`
`April 2006
`
`Founded 2003 AUXILIARY MARKINGS
`
`Vol. III, No. 2
`Issue No. 10
`
`Retour
`
`A journal that reports about and studies the myriad markings
`added to a letter that explain how it reached its final destination
`Publication of The Auxiliary Markings Club
`
`
`
`www.postal-markings.org
`
`ADV}?
`
`lCt.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`0n» T0 seamen
`
`An Explosion Cover.......................................u...-unnouunon-ns
`Editorial-cun-nuuu-ouo-uu-ooooooooo"In.------------------------------------------ 1
`by James H. Hayes
`by Tony Wawrukiewicz
`International Return to Sender Labels................................9
`Automating the Mail Forwarding Process---------------u-------2'6
`by Floyd Knell
`by Michael M. Ludeman
`AQuestion......................................................
`Prohibited Forwarding..........................
`by Michael Cherrington
`by Jerry Johnson
`'
`.
`.
`Membership Resignations _ New Members.........................9
`Two Interesting Auxdiary Markings.....................................7
`by Paul Albright
`by Jerry Johnson, Secretary
`,
`.
`'
`World’s Most Damaged Cover............................................10
`My Hand s Bigger than Your Hand"""""""""""""""
`by David Allan Cooper Sr.
`by Floyd Knell and Tony Wawrukiewicz
`First Day CoverDelay8 EKU for an Auxiliary Marking.........
`by Rob Washbum
`by David Straight
`A Polite Pointing Hand.......................
`Pre-Inked Large Carrier Stamps for Sale.....................11-14
`by James H. Hayes
`
`.........
`
`..............7
`
`.........9
`
`""""7
`
`..........
`
`......... 8
`
`......
`
`...........10
`
`by Bob Leeman and Tony Wawrukiewicz
`
`
`
`Editorial
`
`by Tony Wawrukiewicz
`
`Thanks to all of you who sent articles in; as you can see, quite
`a few members, new and old, have contributed to this issue.
`In this issue I’m delighted to include Mike Ludeman’s article
`on the “Automation of the Forwarding System,” a very impor-
`tant, extensive discussion of two important processes that have
`and are being used for much of the forwarding and returning of
`mail that occurs these days. Fortunately, for those of us who love
`pointing hands, the Computerized Forwarding System (CFS) and
`Postal Automated Redirection System (PARS), have not and will
`not completely replace these artifacts on returned mail items.
`This article is so important that our Board has decided to make
`it available to the members of the Machine Cancel Society. They
`will be able to download it as a PDF from our website.
`
`At the same time AMC members will have the opportunity to
`access an article that is appearing in the April 2006 Machine
`Cancel Forum. This article is called: ‘A New Type of "Return to
`Sender" Endorsement Created by Ink Jet Printer Technology, Part
`I: Texas P&DCs.’ This article is by Michael M. Ludeman. It can
`be accessed on the home page of the Machine Cancel Society
`website - www.machinecancel.org.
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`Page 1
`
`One of the questions that we as a group are trying to answer
`is what is the source of the handstamps used by various post
`offices. So far we have seen that Postmaster Zevely sold some
`through ads in the Postal Bulletins of the 1870s and possibly
`even as early as the late 1860s (see the April 2004 Auxiliary
`Markings). We have also seen that the Post Office Department
`sold some in the early 20th century (July 2005 Auxiliary Mark-
`ings). Now, with Bob Leeman’s help, we know of at least one
`contemporary source of such handstamps, The Equipment &
`Supply eBuy Reference Catalog, which is at least one source of
`handstamps for the Grand Rapids Post Office. Pages 10-14 in
`this issue continue to illustrate the handstamps that are available
`from this catalog. More to follow in future Auxiliary Markings.
`Considering the variety of handstamps that the Grand Rap-
`ids Post Office uses, many not from the above catalog, and con-
`sidering the huge variety of handstamps found used from 1970
`to 2005, there must be other sources of these handstamps. In
`fact one postal worker has indicated that, at present, there may
`be as many as 38 sources for these. We just have to locate them.
`
`USPS EXHIBIT 1025
`
`USPS V. RMI
`
`CBM2014-00116
`
`USPS EXHIBIT 1025
`USPS v. RMI
`CBM2014-00116
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`

`

`Auxiliary Markings - Issue 10
`April 2006a
`President:
`Treasurer:
`Director:
`Nancy B. Clark
`Gary G. Hendren
`Ralph Nafzi er
`PO Box 427
`127 7 Glenage Dr.
