[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29031-29040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13397]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111


Preparation Changes for Securing Packages of Mail

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth revised Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 
standards that will help ensure packages of Periodicals and Standard 
Mail maintain their integrity during transportation and postal 
processing. This final rule reorganizes DMM M020

[[Page 29032]]

by prescribing basic standards for preparing and securing all packages 
and incorporating standards that pertain individually to packages on 
pallets, packages in sacks, and packages in trays. The most significant 
changes, in revised DMM M020.1.8, establish new maximum weight and 
height limits for packages of Periodicals and Standard Mail prepared in 
sacks. The maximum height (thickness) for Periodicals and Standard Mail 
packages in sacks depends on whether the cover or outer surface of the 
piece is coated (glossy) or uncoated stock. Packages of pieces with 
coated cover stock must not exceed 3 inches in height if secured with 
string or twine, rubber bands, or shrinkwrap without an additional 
band. However, if packages of coated pieces are secured with a minimum 
of two plastic straps or with shrinkwrap plus one or two bands, they 
must not exceed 6 inches in height. For pieces with uncoated cover 
stock, packages in sacks must not exceed 8 inches in height, although 
it is recommended that such packages not exceed 6 inches in height. The 
maximum weight for all packages of Periodicals and Standard mail 
prepared in sacks is 20 pounds. This limit is consistent with the 
maximum weight prescribed for such packages when prepared on pallets 
and is the maximum weight of packages or parcels that can be processed 
on the small parcel and bundle sorter (SPBS).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Beller, 202-268-5166, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 20, 2001, the Postal Service 
published for public comment in the Federal Register (66 FR 10868-
10872) a proposal to require that for Periodicals and Standard Mail 
prepared in sacks: [1] packages must not weigh more than 20 pounds as 
provided in new DMM M020.1.8a; [2] packages of pieces with covers of 
coated stock that are not individually enclosed in an envelope or 
protective wrapper (e.g., polywrap or uncoated paper wrapper) must not 
exceed 3 inches in height if secured with string or twine, rubber 
bands, or only shrinkwrap, and must not exceed 6 inches in height if 
secured with two plastic straps or shrinkwrap plus one or two bands as 
provided in new DMM M020.1.8d; and [3] packages of pieces with outer 
surfaces of uncoated stock must not exceed 8 inches in height, although 
it is recommended that such packages not exceed 6 inches in height, as 
provided in new DMM M020.1.8e. It was also proposed that the general 
packaging standards in DMM M020 be revised by: [1] Eliminating the 
required banding sequence in DMM M020.2.3b that the first strap be 
placed around the length and the second around the girth when double-
banding packages over 1 inch (redesignated DMM M020.1.4); [2] 
requiring, for packages of pieces of nonuniform thickness, counter-
stacking for sacked and palletized mail to create packages of more 
uniform thickness as provided in revised DMM M020.1.2; [3] reinforcing 
and clarifying the requirement that packages over 1 inch in height, 
whether placed in sacks or on pallets, must be secured with at least 
two bands, with shrinkwrap, or with shrinkwrap plus one or two bands as 
provided in DMM M020.1.4d. The deadline for submitting comments on the 
proposal was March 22, 2001.
    Part A below summarizes the revisions to the proposal made in this 
final rule. Part B sets forth the evaluation of the comments received. 
It should be noted that although the DMM refers to individual pieces 
secured together as a unit to a single presort destination as a 
``package,'' many in the mailing industry refer to these units of mail 
as ``bundles,'' and the terms are used interchangeably in the 
discussion of comments below.

A. Summary of Revisions to the Proposed Rule

    Based on comments received in response to the proposed rule, the 
Postal Service is adopting the standards set forth in the proposed rule 
with the following changes:
    (1) DMM M020.1.2 in the proposed rule has been revised to allow, 
rather than require, mailers to counter-stack pieces of nonuniform 
thickness to create packages of more uniform thickness, which are more 
likely to maintain their integrity during transportation and 
processing.
    (2) DMM M020.1.5b has been revised in the final rule to eliminate a 
required sequence for applying shrinkwrap plus a strap to packages on 
pallets. The revised language is consistent with DMM M020.1.4b, 
M020.1.8d, and M020.1.8e(2) in this final rule.
    (3) DMM M020.1.8f has been revised in the final rule to clarify 
that ``uncoated stock'' also refers to pieces with coated covers that 
are individually enclosed in a cover or mailing wrapper of uncoated 
stock such as an envelope, sleeve, protective cover, partial wrapper, 
or polybag, and pieces with outer surfaces composed of material other 
than paper (e.g., plastic, cloth, fiberboard, or metal). As such, 
packages of such pieces prepared in sacks may be up to 8 inches high 
(thick). This section is also revised in the final rule to clarify that 
although packages of pieces of uncoated stock may be up to 8 inches 
high, it is recommended that such packages not exceed 6 inches in 
height.
    DMM M020.1.8b in the proposed rule, which repeated general language 
already included in M020.1.4, has been deleted from the final rule. DMM 
M020.1.8d(3) and M020.8d(4) in the proposed rule contained standards 
for measuring packages of pieces with coated cover stock. These 
standards were repeated in DMM M020.1.8e(3) and M020.8e(4) for pieces 
with uncoated cover stock. Therefore, these items are deleted and their 
content, applying to all packages of Periodicals and Standard Mail 
prepared in sacks, is redesignated in the final rule as M020.8c and 
M020.8d.

