Re: "additional postage required" on greeting cards
Robert Neville
>Ever seen this? I'd be surprised if you hadn't. But who knows what it
>really means?
>
>The Postal Service has some complicated definitions of first class
>envelopes, and if one doesn't match, then it becomes "non-machinable"
>and so there is an additional 20 cent charge.
It's worse than that. A couple of years ago the USPS really screwed up their
first class pricing. Must have been a new MBA type with a class project
spreadsheet that figured how much additional money USPS could earn if they did
this.
What was a relative simple weight based system has morphed into this goofy thing
where if you don't have access to an internet terminal, you can't possibly
figure out the correct postage.
Now you have to know weight, size, thickness and flexibility of an item. The are
no rules of thumb as violating any of these will drive a different surcharge.
Adam H. Kerman
It's more complicated than that. There are physical standards for mail
(formerly called processing categories). The major ones are letters,
flats, and parcels. To confuse the mailer, on the Notice 123 Ratefold,
the notice that lists all domestic rates and fees, the rate chart for
flats is labeled "large envelopes" and the one for parcels is labeled
"packages".
Yes, you should keep in mind the maximum dimensions for a letter. Hell,
you should write it down and tape it to the table next to your postage
scale so you don't forget. Basically, you should have envelopes in
several sizes, including envelopes for the maximum dimension of 11 1/2
long by 6 1/8 high. If you are mailing a document that you'd normally
put in a 9x12 envelope that weighs no more than 3.5 oz, fold it in half
so it fits in a 9x6 envelope.
If you are trying to qualify the piece of mail as a letter, then
remember that the address MUST BE parallel to the length of the
envelope, that is, the longest dimension. There is more flexibility on
flats (except when submitting bulk automation flats in which the address
must be parallel to the shorter dimension under certain circumstances,
but you don't have to worry about that if you aren't presorting for bulk
automation rates).
Also, stop buying clasp envelopes for mailing. If you only have clasp
envelopes on hand, then pry out the clasp before sealing. Clasp
envelopes were NEVER meant to be mailed to begin with, since the clasp
catches on automated equipment. They are meant for hand-delivered
documents.
Within the physical standard for letters are criteria making the letter
nonmachinable and subject to the 20 cent surcharge. Now, it's generally
possible to avoid the surcharge. If it's not, then consider qualifying
the piece as a flat rather than as a letter.
Flats have their own complications, because under certain conditions of
failure to meet the uniform thickness standard (don't use an envelope
that's excessively large for the contents) and flexibility standard,
they must be paid for at parcel rates. I'm not quoting from it but if
you're interested, it's DMM 101.2.0.
DMM 101 Physical Standards
1.0 Physical Standards for Letters
1.1 Dimensional Standards for Letters
Letter-size mail is:
a. Not less than 5 inches long, 3-1/2 inches high, and
0.007-inch thick.
b. Not more than 11-1/2 inches long, or more than 6-1/8 inches
high, or more than 1/4-inch thick.
c. Not more than 3.5 ounces (First-Class Mail letter-size
pieces over 3.5 ounces pay flat-size prices).
1.2 Nonmachinable Criteria
A letter-size piece is nonmachinable (see 6.4) if it has
one or more of the following characteristics (see 601.1.4 to
determine the length, height, top, and bottom of a mailpiece):
a. Has an aspect ratio (length divided by height) of less
than 1.3 or more than 2.5.
b. Is polybagged, polywrapped, or enclosed in any plastic
material.
c. Has clasps, strings, buttons, or similar closure devices.
d. Contains items such as pens, pencils, or loose keys or
coins that cause the thickness of the mailpiece to be uneven
(see 601.2.3, Odd-Shaped Items in Paper Envelopes).
e. Is too rigid (does not bend easily when subjected to
a transport belt tension of 40 pounds around an 11-inch
diameter turn).
f. For pieces more than 4-1/4 inches high or 6 inches long,
the thickness is less than 0.009 inch.
g. Has a delivery address parallel to the shorter dimension
of the mailpiece.
h. Is a self-mailer with a final folded edge perpendicular to
the address if the piece is not folded and secured according
to 201.3.14.1.
i. Booklet-type pieces with the bound edge (spine) along the
shorter dimension of the piece or at the top, unless prepared
according to 201.3.14.2.
larry
> Yes, you should keep in mind the maximum dimensions for a letter. Hell,
> you should write it down and tape it to the table next to your postage
> scale so you don't forget. Basically, you should have envelopes in
> several sizes, including envelopes for the maximum dimension of 11 1/2
> long by 6 1/8 high. If you are mailing a document that you'd normally
> put in a 9x12 envelope that weighs no more than 3.5 oz, fold it in half
> so it fits in a 9x6 envelope.
The p o clerks have a desk pad they lay a letter on to check
the various sizes of envelopes. Never got around to asking
for one of those yet ;-)
-- larry/dallas
Adam H. Kerman
>The p o clerks have a desk pad they lay a letter on to check
>the various sizes of envelopes. Never got around to asking
>for one of those yet ;-)
The post office has all sorts of handy measuring devices, although the
window clerks may not have them. Ask your friendly bulk mail clerk off
the dock.
Adam H. Kerman
>Jack Bauer wrote:
>>Ever seen this? I'd be surprised if you hadn't. But who knows what it
>>really means?
>>The Postal Service has some complicated definitions of first class
>>envelopes, and if one doesn't match, then it becomes "non-machinable"
>>and so there is an additional 20 cent charge.
>>A number of smart asses at Yahoo answers provided "answers" like, "just
>>put another stamp on it, stupid!", so I researched it got the real answer.
>One thing that I don't get: why don't Hallmark and other card makers
>just comply with the PO size regulations so that a single stamp will do it?
The post office could have purchased machines capable of sorting cards,
given how common they are in the mail stream.