`PO Box 14
`Marstons Mills. MA 02648
`Maryland Hts.. MO 63043
`.
`Aibany OR 97321
`nbc@postal-markings.org
`treasurer@postaI-markmgs.org
`ralphn@postal-marktngs.org
`Director:
`Editor:
`AnthonyVWawrukiewlcz
`Dou Merenda
`3130 S Wilbard St.
`PO ox 20069
`Portland, OR 97219
`Ferndale, MI 48220-0069
`tonyw@postal-markings.org
`dougm@postaI-markings.org
`Webmaster:
`Membership Secretary:
`Director (Publicity):
`Dou Ias B. Quine
`Gerald (Jer
`) dohnson
`John Hotchner
`ox 153
`PO
`6621 W. Vic orla Ave.
`PO Box 1125
`kenneWIekI WA 99336
`Bethel. CT 06801
`Falls Church. VA 22041-0125
`rnembersh|p@postal-markings.org
`webmaster@postal-markings.org
`john@postaI-markings.org
`———————__________________
`
`Vice President:
`Gerald (Jerry‘s) Nytander
`PO Box ?12
`Prospect H ts.. IL 60070
`gnylander postal-markings.org
`
`AUTOMATING THE MAIL FORWARDING PROCESS
`by Michael M. Ludeman
`
`Summary: Prior to 1987. for the first 200 years of Post Of-
`fice Department!Postal Service operations, the act of forwarding
`the maiis was both a destination-oriented activity and a labor-
`intensive manual one.
`
`(1) The First-Class Letter Mail Automated Endorsement Re-
`turn—to-Sender (RTS) Program (circa 1989), described in the April
`2005 newsletter. is simply an automated capability for marking
`the Return-to-Sendcr endorsement on such Inail identified by
`other sources. In this case the responsibility for forwarding the
`mail lay with the destination post office.
`With the introduction of the Computerized Forwarding Sys—
`tem (CFS, [987) and the Postal Automated Redirection System
`(PARS, 2UO3).the responsibility for forwarding the mail shifted
`
`
`from the destination post office to intermediate facilities such as
`the Processing & Distribution Centers (P&DCs) and Destina—
`tion Delivery Units (DDCs).
`(2) The Computerized Forwarding System (CFS) shifts part
`of the forwarding responsibility from the destination post office
`to local (near the destination city) P&DCs and DDCs. The desti-
`nation post office still bears the responsibility for identifying such
`mail, but the P&DCs and DDCs handle the addition of the new
`forwarding address.
`(3) Postal Automated Redirection System (PARS) shifts the
`responsibility for identification of mail that is to be forwarded
`back to the P&DC at the point of entry of the mail.
`
`In the October 25, 2004, “US. Notes” column in Linn ‘s Stamp
`News, AMC member John Hotchner mentioned the U. S. Postal
`Service’s most recent effort to automate “return-to-sender” mail.
`In that column Bernie Moening of the Lima, Ohio post office
`provided a brief description of the new Postal Automated Redi-
`rection System, or PARS, focusing on its ability to automate the
`markup of this “retum-to-sender” mail endorsement. As a result
`of this column, Ireceived an inquiry from another AMC member
`who wondered if PARS could be the source of the in lr—jel spray
`marking “return-to-sendcr" endorsements that Nancy. Tony and I
`wrote about in the April 2005 issue of the Auxiliary Markings.
`This was a good question and one which I had considered
`when I first read about PA R5 in the 2004 edition of the Compre—
`hensive Statement on Postal Operations. I made some inquiries
`at that time and obtained some detailed information on PARS and
`determined that PARS and the “First Class Letter Mail Automated
`Endorsement Return-to-Sender Program” were distinctly differ-
`ent programs. However. since this question had been raised again
`by a second individual, it appeared that this might be a good op-
`portunity to provide some additional descriptions of PARS and
`its preceding program. the Computerized Forwarding System
`(CFS), so that our readers would have a better understanding of
`how these two programs functioned and why they were different
`from the RTS Program.
`For the first 200 years of Postal Service operations, the act of
`forwarding the mails was both a destination-oriented activity and
`a labor—intensive manual one. By destination-oriented, I am re-
`ferring to the fact that the letter traveled to its destination before
`any forwarding actions could be taken. Upon arrival at the origi-
`nal destination address, the postmaster or mail carrier would ex-
`
`amine the letter. If it was on his list of addressees who had moved
`and left forwarding instructions, then he would make a notation
`of the new address and return the letter to the mailstream for de-
`livery. The first effort by the USPS to automate part of this pro-
`cess occurred in 1987 with the introduction of the CFS. For our
`present interest CFS can be described in terms of three primary
`functions: (a) data entry of change-of-address (COA) data into a
`computerized database, (b) matching forwardable letter mail with
`the appropriate entry in the COA database and automatically cor-
`recting the destination address and (c) notification of COA’s to
`mass mailers who desired to keep their mailing lists accurate.