B. Evaluation of Comments Received

1. General

    Twelve comments were received. All commenters were generally 
supportive of the efforts undertaken by the Postal Service and mailing 
industry to improve the processing, transporting, and handling of the 
mail, and two commenters indicated support for all of the changes in 
the proposed rule.
    One commenter stated that the problem of broken bundles is not new. 
The commenter noted that over the past 15 years, the Postal Service and 
outside consultants identified ``root causes'' for bundle breakage but 
took no serious actions to resolve the problem prior to the efforts of 
the Mailers Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) Package Integrity Work 
Group to collect breakage data for live mail and to conduct a 
controlled test for sacked mail. The proposed rule is intended to 
address these concerns by updating and clarifying DMM M020 standards.
    One commenter representing Periodicals mailers has worked with the 
Postal Service to reduce the incidence and costs of bundle breakage. As 
part of the Periodicals Operations Review Team and through MTAC, the 
commenter and members observed an alarming rate of bundle breakage for 
Periodicals and Standard Mail flats and worked with the Postal Service 
to understand root causes and identify changes to improve integrity.
    One commenter expressed support for the targeted approach to a 
cost-effective solution to the bundle breakage problem that will not 
overburden publishers and printers and stated that the proposal will 
help in the short term. The commenter also believes that a long-term 
solution is needed.
    One commenter favors cost-effective solutions to the bundle 
breakage

[[Page 29033]]

problem and wants the Postal Service to capture savings identified in 
conjunction with the Periodicals Operations Review Team in the recent 
rate case, but believes the proposed changes could potentially impose a 
huge financial burden on customers.
    One commenter representing smaller-volume Periodicals publications, 
with circulation generally under 100,000 and mailings prepared 
primarily in sacks rather than on pallets, recognizes bundle breakage 
is a problem. This commenter is concerned that the proposed rule ``is a 
costly (to mailers) stopgap measure that may not be effective in 
accomplishing its stated purpose of reducing USPS handling costs'' but 
expects the proposal to be implemented and members to adapt. This 
commenter also believes that additional steps the Postal Service is 
taking, such as educating mailers, improving induction methods, and 
enabling customers to prepare flats in a manner that supports 
processing on flat sorting machines (FSMs), are more likely than the 
proposed changes to cause a meaningful change in processing costs.
    The Postal Service and mailing industry have been working together 
on several fronts to address the serious issue of bundle breakage and 
its associated costs, which are ultimately reflected in postal rates. 
As noted, this problem is not new and this final rule is but one of 
several ongoing efforts to make long-needed changes that will have an 
overall positive effect on bundle breakage and flats processing costs 
and efficiencies in general. The MTAC Package Integrity Work Group was 
created to address the bundle breakage problem identified by the 
Periodicals Operations Review Team. This final rule represents one step 
toward achieving incremental improvements while long-term solutions are 
explored. Various concerns raised by commenters about specific 
provisions of DMM M020 that are contained in the proposed rule are 
described and responded to below.

2. Counter-Stacking

    Two commenters questioned whether the proposed requirement to 
counter-stack pieces of nonuniform thickness to create packages of more 
uniform thickness will increase carrier and clerk costs to re-orient 
the pieces before sorting them by a greater amount than the savings 
that might result from reduced bundle breakage costs.
    One commenter requested further clarification of the situations 
that would require counter-stacking to avoid different interpretations 
by acceptance personnel and mailers. It was suggested that a clearer 
definition of ``non-uniform thickness'' be provided, possibly including 
a measurement, such as ``if there is more than .25" difference in 
thickness from top to bottom (thinnest to thickest).''
    Based on the comments and upon further review of this issue, the 
Postal Service has determined that re-orienting counter-stacked pieces 
to prep flats for delivery or to run on a flat sorting machine (e.g., 
an AFSM 100) is time consuming and, in many situations, may add to 
processing costs. Because it is difficult to describe objectively each 
situation when it would be appropriate to counter-stack pieces to 
maintain package integrity, M020.1.2 in this final rule has been 
revised to recommend, rather than require, counter-stacking to create 
more uniform packages. In addition, language has been added to clarify 
that mailers should limit the use of counter-stacking to those 
situations when it is expected to actually improve the uniformity and 
stability of a package. For example, some postal processing facilities 
have reported that they receive packages from mailers as small as 1 
inch high that contain three or four counter-stacked groups. These 
small counter-stacked groups have little, if any, impact on the 
integrity of the package and make it difficult for postal personnel to 
re-orient the mail to run on a flat sorting machine or for delivery.

3. Twenty-Pound Maximum Weight for Packages in Sacks

    Two commenters expressed their approval of the proposal to limit 
the weight of Periodicals and Standard Mail packages prepared in sacks 
to 20 pounds and noted that packages that exceed this weight contribute 
to bundle breakage and cannot be processed on the SPBS. Furthermore, 
one commenter stated that the 20-pound maximum for packages in sacks is 
neither unreasonable nor burdensome and is consistent with the standard 
for packages on pallets.
    The 20-pound maximum package weight is retained in this final rule.

