[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5428]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 20
Amendment of International Mail Manual Subchapter 790
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Postal Service is adopting amendments of International
Mail Manual Subchapter 790 to clarify when a mailing in a foreign
country is by or on behalf of a United States resident for purposes of
collecting United States domestic postage and to authorize the
collection of United States domestic postage on certain mail posted in
a foreign country by or on behalf of persons who do not reside in that
country.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12:01 a.m., March 10, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Walter J. Grandjean, (202) 268-5180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 28, 1993, the Postal Service
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 25959) a proposed rule that
would amend Subchapter 790 of the International Mail Manual to clarify
when mail is posted in a foreign country is by or on behalf of a United
States resident (ABA remail) for purposes of collecting United States
domestic postage. The proposed rule would also authorize the Postal
Service to collect United States domestic postage on certain mailings
posted in countries with which the Postal Service has not negotiated
cost-based terminal dues arrangements by or on behalf of persons who
reside in countries with which the Postal Service has negotiated cost-
based terminal dues arrangements (ABC remail). The Post Service
proposed a broad definition of United States resident that would allow
it to collect United States domestic postage on mailings posted in
another country not only by firms or entities organized in the United
States, but also by firms or entities organized under the laws of other
countries when there was a substantial connection between such firms or
entities and individuals or firms in the United States. The Postal
Service also proposed to define when a mailing was by or on behalf of a
United States resident as those mailings in which a United States
resident seeks or expects to receive an economic advantage. The Postal
Service also proposed a definition of resident of a country with which
the Postal Service has cost-based terminal dues arrangements and a
definition of when a mailing was by or on behalf of such a resident.
Comments were due on or before June 1, 1993, and ten comments were
received by that date. Of those comments, six opposed and four
supported the proposed rule. In view of the comments, the Postal
Service has decided to adopt the proposed rule with amendments to take
into account some of the criticisms of the proposal.
Legal Authority
One commenter, an association of companies that compete with the
Postal Service, asserts that this rulemaking violates the separation of
powers and due process principles of the Constitution because the rule
would regulate companies that compete with the Postal Service. The
Postal Service disagrees. The commenter cited no cases or other
authority to support its assertion, and the Postal Service is not aware
of any authority which would support such an assertion. Moreover, the
rule does not regulate competitors of the Postal Service who do not use
the Postal Service's services, but only specifies when mailers must pay
U.S. domestic postage to secure delivery of their mail. Mailers can
continue to use remailers and can deposit their mail in any country
they choose. They will be required, however, to pay the full cost of
the services they obtain from the Postal Service.
Two commenters, a competitor of the Postal Service and the
association of competitors, assert that the proposed rule violates the
Postal Reorganization Act because it would extend the application of
the Private Express Statutes beyond the United States and to mailable
matter other than letters. These commenters also assert that the
proposed rule would either impose the Postal Service's bilateral cost-
based terminal dues arrangements on third countries or boycott mail
from non-cost-based terminal dues countries unless the mailer agreed to
pay United States domestic postage. They further assert that the Postal
Service is not authorized to adopt an interpretation of the Universal
Postal Convention without the approval of the President. The Postal
Service disagrees.
The proposed rule would not extend the territorial reach of the
Private Express Statutes. The Private Express Statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1694-
99, 39 U.S.C. 601-06, generally prohibit the private carriage of
letters on post routes without paying postage. There are exceptions to
this prohibition, and the Postal Service has suspended the prohibition
in some cases, e.g., for extremely urgent letters and for outbound
international remail. 39 CFR 320.6, 320.8.