`CFS accomplished these functions in the following manner.
`Postal customers continued to fill out a “Change-of—Address” form
`that identified the name and old and new address of the customer.
`This is PS FORM 3575, June 1991, for CFS, shown in Figurel.
`This form is on green card stock and printed in black ink. Other
`variants were probably used. These cards were sent to one of about
`240 centralized locations where this information was keyed by
`operators and placed into a local COA database on a daily basis.
`These local COA databases essentially reflected all of the COA
`data for a designated Processing & Distribution Center (P&DC).
`In addition, on a weekly basis, these changes were merged into a
`National Change-of—Address (NCOA) database. This NCOA da-
`tabase was not used directly in the forwarding of mail but to pro-
`vide address correction and update services to mass mailers. The
`CFS consisted of a stand-alone system installed at each of the
`280 or so P&DCs across the United States and is occasionally
`described as the “Redirection System.” Each CFS consisted of a
`mail transport, a video lift station and display. an Optical Charac-
`ter Recognition (OCR) module, a computer, a label application
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`

`. Sum Date
`
`'
`
`addrasi, prim
`3. ant-to discontinua-
`kiwi-rardin1
`’
`. Prin___t Lut Nun. or Norm at Business fl! mom imn one, use sepomn Change of Address Order Form for
`each}
`
` It TEMPORARY
`
`
`Auxiliary Markings — Issue 10 April 2006%
`2
`H...
`g.
`.
`.
`a
`$-
`.n.” ..
`\\\\\
`
`ova
`
`o
`
`..
`
`$.96.
`
`.
`
`t__-
`
`3
`
`""
`Us. Postal Service ;
`M
`CHANGE OF ADDRESS ORDER
`
`Customer Instructions Complctellcms l thru9. Execptltcma please
`-
`l information includin address on face of card.
`
`_
`
`yvfoi‘flcmusn
`ONLY
`
`“
`
`Month '
`i
`
`Dev
`
`_ o
`
`:2
`
`:
`I
`1
`i
`l
`. o:
`.
`l
`. Prim First Name of Hand of Humanoid (include Jr. Sn. arm~ Luvs blank If the Change at Address
`toor a business
`0.
`II
`
`i
`
`_
`
`5;-
`
`(il Puerro 1
`.
`i
`
`{x
`:-
`I-
`
`_
`
`715'
`
`3 Qatar
`H; aso1
`2
`'
`.
`' 9. Date Signed
`
`Month
`
`PS Form 3575 June i991
`
`-
`
`”’33:; "
`
`; a U.S.G.P.O.1991 296-421
`
`Figure 1 — PS FORM 3575 (CFS)
`
`module with an ink—jet printer and a small number of output
`sortation bins.
`
`
`
`07/26/05
`
`
`
`3_f-i---
`
`"-[I"lul-ullmmr[uuI!“Imlm""-"mllmll-L'"
`Figure 2 (CFS)
`
`At the post office level, the letter carriers and clerks continued
`to identify mail that was to be forwarded. It is my assumption at
`this point that each post office received summaries of the COA
`forms filed by their local customers from the process that inte—
`grated this COA data into the local database. When a letter to be
`forwarded was identified, the carrier deposited it into a CFS con-
`tainer which was transported to the P&DC on a daily basis, either
`after all Of the incoming mail had been worked at the P05[ office,
`or perhaps when all of the outgoing mail was transported to the
`P&DC for processing at the end of the work day. All of this CFS
`mail was consolidated and processed by the CFS. This processing
`consisted of the following steps. The address side of the letter
`was scanned and presented to the redirection clerk who extracted
`a code from the address which was the index key to the lookup in
`the local COA database. This key consisted of the first four letters
`of the addressee’s last name and the last three numbers of the
`street address. This key was then used to search the local COA
`The PARS label in Figure 3 can be compared with the CFS
`database, and ifa match was found, a redirection label (on yellow
`label in Figure 2. The best way to distinguish the two is that most
`paper) was printed With the new address, including the POSTNET
`PARS labels have both the 7 character COA database key tag”
`barcode. The label was then attached to the envelope, and the
`CARL574) and the BC (barcode) line while the CFS label has
`envelope directed to the appropriate sortation bin. Figure 2 shows
`only the 7 character COA database key (e.g., CARL077). Excep-
`such a CFS label with the index key ICARL07‘7. For reasons of
`tions do exist, usually where there is too little room on the label
`privacy, part of the addressee 3 name Is erased 1n Flg. 2, 3. & 6-
`Page 3 of 14
`Page 3
`
`Figure 3 below, showing a PARS label, is out Of order so that
`the reader can compare the CFS and PARS label formats here.
