[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 136 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36376-36377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17472]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Revisions to Standards Concerning Physical Mailpiece Dimensions,
Addressing, and Address Placement
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Postal Service withdraws the proposed rule to change
several standards in the Domestic Mail Manual related to physical
mailpiece dimensions and address placement, as published in the Federal
Register on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31178-31183).
DATES: July 17, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo F. Raymond, (202) 268-5199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 17, 1994, the Postal Service
published for public comment several proposed changes to standards in
the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) related to physical mailpiece dimensions
and address placement (59 FR 31178-31183). On July 21, 1994, in order
to afford more opportunity for input, the Postal Service extended the
comment period through September 16, 1994 (59 FR 37190). On October 11,
1994, in response to continued interest, the Postal Service further
extended the comment period through October 31, 1994, and announced a
public meeting to be held in Arlington, VA, on October 20, 1994, for
oral comment on the proposed rule (59 FR 51397).
The proposed rule offered revisions to DMM C010 and C050 (with
lesser changes to DMM A010, A200, and E312) concerning how the physical
characteristics of a mailpiece would be used to determine which
dimensions are its length, height, and thickness. In turn, this
information would be used to determine correct address placement and
the mailpiece's mailability, susceptibility to a nonstandard surcharge,
processing category, and rate eligibility. The proposed rule sought to
apply a consistent definition of length, height, and thickness to all
mail, except for mail eligible for and claimed at a Barcoded rate for
flats.
The proposed rule included these specific changes to the DMM:
1. Amend A010.1.0 to standardize address placement on all letter-
size mail claimed at other than a single-piece rate (or, for pieces
within a small dimensional range, at the Barcoded rate for flats) to
require that the address be oriented parallel to the length of the
piece (as defined in revised C010.1.1).
2. Revise A010.1.0 and A200.1.3 to add mandatory address placement
standards for other than single-piece rate flat-size mail either
prepared in an unattached sleeve or partial wrapper or otherwise not
prepared in an envelope, polybag, or similar enclosure.
3. Amend C010.1.0 to reduce the role of address placement for
determining which of a mailpiece's physical dimensions are its length,
height, and thickness by establishing consistent definitions based on
the physical characteristics of the mailpiece.
4. Amend C050.1.0 to provide consistency in assigning most
mailpieces to a processing category based solely on their dimensions,
as determined by revised C010.1.0.
5. Revise C050.5.0 to clarify that merchandise samples are not, by
definition, always irregular parcels and that such samples may be
categorized as letter-size or flat-size pieces, based on the usual
criteria.
[[Page 36377]]
6. Revise A010.4.3 and 4.5 to mandate the use of a ZIP Code or
ZIP+4 code in the return address on certain mail. (The standard for
required use of a return address was not changed by these proposals.)
7. Add A010.5.3 to clarify the meaning and appropriate use of the
terms ``post office box,'' ``P.O. Box,'' ``PO Box,'' ``POB,''
``P.O.B.,'' and similar combinations.
8. Change A010.5.1 to prohibit dual addresses in both the delivery
and return addresses on Express Mail and Priority Mail; on registered,
certified, restricted delivery, and special delivery mail; and on any
mail claimed at a bulk or presort rate.
Miscellaneous organizational and technical revisions were also
proposed for clarity and consistency as well.
Over the total comment period, the Postal Service received 53
written responses from printers, mailer associations, publishers, a
consultant, and other customers, all offering hundreds of individual
comments on the several aspects of the proposed rule. Of the total
responses, 47 opposed all or part of the proposed rule, and 6 mixed
support for some aspects of the proposal with opposition to others. The
public meeting was attended by 48 industry representatives, of whom 20
offered oral comments for the record. In addition, 22 representatives
submitted written comments, including 13 of those who gave oral
comments. Neither the oral nor the written comments raised issues not
already exposed in the written comments described earlier.
The Postal Service concluded that, despite the merit of some
elements of the proposed rule, the broad, general opposition expressed
by commenters to the proposal argued strongly for its reconsideration.
Moreover, the advent of classification reform was an opportunity, seen
both by the Postal Service and the commenters, to enact more
fundamental changes and thus render moot some issues in the proposed
rule.
Therefore, in view of the comments received and the events that
have occurred since the proposed rule was published, the Postal Service
has determined to withdraw its proposal at this time. The Postal
Service does so, however, with the caveat that elements of the proposed
rule are likely to be republished at a later date for comment,
separately or in combination, as part of classification reform
rulemaking or otherwise.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 95-17472 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