The proposed rule would not require that anything be sent by mail,
or that United States postage be paid on non-letter mail sent by a
private carrier. It simply prescribes when United States postage must
be paid to the Postal Service when the mailer chooses to use the Postal
Service to deliver items in the United States. Mailers are free,
subject to the internal legislation of the countries where they are, to
use any carrier they want for both letter and non-letter mailable
matter. The Private Express Statutes would come into play only when a
mailer chooses to send letters to the United States via a private
carrier. When those letters arrive in the United States, unless they
come within an exception or suspension of the Statutes, they must be
entered into the mails or have United States postage affixed. That is
entirely different from the requirement in this rule that U.S. domestic
postage be paid on matter entering the United States through the
international mail system and which is tendered to the Postal Service
for delivery by choice.
The proposed rule would not impose bilateral terminal dues
arrangements on third countries nor would it constitute a boycott of
mail from countries with which the Postal Service does not have cost-
based terminal dues arrangements. The rule does not alter the terms
under which the Postal Service exchanges mail with any other country.
Countries that are part of the UPU terminal dues system will continue
to pay UPU terminal dues. Mail from those countries will continue to be
accepted and processed, except for mail posted by or on behalf of
mailers who reside in the United States or one of the countries with
which the Postal Service has cost-based terminal dues arrangements.
That mail will be held for postage or returned as authorized by Article
25 of the Universal Postal Convention (Washington 1989).
The Postal Service is not required to obtain the approval of the
President to adopt this rule. Section 407 of title 39, United States
Code, provides in pertinent part, ``The decisions of the Postal Service
construing or interpreting the provisions of any treaty or convention
which has been or may be negotiated and concluded shall, if approved by
the President, be conclusive on all officers of the Government of the
United States.'' This provision does not limit the authority to adopt
regulations, 39 U.S.C. 401(2), but establishes the conditions under
which any interpretation of a postal convention will be binding on all
officers of the Government. Indeed, the absence of Presidential
approval does not make the Postal Service's interpretation invalid, it
merely leaves open the possibility that there might be a disagreement
with some other interested agency. Presidential approval simply
provides a mechanism for resolving disagreements in favor of the Postal
Service.
One commenter asserted that the proposed rule would impermissibly
extend the territorial jurisdiction of the Postal Service and could
cause conflicts between it and the internal legislation of other
countries in which mailers are present. The Postal Service disagrees.
The basis of the proposed rule is Article 25 of the Universal Postal
Convention. That article authorizes postal administrations to collect
domestic postage on certain international mail and the decline to
deliver certain international mail. Thus, the proposed rule is not
based on domestic law alone, but is based on an international agreement
to which virtually all countries adhere. That is far different from the
case of purporting to apply domestic legislation to conduct outside the
United States. That the Postal Service has decided to apply Article 25
selectively to avoid interference with mailers' decisions which do not
adversely affect it does not change the application of Article 25 into
an extraterritorial extension of United States jurisdiction.
One commenter asserts that the proposed rule exceeds the authority
given by Article 25 because the proposed rule would allow the Postal
Service to collect domestic postage on remail posted in a country other
than the country where the mailer resides, and Article 25 provides only
that postal administrations ``shall not be bound to accept, forward, or
deliver'' such mail and ``may send back such items to origin or return
them to the senders without repaying the prepaid charge.'' This comment
is accurate insofar as there is no express authorization to collect
domestic postage on ABC remail as there is for ABA remail. However, the
Postal Service does not believe that the absence of an express
authorization precludes it from providing mailers an alternative that
can be much less onerous than returning the mail to origin. The purpose
of Article 25 and IMM 790 is not to punish remail per se, or for that
matter, disrupt commercial activities via the mails. As viewed by the
Postal Service, Article 25 is intended to ensure that postal
administrations receive appropriate compensation for the services they
render. Returning mail to origin can take time, and the mail being
returned may be time sensitive. The mailer may also have invested more
in a mailing than the postage that has been or will have to be paid. In
these cases, the option of securing delivery by paying United States
domestic postage can be much more desirable than incurring the expense
of waiting for the mail to come back, preparing the mail for posting in
a third country, and paying new postage to a third postal
administration. Moreover, since United States domestic postage rates
are among the lowest in the world, there is some likelihood that the
mail would simply come back to the United States prepared as United
States mail. This being the case, there appears to be no good reason to
require mailers to incur the additional expense of re-preparing the
mail, shipping it to the United States or some other country, and then
paying new postage.