`
`a”. M 3 :95 a. so 09/29/05
`CARLS'FQ
`EEEEPY SEHDER OF ”EU «fineness
`:gnngggfigégéé" cg 94349 ”11
`not 94 t J_g¢7;1 1:.
`1:»; on:00471 - 1 5 M 34
`l|.|mlnimll:.illldmulllmlmll.nlln.llmilrluil
`'
`
`Figure3 (PARS)
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`

`Auxiliary Markings - Issue 10
`April 2006h
`for the “B C” line.
`
`In the CFS system, there were several other events which could
`happen. The USPS forwards mail for 12 months, then for the next
`6 months the mail is returned to the sender with the new address
`printed on the yellow label. The COA data is maintained for a
`longer period of time. When a match is made after this 18 month
`period has been exceeded. a different message is printed on the
`label advising the sender that the forwarding order has expired.
`Also, in this instance, the words “RETURN TO SENDER” are
`usually placed on the yellow label. An example of this type of
`label from CFS is provided in Figure 4. Incidentally, note the
`“RETURN TO SENDER FOR REASON SHOWN” ink-jet mark-
`ing of the RTS process on the envelope.
`
`‘
`tT
`
`;
`
`‘
`
`made for delivery to the sender. Those with other endorsements
`also received appropriate handling.
`Introduced in 2003, the Postal Automated Redirection Sys—
`tem (PARS) represents a major shift in the philosophy of how
`mail should be forwarded, as it further automates the forwarding
`process and shifts the responsibility for identification of mail that
`is to be forwarded back to the point of entry of the mail. The
`advances in computer technology and database management made
`it practical to consider a single National Change of Address
`(NCOA) database which could be used to match forwardable mail
`with its new address. At the same time the forwarding problem
`had grown as well - which created a massive disruption to the
`mail processing process. The USPS estimated in 2002 that 20%
`of the population moved
`and changed address
`each year. During fiscal
`year 2005, over 51 mil-
`ilion COA cards were
`
`'1’;3
`,JJ"
`
`“
`iPMgtfi'
`
` N u .'I.
`
`
`Efinfi
`155-131-924 RETURH "IQ ‘E-EHDER FDR HEQ‘E-Bi
`
`m]
`Q}
`.------—--..__._"
`fl\‘
`fl“‘¥‘ I
`
` 'submitted and pro-
`
`:
`‘
`:
`—
`
`'cessed.
`
`Through further au-
`tomation, PARS pro-
`vides significant im-
`- provements in the pro—
`cessing of mail to be for-
`warded in all of the three
`areas mentioned earlier
`
`for CFS. The entry of
`data into the new Na-
`
`.
`
`'
`4;"
`
`a .— _
`“H r .- _
`5” 1 ”Lurch":*‘3
`
`30-1203 66 13010:; 07/21/014
`-
`#8:»«233 TIME EXP
`RTN "m SEND
`am! wgggggg- .50 DR
`aggiekavcrtuie GA 30131.
`RETURN TO SENDER
`
`- -'
`
`,,
`
`‘-
`2i
`_
`_
`dov-eeei: “sass-ozone .1303" o
`rename um: - exp
`n'rnl. re' a
`.1 new warren:
`an :nav LL: an 3mm.
`300+ Lxugnrv an an
`
`Rerunfi re SENDER
`
`Figure 4 (CFS)
`
`Theoretically, a key derived from the address could fail to
`match an entry in the local COA database. What happens in this
`situation is unclear and not covered in my information. My specu-
`lation is that the CFS prints a label to the effect: “UNABLE TO
`FORWARD/N0 FORWARDING ORDER ON FILE/RETURN TO
`SENDER.” The letter would then be returned to a clerk for final
`verification.
`
`After processing by the CFS, these letters are placed back in
`the outgoing mailstream where they are sorted along with regular
`mail and sent onward to their new destination.
`During the CFS processing, the redirection operator also was
`required to watch for and flag those forwarded letters which had
`ancillary service endorsements such as “Address Correction Re-
`quested,” Do Not Forwar ” or “Do Not Return.” These letters
`were diverted from the CFS mail stream for additional handling.
