 11211 to 11249 11,455 deliveries impacted Dallas 75034 to 75033 13,795 deliveries impacted Alaska 99654 to 99623 3,303 deliveries impacted

Boundary Realignments: Appalachian 24740 to 24739 14,053 deliveries impacted Seattle 98055 to 98031 311 deliveries impacted Seattle 98058 to 98031 341 deliveries impacted Seattle 98011 to 98034 3,349 deliveries impacted3 Digit Realignments: Northern Florida 32073 to 32244 296 deliveries impacted Colorado/Wyoming 81008 to 80817 814 deliveries impacted Salt Lake City 84084 to 84129 2,246 deliveries impacted Salt Lake City 84118 to 84129 9,089 deliveries impacted Salt Lake City 84119 to 84129 1,432 deliveries impacted

43

®

Migration to Electronic Product Fulfillment (EPF)● NCOALink Daily Delete - complete● ACS – complete● FFMUN – offered 5/18 ● AEC – Pilot testing began 5/20● CASS

EPF accounts offered 5/6Stage II files targeted for 5/31Manufacturers report completed 5/20

CD-ROM Current for all products but FFMUN Required for data submitted to USPS

RIBBS Status

RIBBS

44

®

MITS / RITS application is now “viewable” only

New issues, calendar updates will require completion of a template through RIBBS@usps.gov● Complete template for adding an issue or calendar

updates● Highlighted areas require completion

Passwords ● New requirements (8 characters minimum, must

contain upper and lowercase, numbers, and special characters)

Contact RIBBS@usps.gov to obtain new password or change password

MITS

MITS Status

45

® MITS Templates

Calendar Updates Add an Issue46

®

Questions?