One commenter asserts that the proposed rule would be a repudiation
of the Universal Postal Convention's basic terminal dues arrangements.
The Postal Service disagrees. The Convention contains both terminal
dues provisions and Article 25 which authorizes administrations not to
accept or deliver ABA or ABC remail. As both those provisions are in
the Convention, they must be understood as being consistent with one
another. In this respect, the existence of Article 25 is a recognition
that terminal dues arrangements that are appropriate, and even
essential, for the efficient exchange of mails between many countries
can be unfairly exploited for individual gain. Enforcement of Article
25 is not a repudiation of the terminal dues system, it is a
recognition of a vulnerability that permits administrations to protect
themselves and their customers from unfair exploitation.
One commenter asserts that the Postal Service is not exempt from
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and that the Supreme Court has
rejected the Postal Service's claim to be exempt from the APA. The
Postal Service disagrees. Section 410 of title 39, United States Code,
provides expressly that ``Except as provided by subsection (b) of this
section, and except as otherwise provided in this title * * * no
Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works,
officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of
chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers
of the Postal Service.'' 39 U.S.C. 410(a). This language plainly
exempts the Postal Service from the APA, which is in chapters 5 and 7
of title 5. In subsection (b) of section 410, only sections 552 (public
information), 552a (records about individuals), 552b (open meetings) of
title 5 are made applicable. Elsewhere in title 39, only section 3001
makes the APA applicable to the Postal Service and then only for
mailability proceedings. Thus, nothing in the statute makes the APA
applicable to this rulemaking. As for the Supreme Court, in the case
mentioned by the commenter, Air Courier Conference of America v.
American Postal Workers Union, the Court did not rule on the merits of
whether the Postal Service was subject to the APA, but refused to
consider an argument based on exemption from the APA because that
argument had not been presented to the court below. Not considering an
argument is far different from considering an argument and rejecting
it.
Definition of United States Resident and of Other Country Resident
Several commenters assert that the proposed rule, insofar as it
attempts to elaborate criteria for determining whether a firm or
business is resident in the United States in terms of the percentage of
ownership of that firm or business by persons who reside in the United
States or by other firms or organizations incorporated or organized in
the United States, is unreasonable and that it is too broad and could
result in legitimate international mailings having to pay twice or
having to pay a different compensation rate than the one they are
entitled to under the Universal Postal (UPU) Convention. They further
assert that it is ambiguous, that it would require a knowledge of
corporate information which would be too burdensome for a foreign
private carrier or postal administration to ascertain, that it would
have adverse consequences operationally and for customers, that efforts
to apply the rule will lead to arbitrary actions and disputes, and that
it would erect a trade barrier. Similar objections are raised regarding
the application of such percentage of ownership criteria to determine
the resident status of a sender in another country. In response to
these views, the Postal Service is eliminating the percentage of
ownership criteria from its proposed rulemaking.
Trade Policy
Two commenters have asserted that the proposed rule is contrary to
U.S. trade interests and anti-competitive and that the European
Commission has recently started proceedings against enforcement of
Article 25. One of the commenters has asserted that Article 25 itself
is an anti-competitive, market-allocation scheme. The Postal Service
does not agree with these assertions. These commenters have also
asserted that President Reagan had instructed the Postal Service not to
apply UPU Convention Article 25(4) in an anti-competitive manner. The
Postal Service does not consider the proposed rule to be inconsistent
with the position President Reagan communicated to the Postal Service
or to be anti-competitive. First, the Postal Service sees no
inconsistency between U.S. trade interests and its own efforts to
assure that it is fairly and adequately compensated for the costs of
handling mail from other countries. It would not agree with the
implication that remail companies, which target a specific, high-
density type of mailing for their services, are entitled to subsidized,
below-cost delivery of their mailings by postal administrations or that
efforts to assure adequate compensation for the cost of delivery of
such mailings are anti-competitive. To the extent that remail companies
depend upon such below-cost delivery for the services they offer, they
are engaged in an abuse of the international mail system and of U.S.
