No Increase in Forever Stamp
rate adjustment
PRC Approves Rate Changes for Market Dominant and Competitive Products
USPS announces new prices for 2019
WASHINGTON — The United States Postal Service filed notice with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) today of price changes to take effect Jan. 27, 2019. Continue reading
PRC to release results of postal rate-setting review
BACKGROUND: The Postal Regulatory Commission was required to initiate a review of the system for regulating rates and classes for Market Dominant products to determine if the ratemaking system has achieved the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3622(b), taking into account the factors enumerated in 39 U.S.C. 3622(c). On December 20, 2016, the Commission began its review. Chairman Robert Taub will host a media conference to discuss the Commission’s findings. Continue reading
The Case of the Ghostly Governor
How a Governor who left office in 2016 authorized USPS rates for 2018…
Note: the Billbray letter was pointed out to us by a former postal official, and was first reported on by postalmag.com. Some reports have referred to the Billbray letter as “postdated”, which is not accurate, since the letter is dated November 14, 2016, presumably the actual date it was signed- even though it was not filed with the PRC until almost a year later. Continue reading
USPS seeks an end to postage price cap
From USPS News Link:
USPS is offering comments on the 10-year pricing system review being conducted by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC).
Under a 2006 postal law, the PRC must review the system used for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products, including First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail and other mail categories. Continue reading
PRC Commences First Broad Review of Postal Ratemaking System
Washington, DC – Today, the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) begins its review of the system for regulating rates and classes for Market Dominant products that was first established in 2006. The law requires that the Commission begin its review of the current rate system ten years after the date of enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to determine whether it’s achieving the objectives established by Congress. If the Commission finds that the objectives, taking into account the factors, are not being met, it has the authority to either propose rules that modify the system or adopt an alternative system to achieve the objectives. Order No. 3673 outlines the parameters and timing by which the Commission will complete its review. Continue reading
USPS to hike shipping services rates 3.9% after the holidays
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Postal Service today filed notice with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) of price changes for Shipping Services products to take effect next year, following the end of the holiday mailing season. The filing does not include any price increase for First-Class Package International Service, Priority Mail Express International and Priority Mail International.
The Postal Service continues to provide excellent value and reliability for the shipping industry, along with convenient choices for consumers. The average Shipping Services price change is 3.9 percent, which results in an average shipping price of less than $5 per shipment across all shipping products.
The new prices, if approved, represent a modest price increase in Priority Mail by 3.9 percent and an average of 3.3 percent in Priority Mail Retail prices.
The Priority Mail Flat Rate Box and Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelope prices for these products are:
| Current | New | |
| Small flat-rate box | $6.80 | $7.15 |
| Medium flat-rate box | 13.45 | 13.60 |
| Large flat-rate box | 18.75 | 18.85 |
| Large APO/FPO flat-rate box | 16.75 | 17.35 |
| Regular flat-rate envelope | 6.45 | 6.65 |
| Legal flat-rate envelope | 6.45 | 6.95 |
| Padded flat-rate envelope | 6.80 | 7.20 |
The PRC will review the prices before they are scheduled to take effect Jan. 22, 2017. The complete Postal Service price filing with the new prices for all Shipping Services products can be found on the PRC site under the Daily Listings section:http://www.prc.gov/dockets/daily
Neopost offers free rate change webinar tomorrow
Neopost is offering a free one hour webinar tomorrow, Thursday May 28, covering the upcoming USPS rate changes:
Date: May 28, 2015
Time: 1:00 ET / 12:00 CT / 11:00 MT / 10:00 PT
Duration: 1 Hour Duration Inlcuding Q&A
(COMPLIMENTARY)
Join our webinar on May 28th to get the latest pricing updates and what will change in your mailing and shipping processes.
There’s lots of good news with this Rate Change, here are a few the topics that will be reviewed:
- Postage Meter discount continue for First-Class® Mail
- Domestic Priority Mail® and Priority Mail® Express prices don’t increase
- Commercial base pricing stays the same
A Neopost USA rate change expert will provide all the details plus best practices tips to help you continue to save on both mailing and shipping after the new rates go into effect. Neopost customers will also get final details on how to be sure their machines will be ready.
Appeals Court reaches mixed decision on USPS/PRC IMb dispute
The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit today handed down its decision in the lawsuit brought by the US Postal Service against the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) over the PRC’s attempt to regulate new Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) rules. Mailers had claimed that the regulations increased their costs, and therefore were price increases that needed to be counted against the postal service’s rate cap for “Market Dominant” services. The PRC sided with the mailers, so the USPS appealed to the Court, claiming that the law clearly prohibited the PRC from “characterizing mail preparation requirements as changes in rates.”
Today’s decision rejects the postal service’s claim, finding the law “ambiguous” on that point. But while the Court found that the PRC could determine that a change in the rules amounted to a rate hike, “The standard enunciated by the Commission to determine when requirements changes are ‘changes’ in rates” seems boundless and, thus, unreasonable; and the Commission’s inconsistent application of the standard in this case proves the point.” The Court went so far as to find that “The Commission’s judgment in this case ‘lacks any coherence. We therefore owe no deference to [the Commission’s] purported expertise because we cannot discern it. We therefore remand the case to the Commission to enunciate an intelligible standard and then reconsider its decision in light of that standard.”