`Those with “Address Correction Requested” were placed on a
`template and a photocopy of the letter and correction label was
`
`:t
`
`tional Change of Ad-
`_
`dress database was auto
`mated by redesrgnrng the
`oldCOA form sothatthe
`5 data submitted by the
`5 postal customer could be
`extracted and read by
`OCR rather than manually keyed by an operator. This redesigned
`forrn, shown in Figure 5, is designated as “PS FORM 3575 SEP-
`TEMBER 2005.” Earlier examples, of course, exist as the tests
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`began 1n 2003. ThlS form is printed in black on white paper, wrth
`a pink shaded background delineating where each printed char-
`acter is to be written by the addressee. Instructions are to com-
`plete using only “blue or black ink.” The color of the form and
`ink are critical, since the form will be processed using an OCR.
`These scanners operate in the infra-red spectrum and can not “see”
`the color red or pink. The pink outline around the boxes that con-
`tain the characters are not “seen” by the OCR and thus do not
`interfere with the lines of the printed character. Hence the ad—
`dressee can easily see where to place the characters on the form,
`but the OCR sees only the characters and NOT the form back-
`ground.
`
`These forms are sent to one of 86 scanning sites nationwide
`where they are scanned and the resulting digital image is sent to
`one of four specially designated Remote Encoding Centers (RECs)
`that are charged with validating this data and preparing it for in-
`clusion in the NCOA database. An OCR first decodes as much
`information as it can from this digital image, and then the image
`and decoded information are presented to an operator at a video
`terminal who completes extracting the data from the form. Both
`the image and the extracted data are then presented to a second
`operator for verification of the initial OCR and operator-keyed
`data. The accuracy of the data at this point is very important. The
`OCR is the key for reducing costs in this phase of the system; the
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`

`Auxiliary Markings - Issue 10
`
`April 2006
`
`OFF¥CIAL MAIL FDRWARDtNG CHANGE OF ADDRESS ORDER
`
`-Pleaae PRINT Items 1-10 In blue or black ink. Your signature Is required In Item 9.
`
`2. Is This Move
`1. Change «Address tor: (Read Attached Instructions)
`Temporary?
`Individual (#5)
`Entire Family (#5)
`Business (#6)
`.
`‘3. Start Date:
`4.
`II TEMPORARY move, print data to
`(u. 02mm)
`discontinue forwarding: (ex. 03127105)
`533. LAST
`.3.
`_
`.
`Name 8.
`JrJSrJe‘lc.
`
`.
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`OEFlCIA'L USE ONLY
`Zone/Route ID No.
`
`I
`
`E
`
`Data Entered on Form 3932 '
`'
`y
`.
`M M
`D D
`Y
`_|_l_|___|_l__
`.
`Expiration Date
`M M
`D D
`Y
`Y
`
`- CIerkJCarriar Endorsement
`I
`
`:
`
`.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`.
`
`7b. Em: Puerlo Rico bnly: II address Is in PR. pfinturbanizallp‘n name. It appropriate.
`
`Name
`.Eb.FIRST
`and MI
`:6. "BUSINESS
`Move. Print
`sea
`Business Name
`N PRINT OLD MAILINGADDRESS BELOW: HDUSEIVEUILDING NUMBER AND STREET NAME (INCLUDEST“AVE.. GT.. ETC-.1 OR PD BOX3we
`75. OLD _
`Malling
`.
`2
`Address
`’
`'78. OLD :
`.APT or
`*
`'Suite
`
`s
`é
`.
`
`«eds
`
`9®¢Qy¢06¢
`
`re. OLD i
`' CITY
`
`Td.
`To
`State
`.
`.ZIP
`PRINT NEWMAILING ADDRESS BELOW: HOUSEIBUILOING NUMBER AND STREET NAME (INCLUDE ST. AVE... CT" ETC.) DR 90 :EDX
`
`'
`
`Eta.NEW
`- Mailing
`Address
`38. NEW '
`- APTfSle
`\
`.orPMB
`tic. NEW
`CITY
`
`St). For Puma Rim Only: If address is in PR, print urbanization name. it appropriate.
`
`Ed.
`Stale
`
`88.
`ZIP
`
`ID Date
`9. Pdntand Sig}: Name {sea mndiliona on reverse)
`Signed:
`Print:
`.