mailers whose payments in effect subsidize such services. Article 25
permits postal administrations to take action which, rather than being
anti-competitive, serves to protect themselves against such abuse. To
the extent that private carriers provide end-to-end delivery services,
Article 25 simply does not apply to their activities. Furthermore, the
contention that the European Commission is proceeding against
enforcement of Article 25 is ambiguous. The manner in which actions
were taken by some European administrations in the past has been
challenged by the European Commission. However, there are postal
administrations in Europe, such as the German postal administration,
which are now aggressively applying Article 25 and these actions are
not being challenged by the European Commission.
Improvements in the Terminal Dues System
Three commenters assert that the Postal Service should deal with
the problem of uneconomic remail by correcting the flaws of the UPU
terminal dues system instead of taking administrative action. The
Postal Service agrees that the best way of dealing with uneconomic
remail would be to correct the flaws of the terminal dues system, but
it has concerns about whether the 186 member countries of the Universal
Postal Union, many of which have a vested interest in the current
structure, can agree on a system that will adequately solve the
problem.
The Postal Service is, nevertheless, working to establish a fully
cost-based terminal dues system, that is, a system to cover the
specific costs of each delivering postal administration which agrees to
participate in the new system, thus providing fair and equal
reimbursement for delivery services regardless of where mail is entered
in the new system by participating administrations. Fewer than thirty
industrialized countries, however, have an interest in developing such
a system. Although these countries have made progress in achieving
consensus on the requirements for and operation of such a system, the
problem of ``unequal access'' is likely to be exacerbated. The majority
of countries which will continue to apply a simplified, lower-rate UPU
system in all their mail exchanges will have more favorable access to
the industrialized countries participating in the cost-based system
than the industrialized countries will have with each other.
To permit a new country-specific cost-based system to operate
equitably and without the unfair arbitrage experienced between the
current cost-related system and the UPU terminal dues system would
require a majority of the member countries of the Universal Postal
Union to agree either to a global country-specific cost-based terminal
dues system or to an interface or ``bridge'' arrangement between the
simpler UPU terminal dues system and the country-specific cost-based
system. In considering the difficulties of persuading the UPU of the
market-influenced reasons for cost-based terminal dues, it should be
noted that a majority of UPU member countries, many of which are
developing countries, would lose significant terminal dues revenues
under a country-specific cost-based system which would require payment
of higher prices for delivery services to the industrialized countries
and lower prices for the same services to approximately 160 other
countries.
Despite the obstacles, the Postal Service is working toward the
adoption at UPU Congress of proposals which, if approved, will
significantly reduce the flaws in the current terminal dues system.
Although the Postal Service is optimistic about the adoption of some of
these proposals, it has only one of approximately 186 votes at UPU
Congress and cannot guarantee the outcome.
Furthermore, the Postal Service is obligated to comply with the
terms of the Acts of the Universal Postal Union currently in effect.
Outside of the framework of these Acts, the Postal Service can
negotiate other terminal dues arrangements only with the agreement of
another country or group of countries; it cannot impose a particular
cost-based terminal dues arrangement on other countries nor can it
unilaterally impose a particular level of terminal dues on inbound
international mail.
The UPU meets in Congress every five years, and the next
opportunity to achieve the agreement necessary to implement an
equitable and fully cost-based terminal dues system among the
industrialized countries will arise at the Seoul Congress in late 1994.
The Acts of the Universal Postal Union adopted at that Congress will
take effect in 1996.
In the meantime, therefore, the application of the proposed rule is
the only means of providing protection against the abuse of the current
terminal dues system.