4. Requirement to Shrinkwrap Packages on Bulk Mail Center (BMC) Pallets

    Two commenters indicated that mailers could move more Standard Mail 
out of sacks and onto pallets, and thereby reduce package breakage 
rates for this mail, if they were permitted to use banding instead of 
shrinkwrap to secure packages on BMC pallets. One commenter noted that 
the processing of bundles on BMC parcel sorting machines (PSMs) is 
abusive and normal packaging may not withstand this processing and 
recommended that the Postal Service identify the BMCs that do not 
process bundles on their PSMs. Mailers should then be permitted to use 
banding instead of shrinkwrap for bundles on BMC pallets sorted to 
those facilities.
    One commenter secures packages of Standard Mail with bands around 
the length and girth and reported receiving few if any complaints about 
breakage. This mailer must sack mail that remains after 5-digit and SCF 
pallets are prepared because of the requirement to shrinkwrap packages 
on BMC pallets. These sacks are often placed on BMC pallets. This 
commenter indicated that most letter shops do not have the ability to 
shrinkwrap packages and could move approximately 80 percent of packages 
currently prepared in sacks onto pallets if the Postal Service would 
allow banded packages on BMC pallets.
    In conjunction with other efforts focused on moving mail out of 
sacks to reduce the potential for package breakage and the costs 
associated with such breakage, the Postal Service will explore 
potential opportunities to place packages secured with material other 
than shrinkwrap onto BMC pallets. However, before any final decision is 
made, the impact that such a change could have on processing costs and 
service must be fully evaluated. For example, candidate packages may 
currently be in carrier route-through ADC-level sacks and some analysis 
would be required to determine the potential difference in container 
and package handling costs if these packages were to move out of more 
finely sorted sacks and onto BMC pallets. The Postal Service must also 
assess the potential impact on package breakage rates resulting from 
more package handlings but fewer sack handlings, particularly for 
carrier route, 5-digit, and 3-digit packages, and how this could affect 
service considering that the recovered pieces must generally be 
transported to the parent plant for appropriate piece distribution 
(e.g., on a flat sorting machine). Finally, the methods used by BMCs to 
process packages on BMC pallets must be reviewed to determine if 
service would be negatively impacted when compared to the service the 
mail would receive if prepared in sacks. Sacked mail is processed by 
BMCs to plants or delivery units where the contents of the sacks are 
distributed (e.g., are packages at BMCs processed on parcel sorting 
machines or SPBSs; what sort schemes are used). If a decision is made 
to expand the type(s) of package securing methods that are acceptable 
for mail on BMC pallets, it is possible that the standards could be 
somewhat more restrictive than the current standards for

[[Page 29034]]

mail prepared on pallets. For example, because data collected by the 
MTAC Package Integrity Work Group during live mail tests showed that 
mail secured with rubber bands had the highest breakage rates for 
palletized packages (2.1 percent), restrictions could be placed on this 
type of mail. In summary, no changes to the standards for packages on 
BMC pallets are included in this final rule.

5. Clarification of ``Uncoated Stock''

    Two commenters requested that proposed DMM M020.1.8d be reworded to 
clarify that ``uncoated'' pieces that may be prepared in packages up to 
8 inches high includes pieces with coated covers that have been 
enclosed in a protective cover or mailing wrapper as described in DMM 
C200.1.7. One commenter asked that the Postal Service clarify that 
individually polywrapped pieces fall into the category of ``uncoated'' 
pieces, whether or not the pieces inside the wrapper have coated 
covers.
    This final rule clarifies in DMM M020.1.8e that the term ``uncoated 
stock'' includes pieces with coated covers that are individually 
enclosed in a cover or mailing wrapper of uncoated stock such as an 
envelope, sleeve, protective cover, partial wrapper, or polywrap, and 
also includes pieces with outer surfaces composed of material other 
than paper (e.g., plastic, cloth, fiberboard, or metal). The final rule 
also specifies that packages of such pieces must not exceed 8 inches in 
height.

6. Maximum Height of Packages of Uncoated Pieces

    One commenter prepares Periodicals that have a low height-to-weight 
ratio in firm bundles that are shrinkwrapped and strapped. These 
bundles may occasionally exceed the proposed uncoated pieces maximum 
package height of 8 inches, possibly reaching 10 inches in height. The 
mailer has not received any feedback about broken bundles and requests 
that the maximum height for uncoated packages in sacks be raised from 8 
inches to 10 inches. If the maximum height will not be raised, 
clarification was requested as to whether current DMM M020.1.6a 
(redesignated as M020.1.7a in this final rule) allows payment of one 
piece rate if two firm bundles are created to avoid exceeding the 
maximum height limit. In addition, this commenter asked that the final 
rule include a clarification of the difference between the recommended 
maximum height of 6 inches and the required maximum height of 8 inches 
for packages of uncoated pieces prepared in sacks.
    The Postal Service believes that concerns about bundle integrity 
and successful SPBS processing are compelling reasons to limit the 
maximum height of packages of uncoated pieces in sacks to 8 inches. The 
20-pound maximum weight ensures packages are compatible with SPBS 
processing and it is likely that most packages that exceed 8 inches, 
when measured at the lowest point as permitted by the new standards, 
would also exceed 20 pounds. Exceptions are likely to be pieces similar 
to the DVDs in plastic containers that were included in the controlled 
test that are less dense than printed material, including circulars, 
magazines, newspapers, catalogs, and so forth. When such lightweight 
but thick items are prepared in tall packages (e.g., packages taller 
than 8 inches), the packages are more likely to break during 
transportation or processing or to lean and tumble into the wrong 
container as they are sorted on the SPBS.
    The maximum package height of 8 inches for packages of uncoated 
pieces prepared in sacks is retained in this final rule. DMM 
M020.1.8.f(1) has been revised to consolidate the maximum permitted 
height of 8 inches and the recommended maximum height of 6 inches for 
packages of uncoated pieces prepared in sacks. We believe that this 
will clarify that such packages may be up to 8 inches in height but the 
Postal Service wants to encourage mailers to limit these packages to a 
maximum height of 6 inches. This recommendation is intended to help 
ensure that bundle integrity will be maintained while recognizing that 
some mailpieces can be prepared in taller packages (e.g., up to 8 
inches high and weighing up to 20 pounds) that can be successfully 
processed by the Postal Service.
    If a firm bundle must be split in two to meet the new height 
restrictions, each firm bundle is subject to a separate per piece 
charge to reflect the handling of two pieces by the Postal Service. For 
purposes of rate eligibility, pieces prepared as one firm bundle under 
current standards that must be prepared as two firm bundles due to the 
height restrictions in this final rule would pay two per piece charges, 
reflecting the fact the Postal Service is processing and delivering two 
pieces. Under DMM M020.1.6a (redesignated M020.1.7a) these would also 
count as two addressed pieces in determining whether there are six or 
more pieces to a presort destination when determining Periodicals rate 
eligibility.

