Overview
Title
Securing Bundles of Flats
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Postal Service wants to make sure big packages of magazines and papers don't break open, so starting in July 2025, they need to be tied up really well, but small groups don't have to be tied up.
Summary AI
The Postal Service has issued a final rule to modify the way bundles of flat mail items, like brochures or magazines, should be secured, as noted in the updated Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®). Starting July 1, 2025, mailers can avoid bundling small batches of up to 500 flat items, while larger bundles must be secured with multiple bands or shrink-wrap to prevent damage in transit. Exceptions are made for First-Class Mail flats, which can still use rubber bands or string, and special provisions apply to newspapers. This change aims to reduce damage and handling costs associated with broken bundles.
Abstract
The Postal Service is amending Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM[supreg]) in sections to modify the requirements for securing bundles of flats.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
In March 2025, the Postal Service issued a final rule to change how bundles of flat mail, like magazines or brochures, are secured during mailing. These changes, found in the updated Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®), are set to take effect on July 1, 2025. Critical among these changes is that small mailings of up to 500 flat pieces can now avoid bundling, while larger batches must use multiple bands or shrink-wrap. Certain exceptions are prescribed, such as the continued use of rubber bands or strings for First-Class Mail flats, with special considerations for newspapers in transit. These revisions aim to decrease the damage and handling costs caused by broken bundles during mailing.
These new rules present some notable issues and concerns. One central issue is the potential cost for mailers in implementing these new bundling requirements, which the document does not explicitly address. This lack of cost analysis leaves the financial burden uncertain, especially for smaller mailers who may lack resources. Additionally, while the response to concerns about sustainability touches on recycling efforts, it fails to provide concrete details on how the USPS will manage the added waste from extra strapping, which might worry environmentally conscious stakeholders.
Moreover, the technical language in the document could pose challenges for individuals unfamiliar with postal procedures, making parts difficult to understand. The inconsistent detailed formatting throughout the document could further confuse readers. While exceptions for First-Class Mail flats are mentioned, the document does not define them clearly or explain why these exceptions exist, potentially leading some stakeholders to be skeptical about the rationale.
These changes appear to be targeting broad public benefits, such as reducing postal operation disruptions and associated costs from damaged mail. However, the public, primarily smaller mailers, might feel adversely impacted due to the financial and operational preparedness required by the new standards. Also, the assumption that all mailers have the necessary equipment to meet the July 1, 2025, compliance deadline may not hold true, creating potential disparities in compliance capability.
Overall, the Postal Service aims to enhance efficiency and reliability through these changes, addressing longstanding issues of bundle breakage. Nevertheless, greater clarity and support from the USPS may be needed to ensure a smooth transition for all mailers, big or small.
Issues
• The document does not specify the cost implications for mailers implementing the new bundling requirements, creating uncertainty over potential financial burden.
• The response to the comment on sustainability lacks detail on how additional waste from extra strapping will be effectively managed and recycled by USPS.
• The language used in defining new bundling standards is technical and may be unclear to individuals not familiar with mailing procedures.
• The formatting of the document is inconsistent, with some sections appearing to be more detailed than others, potentially leading to confusion.
• The document mentions exceptions for First-Class Mail flats but does not clearly define what constitutes 'First-Class Mail flats' or the reasoning behind these specific exceptions.
• The rationale provided for not permitting string or rubber bands is primarily based on cited reports without presenting specific data, which may cause skepticism among stakeholders.
• The document lacks specific contact details for further inquiries regarding the compliance options for smaller mailers or those facing financial constraints.
• There is an assumption that all mailers have access to equipment and materials necessary for compliance by the July 1, 2025, deadline, which might not be the case.