`310:. MEMOS}
`I 1» -Si§|1:
`rs FORM 3535 saméuaen 2055 Visit usps.com to change your address eating or call 1a800-A3K-USP8(1:800—21'5-3771'] mus
`
`‘
`
`’. OFFICIAL use dirty” "
`
`Figure 5 - PS FORM 3575 (PARS)
`
`previous CFS required the operators to perform all of the data
`entry and verification for the COA forms.
`The postal customer may also submit this COA information
`via the Internet (ICOA). To minimize the possibility of a fraudu-
`lently submitted ICOA, the customer is charged a $1.00 fee that
`can be paid only by a credit card in the customer’s name AND
`registered by the same address(es). In 2002 only 2% of the COA
`data for the CFS was submitted via the Internet, but by FY 2005,
`this number had increased to 6 million of the 51 million submit-
`ted, or a little over 12%.
`
`The verified COA Data is integrated into a local COA data-
`base on a daily basis and then into the NCOA. With CFS the
`NCOA database was updated weekly. With PARS it is probably
`(my data did not specify frequency) updated on a daily basis.
`This single NCOA database is used by PARS at all installed loca-
`t10ns.
`
`PARS, unlike CFS, takes the forwarding process out of the
`destination-oriented mode and moves it to a very early stage of
`the letter-processing cycle. To appreciate how PARS does this, it
`will be helpful to briefly describe the processing steps encoun-
`tered by a letter entering the mail delivery system at a P&DC.
`The initial processing step for all stamped first-class letter mail is
`the Advanced Facer Canceller System (AFCS) where each letter
`is faced, cancelled and separated into mail that is machine (OCR)
`readable, prebarcoded, script or declared a reject (requiring manual
`processing). Machine readable mail procedes to the Multiline OCR
`Page 5 of 14
`
`Page 5
`
`(MLOCR) system which reads the address information (street or
`post office box, city, state and ZIP) and resolves this information
`into an 11-digit ZIP code. This ZIP code and the equivalent
`POSTNET bar code are then sprayed along the bottom edge of
`the envelope. Over 90% of the mail is processed by automation at
`this stage. The balance, mail to the addresses that are not machine
`readable, are sent to the Remote Bar Coding System (RBCS)
`where an operator works in conjunction with the OCR to deter-
`mine the ZIP code, which is then sprayed on the envelope.
`The next step is to use the 3-digit ZIP code component to
`begin sorting mail to the P&DC that serves the final destination
`of the letter. Prior to PARS, this step would have been performed
`using a version of the Delivery Bar Code System (DBCS), which
`consists of a POSTNET bar code reader and between 190 and
`
`220 sortation bins. The implementation for PARS utilizes a spe-
`cially modified DBCS called the Combined Input/Output Sub-
`system (CIOSS), which consists of a 25 foot long module added
`to a standard DBCS and which includes two high speed labelers,
`an ink-jet printer, double envelope detectors, OCR, and a com—
`puter interface to the NCOA database. Each mailpiece is processed
`on the CIOSS in the following manner. First the 11-digit ZIP code
`from the mailpiece is read using the POSTNET bar code, and this
`ll-digit ZIP code is compared with the NCOA database. If a match
`is found, the OCR module must read the name of the addressee,
`and a check is made to determine if the addressee is the indi-
`vidual at that address who has moved. If both conditions are sat-
`
`Page 5 of 14
`
`

`

`Auxiliary Markings - Issue 10
`
`isfied, then a yellow label with the corrected address and
`POSTNET bar code is applied to the envelope. The letter is then
`passed to the proper sortation bin for the new POSTNET bar code/
`ZIP code. All nonpresort letter mail outbound from a P&DC must
`undergo two or three of these sort steps, Since PARS has already
`identified and corrected any forwardahle mail on this initial pass
`through the CIOSS, these subsequent steps can be performed on
`any standard (unmodified) DBCS.
`Figure 6 shows a typical PARS label where the letter was for-
`warded to its new destination.
`
`L 60% G 30 OBIEO/93
`945 H;
`CHRLEYQ
`EEEEFY seamen eF new newness
`PD 60x auras:
`SEN FRANCISCO CH 94149~17li
`
`*lflfl?*00fi?1h15-‘34
`Eat 9411.91,?1'L11
`ilrinrluinliimnielnm”inrini‘ililtilllul”Insulin”
`Figure 6 (PARS)
`
`This letter was mailed near Ft. Worth and was processed by a
`PARS at that facility. The two lines a: the bottom edge of this
`label are unique to the PARS. The first line, which begins with
`the letters “BC:”, reflects the new destination 11-digit ZIP code.
`The second group of figures on the right side of the line are the
`RBCS-ID tracking number, which is the same as the one sprayed
`by the RBCS on the reverse of the envelope in red/red-orange ink
`either by the AFCS or the MLOCR units.