7. Coated Stock and Breakage

    Two commenters agreed that coated stock does contribute to package 
breakage. One stated that there is no question that pieces with coated 
cover stock contribute to bundle breakage and that it makes sense to 
reduce the maximum height to 6 inches for banded or strapped bundles.
    One commenter confirmed that the highest breakage rate occurred for 
sacked flats with glossy covers of coated stock, and bundles 4 to 6 
inches high broke 42 to 100 percent of the time in the MTAC Package 
Integrity Work Group controlled test, before the bundles were even 
handled individually. This commenter stated that these high breakage 
rates ``cause significant costs (in the form of additional piece 
handlings and machine slowdowns and stoppages) borne by all mailers of 
flats.'' In the controlled test, adding a plastic strap to 
shrinkwrapped packages reduced the breakage rate by 25 percent; 
packages with two plastic straps had a breakage rate 15 percent lower 
than the rate for shrinkwrapped packages; and reducing the size of 
packages by 1 inch reduced breakage by approximately 14 percent.
    The key focus of this final rule is to reduce breakage rates for 
packages of pieces with coated cover stock.

8. Impact of Limiting Package Height

    Seven commenters stated that the proposal to limit, for Periodicals 
and Standard Mail in sacks, the size of packages of pieces with coated 
stock secured with rubber bands, string or twine, or shrinkwrap without 
a band to 3 inches in height will increase the number of packages that 
some mailers will prepare.
    One commenter stated that the creation of more packages will add to 
Postal Service mail processing costs, which is not in the best 
interests of the mailing industry or the Postal Service, and another 
stated that the proposed rule could increase by nearly 5 percent the 
number of bundles that one of its members produces.
    One commenter suggested that the proposal will cause mailers to 
prepare a greater number of packages that are more difficult to open, 
which will change processing costs. The commenter also stated they 
would be more positive about the changes if the Postal Service had 
attempted to quantify added costs associated with the additional 
packages, such as those related to Postal Service-allied labor costs 
for opening packages and prepping mail for automated flat sorting 
machines.

[[Page 29035]]

    One commenter noted that a Postal Service representative had stated 
that ``over 30 percent of the USPS handling and processing costs for 
flats were depackaging'' and that the proposal would be contrary to the 
objective of creating fewer packages as well as fewer sacks. This 
commenter also stated that preparing smaller packages secured only with 
shrinkwrap for sacked mail will slow production and add to mailer 
costs. The mailer will need to have list processors provide bundle 
separation marks for production lines that do not have an ``auto slow 
down'' control to maximize bundle size and machine speed. For one 
customer, some packages for sacked mailings may contain as few as two 
pieces to meet the 3-inch height limit.
    One commenter questions whether the Postal Service documented or 
measured the cost of handling the additional packages that will be 
produced if the proposed changes are adopted and asks if the Postal 
Service has a metric to ensure that the cost reductions for breakage 
materialize as a result of the proposed rule.
    Analysis of the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group test data shows 
that reducing the size of ``high-risk'' packages, specifically packages 
of pieces with coated cover stock prepared in sacks, will result in 
significant savings. In the controlled package integrity test, the 
workgroup found that 75 percent of 4-inch and 6-inch packages of coated 
pieces entered at an origin facility broke even before the packages 
were handled individually out of the mailer-prepared sacks. Based upon 
additional analysis of test data for both the live mail and controlled 
tests, the Postal Service believes that cutting the size of a large 
package of coated flats in half would reduce bundle breakage for the 
affected mail by approximately 50 percent.
    Using the same methodology that the Postal Rate Commission (PRC) 
used in Docket No. R2000-1 to analyze this cost trade-off, we found 
that cutting the average package size for Periodicals and Standard Mail 
high-risk flats in half (e.g., from an average of 20 down to 10 pieces 
per package and from 15 down to 7.5 pieces per package) may reduce 
average mail processing costs for these flats by as much as 0.4 to 0.7 
cents per piece. Furthermore, the PRC's methodology does not take into 
account reductions in allied labor costs that may result from reduced 
package breakage. The focus of this final rule is to significantly 
reduce package breakage using current packaging methods. It is not 
expected that packages prepared by mailers will be any more difficult 
to open as a result of these changes. It is expected, as noted 
previously, that the Postal Service will have to process some 
additional packages that are more likely to maintain their integrity 
and that packaging in general for mail prepared both in sacks and on 
pallets will improve as mailers use current methods more effectively.
    The Postal Service does not have a metric to ensure that the 
projected cost reductions materialize as a result of this final rule. 
After this final rule has been in effect for several months, in order 
to quantify whether package breakage rates have decreased, the Postal 
Service plans to collect additional data for live mail in the same 
manner as originally collected by the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group 
in 1999.

