[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 116 (Friday, June 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14717]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 17, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111

 

Revisions to Standards Concerning Physical Mailpiece Dimensions, 
Addressing, and Address Placement

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes changes to several Domestic Mail 
Manual (DMM) standards defining a mailpiece's length, height, and 
thickness, and relating these dimensions to processing category and 
other criteria. The Postal Service also proposes changes to other DMM 
standards concerning the content and placement of delivery and return 
addresses, including placement standards for delivery addresses on 
flat-size mailpieces not prepared in a full enclosure, and letter- and 
flat-size pieces prepared in an unattached sleeve or partial wrapper; 
the location of, and the use of a ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code in, the return 
address on certain mail; terms related to post office boxes and 
standards for their use in addressing mail; and the prohibition of dual 
addresses on certain types of mail.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or delivered to Manager, 
Mailing Standards, USPS Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 
Washington, DC 20260-2419. Copies of all written comments will be 
available for inspection and photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, in room 5610 at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo F. Raymond, (202) 268-5199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These proposed changes to Domestic Mail 
Manual (DMM) standards arise from suggestions presented during the 1993 
DMM redesign project.

Revisions Concerning Physical Mailpiece Dimensions and Address 
Placement

    The proposed revisions to C010 and C050 (with lesser changes to 
A010, A200, and E312) concern how the physical characteristics of a 
mailpiece are used in determining which dimensions are its length, 
height, and thickness. This information is used to determine correct 
address placement and the mailpiece's mailability, susceptibility to a 
nonstandard surcharge, processing category, and rate eligibility. This 
proposal will apply a consistent definition of length, height, and 
thickness to all mail, except for pieces eligible for and claimed at a 
Barcoded rate for flats.
    Although this proposal affects all addressed mail, its impact will 
be on address placement on letter-size pieces (including, for purposes 
of these standards, cards), which are subject to standards for address 
placement and orientation and rate eligibility based on those 
characteristics. The Postal Service proposes to make the following 
specific changes to the DMM:
    1. A010.1.0 is amended 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). Letter-size mail, which 
represents the majority of postal volume, is processed in a mostly 
automated or mechanized mailstream. An increasing proportion of letter-
size mail (already subject to strict physical standards) moves through 
automated equipment, and most of the remainder is handled by letter-
sorting machines. Manual processing--the slowest and most costly 
handling--is used for mail having physical or address characteristics 
that are incompatible with automated or mechanized processing.
    Although the Postal Service recognizes that some mail may never be 
compatible with its equipment, it believes that such compatibility is a 
reasonable condition for mail being claimed at a discounted rate. 
Whether to render a mailpiece compatible with automation (as under 
existing standards), mechanization, or human handling, the benefit of 
the proposed rule is clear. Certain necessary, basic assumptions about 
how mail is oriented when its address is to be read underlie how 
equipment is designed to receive and move mail and how employees are 
trained to read, sort, and carry it. Most letter-size mail has address 
and dimensional characteristics that are compatible with these 
assumptions, but the absence of effective standards allows incompatible 
mail to enjoy discounts that are incongruous with how it must be 
processed. (Nonstandard surcharges do not apply to all such mail.)
    For the sake of creativity, some customers currently generate mail 
at bulk or presort rates that must be held vertically (``portrait'' 
style) rather than horizontally (``landscape'' style) to read the 
delivery address. Such mailpieces must be processed manually because 
they are incompatible with Postal Service automation and mechanized 
letter-sorting machines. These pieces cause problems even for the 
letter carrier, who must turn them to sort and again to deliver. The 
Postal Service acknowledges that this proposal will inhibit such 
mailpiece design practices. However, the benefit of facilitating 
efficient processing--for cost and for service--outweighs the minor 
loss of creative latitude that will result if the proposed rule is 
adopted. (Mailers to whom this creative latitude is truly significant 
will have the option of mailing pieces at single-piece rates.) However, 
given the relative proportion of the mailstream represented by 
incompatible bulk or presort rate letter-size mail, compared with the 
volume that is compatible, the Postal Service believes that few mailers 
will be impacted by the effects on mailpiece design of the proposed 
rule.
    2. A010.1.0 and A200.1.3 are revised to add mandatory address 
placement standards for other-than-single-piece rate flat-size mail 
prepared in an unattached sleeve or partial wrapper, or otherwise not 
prepared in an envelope, polybag, or similar enclosure. The types of 
mail affected by this standard are relatively difficult and costly to 