`This RBCS-ID codes may be interpreted as follows:
`
`aaxx—bbbbb-cc-dd
`
`April 2006
`
`In the event that PARS does not correctly identify a letter as
`one that requires COA processing, the mail carrier at the destina-
`tion post office will then receive the letter for delivery to the origi—
`nal address, and he will then mark it up for forwarding and put it
`back into the PARS mailstream for final delivery.
`PARS also automates some of the processing required for a
`customer requested Automated Correction Service (ACS). At the
`same time that the CIOSS checks for a COA record, it also exam-
`ines the front of the envelope for any ancillary service endorse-
`ments such as “Address Correction Requested,” “Do Not For-
`ward,” “Do Not Return,” etc. When the “Address Correction Re-
`
`quested Service” is detected, the scanned image of the original
`envelope along with the relevant COA data are formatted into an
`image of the Form 3547, which is then sent electronically to the
`National Customer Service Center in Nashville, TN. These im-
`age forms are collated daily by mailer, printed and mailed to the
`customers who had requested this service. These customers may
`also receive this COA information electronically via Form 3547.
`As an example of this process, Figure 8 shows a label from a
`newsletter mailed as a Standard A item endorsed “ADDRESS
`SERVICE REQUESTED.” It had been mailed with a discounted
`rate by permit. It was then returned, since it was undeliverable
`(NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED), and the Standard
`Mail A weighted fee was charged. This was the factor 2.472 x the
`37¢ first-class rate for less than 1 ounce or 91.464¢ which was
`rounded up to 92¢, and this weighted fee was accessed. See the
`article “The Weighted Standard A (Third-Class) Undeliverable
`Mail/Address Correction Fee” from the April 2004 Auxiliary
`Markings for more details about this fee.
`
`cc
`
`- facility machine ID number
`aa
`- site code (82 is Ft. Worth)
`xx
`bbbbb - an incrementing sequence number that is reset at
`the beginning of each 30 minute processing interval
`- the day of the month the letter was processed, in the
`present case, the 16th
`- the time code identifying which 30 minute interval.
`These begin with 00 = 0000 (midnight) to 0030 am.
`24 = 1200 (noon) to 1230 pm, so that 34 = 1700
`(5 pm) to 1730, etc.
`
`dd
`
`The bar code at the bottom (second line of PARS code) is the
`POSTNET code for the new forwarding address, which is ap-
`plied to the label directly, thus making it unnecessary to repro-
`cess the letter and spray it again. The barcoded PARS label also
`covers the existing POSTNET code to the old address (preventn
`ing loop mail).
`As noted previously in the section for CFS, the USPS cur-
`rently forwards first—class mail for a period of 12 months. PARS
`also identifies forwardable mail for which the forwarding order
`has expired and will apply a label with an appropriate message to
`letters that meet this criteria. These labels would also include the
`endorsement “RETURN TO SENDER.” Figure 7 illustrates such
`a label that was on a letter returned because it had an invalid
`address - the number 752 is a 3-digit ID of the CIOSS machine
`that labeled this mailpiece.
`
`.LO O7ffi'tfi/OS
`
`ntxm _
`
`.r
`area
`‘ro sermon»
`mine-runs!
`N07.nr:t.=vmamat_t1 m.- aueiwesaeo
`winger: To r'onwnno
`.
`_.
`'. 9e: nice-samurai:
`Mme-«pres; ..-;o--oq
`“lllllllllnlrlihll'Ill-JI|[Hill-11H“)lilllliiI'J-IHHHIDUI”
`
`Hgme7€RARS)
`Page 6 of 14
`
`Page 6
`
`NIXIE
`
`0 a
`
`on oszx?rcs ,.
`v50
`FEE DU:
`“*
`.
`RETURN To SEHDER
`.
`~ Nor DELIVERABLE as nonnzsseo
`» unnaec To Fonunnn
`-
`UEIGHTED FEE Du: . m
`
`g
`.0
`-w
`
`.”HIIlIII'blIIIHIIillll‘LIII‘dlllllllllllilillilliiillull
`
`Figure 8 (PARS)
`
`Note that this is a PARS label without the “BC” line, presum-
`ably because of space limitations.
`The PARS is presently in the early stages of deployment and
`testing. This is clear from the fact that CFS uses are found con—
`comitant with PARS uses (Figure 2). During the Phase I deploy-
`ment between September 2003 and July 2004, CIOSS were in-
`stalled at 53 P&DCs around the United States. Phase II deploy—
`ment began in August 2005 and is expected to be completed in
`September 2007, and will result in at least one CIOSS at each of
`the remaining PD&Cs.