9. Clarification of Rate Eligibility

    One commenter stated that because of the 3-inch package height 
maximum for some mail, packages of large Periodicals publications could 
sometimes contain fewer than six pieces. This commenter requested that 
the final rule clarify that rate eligibility standards for such 
packages will be satisfied as long as there are a minimum of six 
addressed pieces for the presort level, even if they are prepared in 
more than one physical package due to the maximum height limit.
    Under the provisions of current DMM M020.1.6a, an individual 
package may be prepared with fewer than the minimum number of pieces 
required by the standards for the rate claimed without loss of rate 
eligibility if a greater number of pieces would exceed the maximum 
physical size for a package and the total number of pieces for that 
presort destination meets the minimum volume standard (e.g., 30 pieces 
are available to meet a 10-piece minimum, but a package of eight pieces 
is 6 inches thick). In the proposed rule, this section was redesignated 
as M020.1.7, but was not printed. The complete contents of redesignated 
M020.1.7 are published in this final rule to clarify that rate 
eligibility for smaller packages prepared under the new height limits 
is based on the total number of pieces for the presort destination.

10. Strappers

    Seven commenters indicated that many printers use only shrinkwrap 
to secure packages and have removed strapping from most of their 
production lines. Three commenters stated that this allows lines to run 
faster, more efficiently, and is less costly and that adding strappers 
to their lines would be expensive.
    One commenter stated that most of its mail is sacked due to volume 
and densities of publications and most mail is also of coated stock. 
This mailer would choose the option of reducing package size to a 3-
inch maximum height instead of adding strapping equipment but is 
concerned that it will add costs by slowing bindery mailing equipment 
production speeds, adding material, and increasing labor. Because of 
the competitive market, the mailer would have to absorb additional 
costs and would like instead to test heavier shrinkwrap that could be 
used without an additional strap on packages over 3 inches that are 
prepared in sacks. This would add some material costs but less than 
those resulting from the proposed changes. This commenter indicated 
that the alternative of adding additional strapping equipment that 
would permit larger packages would require a capital investment of over 
$500,000 for the strappers and building expansions to accommodate the 
additional equipment. Currently, this mailer uses only banding to 
secure packages of individually polywrapped pieces. This commenter also 
suggested that the Postal Service allow a variety of packaging methods 
as long as mailers first submit packages for testing and approval.
    One commenter stated that instead of adding strappers, the maximum 
package height would be reduced and the added cost for changing the 
size of some packages would be approximately $250,000. The commenter 
prepares sacks and pallets and could set the parameters for only their 
sacked mail to a maximum package height of 3 inches. For some mail, 
this could double the number of packages and impact their costs and 
productivity. This commenter suggests that the Postal Service, in 
conjunction with the printing industry, test and determine formulations 
and mil strength of polyfilm that could be used instead of an 
additional strap to secure packages of coated pieces that are taller 
then 3 inches.
    One commenter stated it would have to spend millions of dollars to 
purchase and install new strappers and would lose millions of dollars 
in maintenance, downtime, and lower productivity. It requested that 
mailers be given the option of selecting the securing method they 
prefer that makes the most sense for their operation and their 
customers.
    One commenter stated that additional strapping requirements will 
add to printers' and publishers' mail preparation costs and the Postal 
Service must capture savings from the proposed standards or the change 
will have a net negative impact on publishers and printers.
    One commenter suggested that, as a next step, they would like to 
test heavier

[[Page 29036]]