process and sort; the second type has the added potential to come apart 
in the mail, resulting in its failure to reach the addressee. None of 
these circumstances benefits the mailer, the Postal Service, or the 
addressee. The proposed change will further Postal Service efforts to 
provide efficient and timely service.
    The first of these mandatory placement standards affects flat-size 
mailpieces not prepared in a full enclosure and that may have an open 
edge presented either forward (as the piece travels through 
mechanization) or to the right (as the piece is held for manual 
sortation, casing, or delivery). The proposed revisions would require 
that such mail be addressed so that, when oriented to read the address, 
the mailpiece is positioned for more efficient processing, i.e., with 
its bound or final-folded edge to the right, and that pieces in partial 
wrappers or sleeves would have to have the open ends at the top and 
bottom of the mailpiece. The Postal Service, which has traditionally 
recommended that such mail be addressed in the manner described in the 
proposed rule (see existing Exhibit A200.1.3), has received only 
limited cooperation from mailers and, consequently, has been unable to 
improve the efficiency with which that mail can be handled. Some 
mailers (and some postal employees) have said that they were uncertain 
about whether the proposed placement was previously required.
    In proposing this standard, the Postal Service seeks to balance the 
needs of the mailing community with its own operational need to curtail 
undesirable addressing practices that raise postal costs. Further, the 
Postal Service realizes that, if adopted as a final rule, the 
operational effect of this proposal on some mailers would require 
considerable lead time before actual implementation. Therefore, 
commenters who are concerned about the effect this proposal would have 
on their operations are asked to provide specific information and 
suggestions:
     How could the problems associated with handling the 
affected mail be overcome by measures other than the proposed rule as 
written?
     What are commenters prepared to do to make that mail more 
efficient to handle?
     If the proposed rule is adopted, how much lead time would 
be needed to make the necessary internal operational changes?
     Would a short-term general implementation date be 
acceptable if the Postal Service worked with individual customers and 
allowed specific exceptions for delayed implementation?
    The second mandatory address placement standard requires that flat-
size mailpieces prepared in an unattached sleeve or partial wrapper 
must bear a delivery address on the item being mailed itself, by 
addressing just the item (provided that the address remains visible 
when the item is mailed), by addressing both the item and the wrapper, 
or by using an address label to firmly attach the item and its wrapper. 
(Flat-size pieces would also have to meet the standard proposed above.) 
The Postal Service has no preference for the method chosen, instead 
focusing on the objective: Ensuring that separation of the item and its 
wrapper do not result in the item becoming undeliverable. Some 
customers have complained that existing addressing methods sometimes 
cause them not to get this type of mail or to receive only the wrapper, 
pointing out that the Postal Service's tolerance of the underlying 
addressing practice is contrary to the best interests of the addressee. 
Recognizing the validity of these complaints, the Postal Service 
proposes to require those mailers who generate flat-size mailpieces 
prepared in an unattached sleeve or partial wrapper to move to an 
addressing method that corrects the problem just described. Commenters 
who object to this proposal are asked to provide constructive responses 
to the same questions asked for in the proposed revision discussed 
above.
    For consistency, A200.1.3 would be revised to incorporate a 
reference to the foregoing sections. Other organizational changes are 
proposed to A010.1.0 that do not affect the substance of the standards.
    3. C010.1.0 is amended to reduce the role of address placement in 
the determination of which of a mailpiece's physical dimensions are its 
length, height, and thickness. Existing standards are inconsistent in 
associating these basic physical dimensions to the delivery address. 
The proposed rule would remedy this by establishing consistent 
definitions, based on the physical characteristics of the mailpiece. 
For the typical letter-size piece, the proposed rule always defines its 
length (horizontal dimension) as the longest dimension; the mailpiece's 
height (vertical dimension) is the next longest dimension, and the 
thickness is the remaining dimension. Variations on this rule are 
proposed for pieces that do not have three unequal dimensions. While 
the Postal Service realizes that this change may affect a small volume 
of customer mail, as discussed above, the benefits of the consistent 
definitions contained in the changes proposed below, and of the 
processing efficiencies of the mail these proposals would produce, far 
outweigh any loss of creative latitude.
    4. C050.1.0 is amended for consistency. By the revised wording, 
assignment of most mailpieces to a processing category depends solely 
on their dimensions as determined by C010.1.0. Existing standards base 
processing category on physical dimensions, without regard to address 
placement, so that the proposed rule, in effect, makes only minor 
changes to ensure that this section is harmonious with those discussed 
above.
    5. C050.5.0 is amended to make it clear that merchandise samples 
are not by definition always irregular parcels, and may be categorized 
as letter- or flat-size pieces based on the usual criteria.