Administration of Proposed Rule
One commenter asserted that enforcement of the rule is bound to be
arbitrary and capricious, that it cannot be strictly enforced without
incurring excessive costs, and that, if selectively enforced, it would
be enforced only against competitors of the Postal Service. The Postal
Service disagrees with this assertion. The elimination of the criteria
for determining resident status which relates to percentage of
ownership will simplify enforcement activity. Although excessive costs
might be incurred if one-hundred percent effectiveness were required,
enforcement can still be undertaken in a sufficiently vigorous and
cost-effective manner to maintain a credible deterrent to abuse of the
system. Furthermore, the effort to distinguish so-called competitors
from non-competitors engaged in efforts to evade fair payment of
delivery costs would, even if it were possible, certainly lead to
excessive administrative costs and be self-defeating. As the purpose of
the rule is solely to assure fair and adequate reimbursement of
delivery costs, there is no incentive to make such an effort.
One commenter asserts that there has been no independent
verification that UPU terminal dues do not adequately compensate the
Postal Service for its expense in delivering foreign-origin mail and
that participation in a study of international costs and revenues by
the Postal Rate Commission should be a prerequisite to implementing the
proposed rule. The Postal Service disagrees. The Postal Service alone
is responsible international mail services, and there is no legal
requirement that its determinations be subject to verification by any
other agency. The Postal Rate Commission, in particular, has no
jurisdiction over international rates or services, so any study
conducted by the Commission would have no legal significance. The
Postal Service has concluded that the proposed rule, as amended, would
benefit users of United States mail. No persuasive reason has been put
forward why implementation of that rule should be deferred while an
agency with no responsibility for international services conducts a
cost study that would have no legal significance. Accordingly, the
Postal Service will not defer implementation of the proposed rule.
One commenter asserts that the Postal Service has offered no data
on the losses against which the proposed rule would provide protection
and no support of the need for such a rulemaking. The assertion that
the Postal Service has not attempted to precisely quantify all losses
is correct as far as it goes. However, based upon mailings already
found to be in violation of Subchapter 790 and upon the continuing
nature of these activities, the Postal Service considers that it has an
adequate basis for its estimate that it has already suffered
significant losses and for its judgment that it will continue to incur
such losses unless more effective remedial action is taken. Therefore,
by giving the sender the option of either paying domestic postage to
secure delivery or accepting their return to origin, such losses can be
avoided or significantly reduced.
One commenter asserted that, under the proposed rule, the Postal
Service could decide at its own discretion whether mail was of
legitimate international origin or whether it should have been entered
as domestic mail and that it could make such decisions without prior
consultation with regulators, other postal administrations, or other
administrative bodies. The Postal Service agrees that it will exercise
its own discretion in implementing the proposed rule, but disagrees
with any implication that this will be done in an arbitrary manner and
without opportunity for consultation. The Postal Service considers the
exercise of this responsibility to be fully consistent with its
statutory authority and responsibility to assure that it is
appropriately and adequately compensated for the costs of the services
it provides. The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide senders and
foreign postal administrations with information about Postal Service
enforcement activities which will help assure that mailings comply with
Postal Service regulations and are not subject to such decisions. It is
the responsibility of the sender to be informed about these regulations
and to comply with them. The elimination of the percentage of ownership
criteria should simplify compliance with these Postal Service
regulations. If the sender or a foreign postal administration remains
uncertain about whether a mailing complies with Postal Service
regulations, then it is the responsibility of the sender or the foreign
postal administration to consult with the Postal Service in advance of
the mailing. In any event, when the Postal Service determines that it
is appropriate to apply the proposed rule, it will attempt to consult
with the sender and to give the sender an opportunity to pay the
required domestic postage or to explain why the mailing should be
delivered without such payment. The sending administration will then
also have an opportunity to comment on the enforcement of the rule by
the Postal Service.