shrinkwrap (e.g., 2 to 3 mils) or high-performance formulations that 
may be substituted for the addition of a strap to shrinkwrapped 
packages or bundles of glossy mail in sacks that exceed 3 inches. This 
commenter stated that most of the mailing industry uses film that is 
1.25 to 1.5 mils thick.
    One commenter stated that prohibiting packages of pieces with 
coated stock that exceed 3 inches unless they are double-strapped or 
strapped with shrinkwrap is burdensome and may be unreasonable because 
printers have moved away from strapping to shrinkwrap. The best 
solution may be to require heavier shrinkwrap.
    The Postal Service developed the proposed rule in conjunction with 
a joint Postal Service/industry effort to reduce package breakage and 
lower Postal Service operational costs by improving mailer packaging 
and Postal Service processing of such mail. Data describing the current 
condition of packages of Periodicals non-letters and Standard Mail 
flats was collected and analyzed by the workgroup to identify changes 
that could be made to achieve these results. MTAC workgroup members 
generally agreed that an analysis of test data clearly pointed to a 
need to either improve the methods for securing tall packages of pieces 
of coated stock or reduce the size of such packages if securing methods 
are not improved. Workgroup members included major mailers that have 
eliminated banding from most of their production lines and whose 
operations will be impacted by these changes. These participants 
indicated that they did not expect their companies to purchase new 
strapping equipment that would allow them to create 6-inch packages of 
coated pieces. Instead, they were likely to use current packaging 
materials, such as shrinkwrap, and to limit the height of packages of 
coated pieces to be placed in sacks. Several of these participants 
indicated that many major mailers use shrinkwrap material that is from 
0.75 to 1.25 mils thick to secure palletized and sacked packages and 
that, based on test data, this polywrap is not effective without the 
addition of a strap in maintaining the integrity of tall packages of 
coated pieces when they are prepared in sacks. There was also general, 
although reluctant, agreement that the test data suggested that the 
proposed packaging changes probably offered the best near-term 
potential to achieve cost savings from reduced package breakage for 
mail in sacks. However, other efforts currently under way to move more 
mail out of sacks and onto pallets, to improve Postal Service 
processing of packages, and to find alternatives to current preparation 
methods were seen as offering the greatest long-term potential to 
reduce the costs associated with package breakage. While the Postal 
Service will continue pursuing these other efforts, we do not believe 
that we can afford to delay steps that eliminate from the sacked mail 
environment those packages that have been clearly identified as the 
most likely to break.
    Some perspective on what might be involved in establishing a 
certification program for packaging materials and methods can be gained 
by looking at the development of the process that led to the current 
standards for certifying polywrap films for automation rate flats. The 
Postal Service believes that a program to certify packaging materials 
and methods could be even more complex and costly to implement because 
of the many variables related to package contents (mailpiece 
characteristics) and size that would have to be tested at many mailer 
locations using a broad range of packaging materials and securing 
methods. At this time, the Postal Service does not have resources to 
apply to such an effort and believes that the combination of efforts to 
reduce package breakage currently under way, including better feedback 
to customers when package integrity problems are identified during 
postal processing, offer the most promise for improvements.
    The Postal Service is open to future discussions regarding industry 
testing and recommendations for some specific polyfilm formulations 
that may be used successfully for taller, heavier packages of pieces of 
coated stock. In assessing alternatives to the materials used today by 
large printers who probably prepare the majority of their mail on 
pallets, the overall cost of applying this material to packages on 
pallets as well as in sacks must also be considered. If mailers were to 
use a heavy polyfilm that maintains the integrity of the worst mail 
they produce (i.e., tall packages of coated pieces in sacks) on all of 
their mail, including mail on pallets, mailer application costs and 
Postal Service removal and disposal costs could also increase.
    To mitigate the impact of this final rule on overall costs, mailers 
who prepare both palletized and sacked mail need to set different 
package height maximums for each type of mail when presorting their 
mailing lists. Several major presort software vendors have stated that 
their software provides users with the ability to do this.

11. Sequence for Material Application

    One commenter has strappers in some processes that apply a single 
strap around the girth of a package due to package size or an off-
balance bind on the mailpiece. The strap is applied after the 
shrinkwrap, and the commenter therefore suggests that DMM M020.1.5b 
read ``Packages may be secured with heavy gauge shrinkwrap AND plastic 
banding, only shrink wrap, or only banding material if they can stay 
together during normal processing.'' The proposal in DMM M020.1.5b 
stated that ``Packages may be secured with heavy-gauge shrinkwrap OVER 
plastic * * *rdquo;.
    To be consistent with DMM M020.1.4b, M020.1.8d, and M020.1.8e(2), 
the language in M020.1.5b has been changed in this final rule to 
eliminate a required sequence for applying shrinkwrap plus a strap to 
packages on pallets.

12. Flat Trays or Other Containers as an Alternative to Sacks

    Three commenters stated that the Postal Service must identify a 
container that can be used instead of sacks for mail that cannot be 
placed on pallets.
    One commenter noted that the Postal Service must urgently pursue 
alternatives to sacking for those short-run publications that have 
insufficient density or volume to be palletized. These publications 
must be placed in sacks, which creates added costs at printers and 
results in damage from handling by the Postal Service. This commenter 
stated that some Periodicals have moved from sacks to cartons on 
pallets under local arrangements.
    One commenter encourages the Postal Service to develop a cost-
effective alternative to sacking that is compatible with the flats 
automation strategy for small volume mailers who may not be able to 
palletize.
    One commenter stated that mail secured with straps and placed in 
sacks often becomes damaged when entered into the SPBS system by being 
crushed by other mail. Crushing can create broken bundles and also make 
the pieces incompatible with Postal Service automated flat-sorting 
machines. This commenter also stated that removing banding from bundles 
can be dangerous to USPS employees and that for these reasons mailers 
should be permitted to place Periodicals and Standard Mail flats in 
flat trays instead of sacks, preferably unbundled in a tray-based 
preparation like that currently offered for First-Class Mail. This 
commenter also suggested that placing flats in trays that can be 
palletized and are