Other Revisions Concerning Addressing

    1. These proposed changes to Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) standards 
relate to the content and placement of delivery and return addresses. 
The proposed revisions are intended to serve two general purposes: 
making existing standards more consistent and improving the address 
quality of mail.
    2. Revisions to the standards in A010.4.3 and 4.5 are proposed 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 is not 
changed by these proposals.) Specifically, by the proposed revision to 
A010.4.3, the correct ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code would be required in the 
return address on any mail where a return address is itself required 
under existing standards. Further, by the proposed change to A010.4.5, 
the existing placement standard for the return address on mail claimed 
at a ZIP+4 rate is both made more specific and extended to all mail on 
which a return address is required. Under the proposed rule, the return 
address must be placed in the top left corner of the address side, 
area, or label of the mailpiece, parallel to the delivery address. On 
ZIP+4 rate cards and letter-size mailpieces that do not bear a delivery 
point barcode, the return address would have to be outside the OCR read 
area (a current requirement applied broadly to all ZIP+4 rate mail).
    The proposed revisions should facilitate the accurate and efficient 
return of mail by making complete return address information available 
in a readily identifiable location. Because mailers know their own ZIP 
Codes, the Postal Service believes that the proposed standards do not 
represent either a significant new burden on customers or one that 
customers will have serious problems in implementing. Customers who 
believe that deferred implementation will be necessary are asked to 
indicate this in their comments, with an explanation of why they 
require deferral and how long an adjustment period they require, and 
should propose appropriate terms for excepting those mailers/mailings 
while the necessary operational adjustments are made.
    3. A010.5.3 is added 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. These terms are sometimes 
incorrectly used to denote destinations other than post office box or 
caller service, such as a rural or highway contract route box, a 
college or business mailroom box, or a private commercial mail 
receiving agent. As a result, the imprecise use of terms conveys 
incorrect information or causes misinterpretation, either of which 
sometimes impedes the Postal Service in providing the desired service--
delivering the mail where the sender intends. The potential for 
misdelivery has increased in today's automated mail processing 
environment: Optical character readers scan and ``read'' addresses to 
determine the correct delivery point barcode to assign to the 
mailpiece. Once this barcode is applied, the mailpiece is processed 
with minimal human intervention so that ambiguous address information 
applied by the mailer may result in a misdirected mailpiece.
    To avoid these potential delivery problems, the proposed standard 
defines the terms ``post office box,'' ``P. O. Box,'' ``PO Box,'' 
``POB,'' ``P. O. B.,'' and similar combinations as referring 
exclusively to the delivery services provided by the Postal Service 
under D910 and D920 (Post Office Box Service and Caller Service, 
respectively). The proposed standard states that those terms are always 
included in the correct address of mail destined for post office box or 
caller service addresses, that they are incorrect for mail intended for 
other addresses, and that the Postal Service cannot ensure accurate 
delivery of incorrectly addressed mail. (Correct addressing practices 
are described in detail in Publication 28, Postal Addressing Standards, 
available from postal business centers and larger post offices.)
    This proposed rule will not have an adverse affect on customers 
because it merely clarifies the correct use of these terms. Moreover, 