One commenter asserts that the proposed rule is inconsistent with
the policy of allowing outbound remail from the United States, that it
would deny to foreign firms the opportunities for remail to the United
States that the Postal Service allows to firms in the United States,
that it does not take into account remailing opportunities to the
United States ``between countries not listed in Exhibit 792.1,'' that,
if adopted by other countries, the rule would eliminate the possibility
of sending ``prepaid mailshots'' from the country of choice of the
sender, and that the proposed ruling would disturb the climate for
establishing cost-based terminal dues. The Postal Service disagrees
with these assertions, at least to the extent that they refer to
mailings for which the country of destination will be adequately
compensated for its delivery costs. It is true that the suspension of
the Private Express Statutes for outbound international mail will
permit private delivery services, including remail companies, to carry
mail to other countries without Postal Service constraint. In such
circumstances, however, the Postal Service itself incurs no costs and
suffers no cost disadvantage. The purpose of the proposed rule is to
provide protection only in those circumstances where the Postal Service
does incur costs and would suffer a cost disadvantage. Furthermore, the
fact that Postal Service has suspended its own Private Express Statutes
with respect to outbound international mail does not mean that private
delivery services or remail companies are not subject to the
corresponding statutes of other countries or to the actions which other
postal administrations may take to enforce Article 25 or to assure
adequate compensation for the delivery of mail from senders in the
United States sent indirectly by way of third countries providing
access to the international mail system at below-cost postage rates.
With respect to remail opportunities to the United States ``between
countries not listed in Exhibit 792.1,'' as long as the sender is a
resident of such a country, the Postal Service suffers no cost
disadvantage for such mailings. With respect to the threat to ``prepaid
mailshots'' from the country of choice of the sender, there is no
threat to ``prepaid mailshots'' as long as there has been no evasion of
the payment to the delivering country of appropriate postage rates or
terminal dues. With respect to the assertion that the proposed rule
would disturb the climate for establishing cost-based terminal dues,
the Postal Service is of the view that such a rule vigorously enforced
will strengthen the incentive to adopt a cost-based terminal dues
system in order to reduce the need for such enforcement activity.
One commenter suggested what he considered to be clarifying changes
to sections 792.31 and 792.32 of the proposed rule, which explain that
a mailing is ``by or on behalf of a person or firm who resides in the
United States'' or ``by or on behalf of a person or firm who resides in
a country listed in Exhibit 792.1'' where ``such a person or firm seeks
or expects to derive economic benefit or advantage from that mailing''
in relation to activities or to ``operations physically conducted'' in
the United States or in one of the countries listed in Exhibit 792.1.
The commenter suggested the addition of ``with respect to the cost of
postage'' after ``if such a person seeks or expects to derive economic
benefit or advantage from that mailing'' to clarify that the economic
benefit is with respect to the cost of the postage for the mailing and
not because of the content of the mailing. The Postal Service has not
adopted this suggestion because the ``economic benefit or advantage''
noted in Sec. 792.31 and 792.32 refers to the gains which are the
result of the addressees response to the mailings expected by the
person or firm engaged in the mailing and not gain which result from
avoiding the cost of postage.
The Postal Service adopts the following amendments to the
International Mail Manual, which is incorporated by reference in the
Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20
Foreign relations, international postal services.
PART 20--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 20 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 407, 408.
2. Chapter 7 of the International Mail Manual is amended by
revising section 790 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 7--TREATMENT OF INBOUND MAIL
* * * * *
790 Items Mailed Abroad by or on Behalf of Senders in the U.S. and
Certain Other Countries.
791 Postage Payment Required.
Payment of United States postage is required to secure delivery of
mail described in 792 under the following circumstances:
a. The mailing is by or on behalf of a person or firm that resides
in the United States and the foreign rate of postage applied to such
items is lower than the comparable United States domestic rate of
postage, or 1000 or more such items are mailed in a 30 day period
regardless of whether the foreign postage is lower than the comparable
United States postage; or
b. The mailing is by or on behalf of a person or firm that resides
in a country listed in Exhibit 792.1, is posted in a country not listed
in Exhibit 792.1, and 1000 or more items are mailed in a 30 day period.