[[Page 29037]]

compatible with Postal Service tray management systems (TMS) will save 
costs by eliminating processing of bundles on the SPBS and making flats 
more compatible with processing on the AFSM 100 or FSM 1000. The Postal 
Service could limit transportation and handling of these trays by 
permitting them only for palletized mail drop shipped by mailers to 
specified entry levels.
    The Postal Service must evaluate the broad impact of a move from 
sacks to flat trays or another type of alternate container for 
Periodicals non-letters and Standard Mail flats. The potential for 
improved package integrity must be weighed against many other factors. 
In moving from sacks to flat trays, we would expect to see a decline in 
cube utilization. Compared to packages of flats prepared on pallets or 
in sacks, flat trays often contain a significant amount of unused space 
within and between trays for both mailers/consolidators and the Postal 
Service. For example, a thin Periodical with 24 pieces to a destination 
placed in a flat tray might result in a tray that is only one-quarter 
full. For mail that must be transported beyond the origin plant service 
area, this reduced cube utilization is likely to result in less volume 
per vehicle and increased costs.
    Another consideration is the processing of containers sorted to 
destinations outside of the service area of the origin plant. 
Currently, sacked mail is processed efficiently through the BMCs on the 
sack sorter machines (SSMs), and sufficient SSM capacity exists. Flat 
trays, however, are sorted manually in the BMCs, and if sacks converted 
to trays this processing operation could quickly become a bottleneck 
due to lower productivity, less depth of sort, and greater space 
requirements, again increasing costs.
    For some Periodicals and Standard Mail there would not be a one-to-
one trade-off of sacks for trays. For example, mail for one presort 
destination that today fills a sack may have to be placed in two trays. 
This change would increase the number of container handlings and 
associated costs.
    There is also the issue of lack of flat tray availability given the 
increased demand for flat trays to accommodate incoming secondary 
processing on the AFSM 100s. The Postal Service does not have money in 
its budget to purchase additional large quantities of flat trays for 
mailers to use instead of sacks.
    Finally, offering a tray-based preparation option for Periodicals 
and Standard Mail with an optional 5-digit sort (mirroring the current 
option for First-Class flats) would significantly increase the volume 
requiring incoming primary piece processing to sort mail to the 5-digit 
level on the AFSM 100s and FSM 1000s. This volume was not anticipated 
in the equipment deployment and additional flat sorting machines would 
need to be purchased and deployed to handle the additional incoming 
primary volume.
    The Postal Service recognizes that there may be some future 
opportunities to explore alternatives to sacks in some situations; 
however, this final rule does not contain any changes to current 
sacking requirements.

13. Alternate Flats Preparation Test

    Six commenters indicated that they are aware that the Postal 
Service is exploring alternate mail preparation for flats to reduce or 
eliminate packaging of palletized mail to reduce Postal Service costs.
    One commenter suggests that alternate preparation could reduce the 
bundle breakage problem in addition to reducing allied labor costs 
associated with opening packages.
    One commenter who is participating in the test stated that mailers 
do not want to make capital investments to improve packaging now when 
investments may be required in the near future for different 
preparation methods. Another test participant does not think it would 
be prudent to make major capital investments in bindery packaging and 
material handling equipment until the Postal Service flats automation 
strategy is finalized.
    One commenter stated that the Postal Service should examine whether 
a ``bundle-less'' preparation, such as that being tested for pallets, 
could be extended to sacked mailings.
    The Postal Service is partnering with the mailing industry to test 
methods for preparing flat-sized mail in a manner that best supports 
current and future flats processing and is examining the potential cost 
savings opportunities of eliminating or reducing packages on pallets. 
The test parameters were announced in the February 22, 2001, issue of 
the Postal Bulletin. It is because of the many other efforts, such as 
the alternate flats preparation test, currently under way to improve 
flats processing that the Postal Service is implementing this final 
rule. Because new or modified manufacturing processes may prove to be 
justified in the future, the revised standards were designed to reduce 
overall costs now without requiring mailers to change their 
manufacturing methods, and all current methods of securing packages 
will continue to be acceptable.

14. Maximum Package Weight as Proxy for Maximum Height

    One mailer indicated that presort software currently controls 
package size by weight, not height, and the Postal Service should 
develop a standard weight-height conversion table that allows mailers 
to comply with the proposed rule by using weight as a proxy for height. 
This flexibility would facilitate compliance in the shortest time frame 
with less disruption to the industry.
    The data collected relating to bundle breakage in the live mail 
test and the resulting proposed standards do not include information to 
correlate height to weight. Although some data is available from the 
controlled test to develop a height-to-weight relationship, it would 
apply only to the test pieces. It is difficult to develop a standard 
conversion chart that would consistently result in packages meeting the 
proposed height standards due to the variations in size, composition, 
method of binding, paper stock, inserts, and so forth for flat-size 
mail. For example, packages of a dense perfect-bound publication 
printed on heavyweight coated paper are likely to have a very different 
weight-to-height relationship than packages of an enveloped piece 
containing a lightweight bulky insert. It would be more feasible and 
useful for mailers to use actual sample mailpieces representing their 
regular mix of mail to create their own weight-to-height conversion 
tables. Presort software does have the ability to control package 
height using the thickness of an average piece. This final rule 
contains only maximum height standards for packages of Periodicals and 
Standard Mail prepared in sacks.

15. Clarification of ``Football-Shaped'' Packages

    One commenter questioned whether the 9 inch by 12 inch envelopes in 
the controlled test were considered to represent the norm for enveloped 
flats. This mail experienced an approximate 58 percent breakage rate 
due to an insert in the center that caused the larger packages to 
become shaped like a football.
    No conclusions were drawn regarding how representative the test 
piece might be of the general flats mailstream. The only conclusion 
that was drawn was that counter-stacking is unlikely to create stable 
tall packages of pieces that are thicker in the center than they are on 
the edges and mailers may instead need to limit the package size of 
such

[[Page 29038]]

pieces or add additional banding to the packages.