many large mailers have already taken measures to improve the quality 
of their address lists, and may have already standardized such lists in 
conformance with the proposed rule.
    4. A010.3.2c is also revised for organizational consistency.
    5. Proposed changes to A010.5.1 should minimize the problems 
associated with dual addresses. Dual addresses, which typically include 
both a street address and a post office box, can lead to confusion for 
USPS employees identifying to which location the Postal Service is 
expected to make delivery despite the existing standards that the 
address immediately above the city-state-ZIP Code line takes 
precedence. Dual addressing can result in a potential for misdelivery 
(to the unintended address) as well as the potential for confusion and 
dissatisfaction on the part of the sender, addressee, or both. (Under 
the proposed rule, for those ZIP Code areas having no delivery service 
other than by post office box service, the correct address will be to 
the intended recipient's post office box address.)
    Accurate delivery to the intended addressee is always important, 
but more so when the item has been identified by the sender as having 
exceptional value through the level of service selected (e.g., Express 
Mail or Priority Mail, or registered, certified, restricted delivery, 
or special delivery mail). Therefore, under the proposed rule, dual 
addresses are prohibited in the delivery and return addresses on those 
types of mail. Although this change may cause occasional inconvenience 
for some customers, the Postal Service believes that any inconvenience 
is more than offset by elimination of the ambiguity and delay 
potentially associated with dual addressing. This benefit is 
particularly true because the sender has invested a relatively large 
sum to ensure safe and accurate delivery.
    The proposed rule also prohibits dual addresses on any mail claimed 
at a bulk or presort rate. Because of the problems described above, 
allowing dual addressing on this mail would be inconsistent with the 
Postal Service's ongoing efforts to improve address quality in volume 
mailings. Whereas this prohibition may have the appearance of a 
sweeping new requirement, its net affect should be minimal. Most 
mailers who use bulk or presort rates have enough awareness of 
addressing standards to know why dual addresses are not advisable and, 
therefore, seldom use them. The majority of those same mailers are 
already involved in ongoing address management to improve the quality 
of their addressing practices.
    Mail sent at single-piece First-,
third-, or fourth-class rates, without the special services mentioned 
earlier, is not subject to the proposed rule's prohibitions though 
mailers are advised not to use dual addresses on this mail to ensure 
delivery to the intended address.
    Miscellaneous organizational and technical revisions are also being 
proposed for clarity and consistency.
    Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed 
rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites comments on 
the following proposed revisions of the DMM, incorporated by reference 
in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR Part 111.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Postal Service.

PART 111--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 3001-
3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 5001.

    2. Revise the following units of the Domestic Mail Manual as 
follows:

A010 General Information


1.0  Address Content and Placement

* * * * *


1.2  Address Elements

* * * * *
    d. ZIP Code (5-digit or ZIP+4) where required. A ZIP Code or ZIP+4 
code is required on Presorted First-Class Mail; mail claimed at an 
automation rate; postal cards and postcards mailed under specific 
First-Class standards; second-class mail; bulk third-class mail; 
fourth-class mail; business reply mail; mail sent using merchandise 
return service; mail sent to military addresses within the United 
States; penalty mail; and personalized envelopes.


