[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