`It is hoped that with the above descriptions of CFS and PARS
`and the earlier description of the First Class Letter Mail Auto-
`mated Endorsement Return-to-Sender Program described in the
`April 2005 newsletter, our readers will better understand the dif-
`ference between these three automated postal systems. Both CFS
`and PARS are primarily concerned with the processing of
`forwardable mail, and only certain mail not meeting the
`forwardable criteria is processed and identified as Return-to-
`Sender Mail. On the other hand, the RTS Program is simply an
`automated capability for marking the Return-to—Sender endorse-
`ment on such mail identified by other sources. The cover shown
`in Figure 4 earlier is an example of a letter with both the yellow
`label from CFS with a “RETURN TO SENDER” endorsement
`
`and a similar endorsement from the RTS Program.
`
`Page 6 of 14
`
`

`

`Auxiliary Markings - Issue 10
`
`April 2006
`
`Prohibited Forwarding
`by Jerry Johnson
`
`TO TH E p081”M A S {E i:
`IS
`This letter is for delwmy 0m?"
`persons
`as
`authorized unw
`tacit
`{he protricions (ti pun 3‘ Stat”.
`3134 0i
`
`
`
`This free-franked War Department first-class, surface cover
`contalned a pay stub. Because of this and the assocmted “prov1-
`sions of Par. 3, Sec. 784 of the Postal Law and Regulations"
`this letter “MUST NOT BE FORWARDED TO ANOTHER
`POST OFFICE.” (To me, the editor, this is a very rarely seen
`auxiliary marking)
`
`/:-“U
`15;”
`\;
`
`
`
`mtufim _
`mm.- smut
`uts. saunas BUNDS-
`
`WAR DEPARTMENT
`
`Sir-n Dmitri-mm»!W
`
`WWW-swim_
`
`
`”mm“
`OFFICIAL HUSINESH
`
`9 2‘ a
`as; 3;.
`
`titlliam 0. Llurmy,
`A76'18t’h AVG-j
`Sadlt‘mnoiaco, Cal.
`
`
`'FO 1m: Posrrartstt-Et
`
`;.
`Tim-551R! ip in:
`tit-11m“
`u-.:I:r
`[jg-mm n euthméml
`.__-,-'r
`'
`.
`a
`set. mi oi
`'l :-V.;\
`-.rr.‘~ t‘l l"1
`
`
`
`
`Two Interesting Auxiliary Markings
`by Paul Albright
`
`So many auxiliary markings, so little time.
`The first marking at the right is a nice example of a return to
`sender marking where the three blanks allow the carrier using it
`to give assorted pieces of information at one time.
`The second return to sender auxiliary marking at the right
`shows a clerk using one handstamp, with a handwritten addition,
`
`to communicate two pieces of information.
`
`5--
`
`
`
`My Hand’s Bigger Than Your Hand
`by Floyd Knell and Tony Wawrukiewicz
`
`.
`
`_ “‘54.
`
`lustrated a pointing hand with a maximum dimension of 2 7/8
`inches. Mike Ludeman then sent me one that was 3.28 inches
`long.
`
`In the October 2005 Auxiliary Markings, Henry Wilhelmi i1-
`i-g- t. D i“ 3‘:
`C'-
`__ *1,
`ti
`X"
`'9 M" It‘d”!
`' .70 '
`-
`VJ H lTER
`'
`
`
`. urgCLA-man
` - _
`strum TAGDHfl,WA§'
`',
`
`I then looked at my old correspondence and found a submis-
`sion by Floyd Knell which is shown full-size here. The full length
`of this hand is 3 7/ 16 inches. This returned to writer hand was on
`a June 2, 1893, postal card. Returns on postal cards are relatively
`uncommon because they frequently have no return address.
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`Page 7
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`

`Auxiliary Markings - Issue 10
`April 2006
`First Day Cover Delay
`by Rob Washburn
`
`The first day cover illustrated is another example of the won—
`derful variety of ways FDCs are delayed in transit. “This mail
`was stolen and afterward recovered, which accounts for its con-
`dition and delay.”
`It’s another example as to why the addressing and actual mail—
`ing of a FDC can be fruitful.
`
`this mail was stolen and attem'are
`recoveran!which accounts to: its
`condition and -.delay
`
`"MI-M "-
`
`
`
`
`A Polite Pointing Hand
`by James H. Hayes
`
`This interesting cover was ma