1.3  Placement

    Specific conditions apply to certain types of mail; for purposes of 
these standards, letter-size mailpieces include cards; flat-size 
mailpieces include letter-size pieces eligible for and claimed at a 
Barcoded rate for flats:
    a. The delivery address must parallel the length of a letter-size 
mailpiece unless that piece is paid at a single-piece rate. Letter-size 
mailpieces bearing an address oriented otherwise are not eligible for 
any presort or automation-based discount and may be nonmailable or 
subject to a nonstandard surcharge. First-Class card-rate pieces and 
all mail claimed at an automation rate are subject to additional 
standards.
    b. If flat-size mail is not prepared in an envelope, polybag, or 
similar complete enclosure, the delivery address must be placed so that 
when the mailpiece is held to read the address, the bound edge or (if 
applicable) final-folded edge of the mailpiece is to the right, the 
address is at the top of the mailpiece parallel with the top edge, and, 
for mailpieces prepared in a sleeve or partial wrapper, the open ends 
of the sleeve or partial wrapper are at the top and bottom of the 
mailpiece.
    c. If flat-size mail is prepared in an unattached sleeve or partial 
wrapper, the address must be placed on the enclosed material so that it 
can be read without moving the wrapper, or on both the wrapper and the 
enclosed matter, unless the address label is used to attach the wrapper 
to the enclosed matter.
    d. If mail including an attachment does not bear the name and 
address of both the sender and intended recipient on both the host and 
the attachment, the sender's name and address must be placed on the 
host piece or the delivery address label (which may also show the 
return address) must be used to affix the attachment securely to the 
host. Combination containers that have inseparable parts or 
compartments (e.g., cartons with letter-size envelopes completely and 
securely attached to one side) are mailable with the names and 
addresses on only one.
* * * * *


1.5  Basic Addressing

    Basic addressing standards for First-, third-, and fourth-class 
mail and for Express Mail are in E100, E300, E400, and E500, 
respectively. The detailed addressing standards for second-class mail 
are in A200. Additional standards apply to overseas military mail, 
Department of State mail, mail in window envelopes, international mail, 
and mail claimed at any automation rate.

[Delete existing 1.6 and 1.7.]
* * * * *


3.0  Complete Addresses

* * * * *


3.2  Elements

* * * * *
    c. Street number and name (including predirectional, suffix, and 
postdirectional as shown in USPS ZIP+4 file for the delivery address or 
rural route and box number (RR5 BOX 10), highway contract route and box 
number (HC4 BOX 45), or post office box number (PO BOX 458) (see 5.3), 
as shown in USPS ZIP+4 file for the delivery address).
* * * * *


4.0  Return Address

* * * * *


4.3  Required Use

    Except as provided in 4.1, the sender's actual return address 
(including the correct ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code) must appear legibly on:
* * * * *


4.5  Placement

    On any mail on which a return address is required, and on non-
delivery point barcoded mail claimed at any ZIP+4 rate, the return 
address must be on the same side as, and parallel to, the delivery 
address, in the top left corner of the address side, area, or label of 
the mailpiece. Also, on non-delivery point barcoded ZIP+4 rate 
mailpieces, the return address must not be in the OCR read area, and 
must not extend farther than one-half the length of the mailpiece to 
the right edge, and no lower than one-third the height of the mailpiece 
from the top (see Exhibit 4.5).


5.0  Restrictions


5.1  Dual Address

    A dual address is one that contains two delivery points, e.g., a 
street address and a post office box number (see Exhibit 5.1), and is 
subject to these restrictions:
    a. A dual address is prohibited in the delivery and return 
addresses on Express Mail, Priority Mail, special delivery mail, 
registered mail, certified mail, restricted delivery mail, and any mail 
claimed at a bulk or presort rate.
    b. Other mail bearing a dual address is delivered (or returned, as 
applicable) to the address immediately above the city and state (or to 
the post office box if both the street address and post office box are 
on the same line). If a ZIP+4 code or 5-digit ZIP Code is used in any 
dual address, it must correspond to the address element immediately 
above the city and state (or with the post office box number in the 
address if both the street address and post office box are on the same 
line).
* * * * *


5.3  Post Office Box Mail

    The terms ``post office box,'' ``P. O. Box,'' ``PO Box,'' ``P. O. 
B.,'' ``POB,'' and other similar combinations refer exclusively to the 
delivery services provided by the USPS under D910 and D920, and the 
correct address for those services always includes one of these terms. 
These terms are not correctly used on mail intended for delivery 
through a private box system or to other types of addresses (e.g., 
rural route boxes). The USPS cannot ensure accurate delivery of 
incorrectly addressed mail.
* * * * *