792 Mailings Affected.
792.1 Special Conditions. The special conditions apply to items of
mail which are posted in foreign countries:
a. By or on behalf of persons or firms who reside in the United
States; or
b. By or on behalf of persons or firms who reside in one of the
countries listed in Exhibit 792.1.
792.2 Residency
792.21 Criteria for U.S. Residency. A firm is a resident of the
United States if it meets the following criteria:
a. It has a place of business in the United States; or
b. It is incorporated or otherwise in the United States, its
territories, or possessions.
792.22 Criteria for Countries Listed in Exhibit 792.1 A firm is a
resident of a country listed in Exhibit 792.1 if it meets the following
criteria:
a. It has its principal place of business in that country; or
b. It is incorporated or otherwise in that country, its territories
or possessions.
792.3 By or on Behalf
792.31 United States Resident. A mailing is by or on behalf of a
person or firm who resides in the United States if such a person or
firm seeks or expects to derive economic benefit or advantage from that
mailing.
792.32 Resident of a County Listed in Exhibit 972.1. A mailing is
by or on behalf of a person or firm who resides in a country listed in
Exhibit 792.1 if such a person or firm seeks or expects to derive
economic benefit or advantage from that mailing related to operations
physically conducted in any of those countries. These operations
include, but are not limited to, selling goods manufactured in those
countries and selling services provided in those countries.
792.4 Place of Business. A place of business in the United States
is any location in the United States, its territories, or possessions
where a firm's employees or agents regulatory have personal contact
with other individuals for the purpose of conducting the firm's
business. For the purposes of this section, a firm whose employees or
agents have personal contact with others for the purpose of conducting
the firm's business in different places in the United States for short
periods of time, e.g., at hotels in different cities for one or two
days at a time, has a place of business in the United States if the
aggregate amount of time spent in the United States is 180 days or more
during a one year period.
792.5 Agents. The use of a non-exclusive agent in the United
States for the sole purposes of accepting orders and remissions for
transmission to a firm in another country or of distributing
merchandise manufactured in another country and shipped to the United
States in bulk does not by itself constitute establishment of a place
in the United States.
793 Advance Payment Required.
793.1 Sample of Envelope. Senders affected by 791 must submit a
sample of the proposed mailing (envelope and contents) with (1) a
statement as to the number of items to be mailed, (2) when and where
the mailing will take place, and (3) a check, made payable to the U.S.
Postal Service, to cover the amount of the applicable U.S. postage, to
the:
Manager, Business Mail Acceptance, Customer Service and Sales, U.S.
Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-6808.
793.2 Headquarters Notification. Notification of postage
acceptance and approval of the mailing will be given by Headquarters to
the sender and to the appropriate U.S. receiving exchange office. This
will permit the items in the mailing to go forward to the addresses
without delay when the items reach the United States.
794 Treatment if Advance Payment Not Made.
794.1 Return or Disposal of Items. Items may be returned to origin
or disposed of in accordance with postal regulations if U.S. postage is
not paid.
794.2 Mailings Received Without Advance Payment. A mailing subject
to 791 received without advance payment of U.S. domestic postage will
be held at the receiving exchange office. The exchange office will
report all such mailings to the:
Manager, Business Mail Acceptance, Customer Service and Sales, U.S.
Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-6808.
Reports must contain (1) title and/or nature of the items, (2)
identity of sender, (3) number of items detained, (4) weight of a
single item, (5) foreign postage paid per item, and (6) office of
mailing. The exchange office will be advised to release the mail when
the applicable postage has been paid.
795 Report of Mailings.
Any mail appearing to be subject to the conditions of this
subchapter must be reported to Business Mail Acceptance, at USPS
Headquarters, by the U.S. receiving exchange office.
Exhibit 792.1
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Sweden
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 94-5428 Filed 3-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M