A200 Second-Class Mail


1.0  Basic Standards

* * * * *


1.3  Address Placement

    Addresses and address labels must be visible. Subject to the 
general standards in A010, addresses or address labels may be placed on 
wrappers (on a flat side, not on the fold); label carriers; 
subscription order, renewal, gift, or request forms or receipts; 
incidental First-Class attachments; or supplements, but only if those 
items and the host second-class publication are enclosed within a 
plastic wrapper (polybag). The delivery address must parallel the 
length of a letter-size mailpiece, as defined in C010.

[Revise the title of Exhibit 1.3 to read ``Address Placement--Other 
Than Letter-Size Pieces.'']
* * * * *

C010  General Mailability Standards


1.0  Minimum and Maximum Dimensions


1.1  Determining Length and Height

    Except as provided by 1.6, mailpiece length and height are 
determined as follows:
    a. For pieces having three different dimensions, the longest 
dimension of a mailpiece is its length (horizontal dimension); the next 
longest, its height (vertical dimension); the shortest, its thickness.
    b. For pieces having two equal dimensions:
    (1) If the third dimension is longer than the equal dimensions, it 
is the mailpiece's length (horizontal dimension); the remaining 
dimensions are its height and thickness.
    (2) If the third dimension is shorter than the equal dimensions, it 
is the mailpiece's thickness; of the remaining dimensions, the length 
is the dimension parallel to the address as read; the height is the 
remaining dimension.
    c. For pieces having three equal dimensions, or having an irregular 
shape, or requiring a specific orientation because of the contents, the 
location and orientation of the address on the mailpiece establish 
which dimensions are its height and length. The length is the dimension 
parallel to the address as read; the height is perpendicular to the 
length on the address side of the piece.
* * * * *


1.4  Maximum

    No single addressed mailpiece may exceed 70 pounds or 108 inches in 
length and girth combined. Girth is the total distance around the 
mailpiece, measured at its thickest part, perpendicular to its length.


1.5  Nonmailable

    Except for keys and identification devices, all pieces not meeting 
the minimum size standards above are nonmailable.


1.6  Other Standards

    Mailpieces to be claimed at the Barcoded rate for flats are subject 
to the definitions of length and height in C820 (rather than 1.1). The 
standards for specific classes or rates may prescribe higher minimum 
and/or lower maximum size and weight limits than those stated above.
* * * * *


1.8  Top and Bottom

    For single-piece rate mail and pieces eligible for and claimed at 
the Barcoded or third-class carrier route rate for flats, the top and 
bottom of a letter- or flat-size mailpiece are its upper and lower 
edges, respectively, when the delivery address is oriented to be read. 
For other mail, the top and bottom of a letter- or flat-size mailpiece 
are its upper and lower edges, respectively, when the mailpiece is 
positioned with the length horizontal.
* * * * *

C050  Mail Processing Categories


1.0  Basic Information

    All mail is assigned to one of the mail processing categories 
listed below based on the method for determining a mailpiece's length, 
height, and thickness prescribed in C010. Unless permitted by standard, 
any mailing at other than a single-piece rate may not contain pieces 
from more than one processing category.

[Delete existing 1.2.]
* * * * *


5.0  Irregular Parcels

[After the phrase ``merchandise samples that are not individually 
addressed,'' add the phrase ``and that are neither letter-size nor 
flat-size.'']
* * * * *

E310  Basic Standards

* * * * *

E312  Additional Standards Applicable to Bulk Third-Class Mail

* * * * *


2.0  Standards for Rates, Fees, and Postage

2.1  Minimum Per-Piece Rates

[Delete the last sentence.]
* * * * *
    An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR 111.3 to reflect these changes 
will be published if the proposal is adopted.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 94-14717 Filed 6-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P