16. Pallets

    Three commenters discussed potential opportunities for moving more 
mail from sacks to pallets.
    One commenter indicated that preparing lighter-weight pallets, 
(e.g., 150 pounds) would help move mail out of sacks, while another had 
mixed feelings about preparing lighter-weight pallets as a solution for 
eliminating sacks. Although 250-pound pallets may result in deeper 
penetration and better delivery for some mail, they may cause staging 
problems in plants and extra material handling.
    One commenter suggested a 5-digit pallet discount to encourage mail 
on direct 5-digit pallets that are low cost for the Postal Service. 
These direct pallets would also substantially reduce the likelihood of 
bundle breakage. The commenter noted that Postal Service rate case 
witnesses considered the proposal premature but ``did indicate a 
general interest . . . in encouraging palletization and a specific 
interest in having additional direct pallets.'' Because the MTAC 
Package Integrity Work Group, during its live mail test, found packages 
in sacks broke more than 10 times as frequently as packages on pallets, 
the commenter suggested that the Postal Service investigate ways to 
modify postage rates and mail preparation standards to encourage 
mailers to increase palletization. Furthermore, standards should be 
considered to allow residual mail, currently in sacks, to be merged 
onto pallets. Bundle breakage is strongly related to the number of 
handlings a bundle receives. Bundles on more finely presorted pallets 
will receive fewer handlings and mailers should be encouraged to 
palletize and drop ship pallets.
    As noted above, there is a difference of opinion within the mailing 
industry as to whether the pallet minimum should be lowered. The DMM 
currently contains provisions that allow mailers to prepare pallets 
that weigh less than 250 pounds when those pallets are drop shipped to 
the destination sectional center facility (DSCF) or destination 
delivery unit (DDU). Mailers need to obtain written authorization from 
the processing and distribution manager of the entry facility for DSCF 
entry of lightweight pallets. There are no data showing that lowering 
the minimum pallet weight for mail that is not drop shipped to these 
destinations would provide the Postal Service with savings that offset 
the additional costs resulting from increased pallet handlings and 
decreased cube utilization on postal transportation. There are no plans 
at this time to lower minimum pallet weights.
    The pursuit of a discount for mail on 5-digit pallets is beyond the 
scope of this rule. Any request for domestic rate changes must be 
submitted by the Postal Service to the Postal Rate Commission.
    Mailers should note that several options currently available have 
been shown to increase palletization levels. For example, mailers may 
choose not to prepare optional 3-digit pallets or, if they do prepare 
such pallets, they may use package reallocation to protect the SCF 
pallet level if their software is PAVE-certified to support this 
option. In addition, mailers might consider lowering the minimum pallet 
weight, possibly to as low as 250 pounds, for only their last pallet 
level (e.g., ADC for Periodicals or ASF/BMC for Standard Mail) to keep 
mail from falling to sacks. The Postal Service is aware that many 
mailers do not take advantage of these opportunities.

17. Improvements to SPBS Feed Systems

    Two commenters commended the Postal Service for its efforts to 
reduce stress on bundles through equipment modifications. One commenter 
encouraged a continued search for gentler handling processes, such as 
those associated with the SPBS feed systems, while the other supported 
Postal Service efforts to improve package sorting related to SPBS feed 
systems as a means to avoid rehandling costs.
    In addition to changes to the SPBS feed systems to mitigate bundle 
breakage, the Postal Service has modified broken bundle recovery 
methods to reduce costs. A new Automatic Package Processing System 
(APPS), the next generation SPBS, is also being developed. This new 
machine is designed to take bulk-loaded parcels or bundles and separate 
them into an evenly spaced singulated stream for scanning and sorting. 
This process should be more gentle to flats bundles. However, 
regardless of changes to Postal Service processing, mailers must take 
necessary steps to ensure that bundles retain their integrity to the 
point where they are unloaded on postal processing equipment and opened 
for distribution of the contents.

18. Feedback

    One commenter stated that the Postal Service has not done a good 
job of notifying mailers when packages were improperly prepared and 
fell apart during processing. If mailers had been informed regularly of 
problems, they could have incorporated packaging alternatives or fine-
tuned methods over time that would not be as costly as the proposed 
changes.
    The MTAC Mail Irregularity Feedback Work Group was formed in 
response to comments that the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group 
received from customers indicating that they were not receiving 
feedback about broken bundles and therefore were unaware of problems or 
any need to change their packaging methods. In order to improve the 
quality of business mailings, the Postal Service is revising the 
irregularity reporting and correction process. More information about 
these changes, including the revised PS Form 3749, Mail Irregularity 
Report, can be found in Postal Bulletin 22043 (2-8-01) and in the 
February 2001 Memo to Mailers. This process will be used to report 
serious quality issues such as broken bundles, unreadable barcodes, 
mislabeled trays, and so on, to mailers and mail preparers and also 
includes a mechanism to address disposition of reported problems.

19. Implementation Date

    One commenter indicated that some changes in the proposed rule 
require software programming changes. This mailer requires 45 to 60 
days to program and test new enhancements that allow different package 
sizes for sacked and palletized mail and proposed an effective date 
some time between July 15 and September 1, 2001.
    Based on the comments received and discussions with other mailers 
and presort software vendors regarding implementation of software and 
manufacturing changes to accommodate the final rule, the Postal Service 
has determined to place all provisions of this final rule into effect 
on July 1, 2001.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    For the reasons discussed above, the Postal Service hereby adopts 
the following amendments to the Domestic Mail Manual, which is 
incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (see 39 
CFR Part 111).

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, 414, 
3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

    2. Revise the following sections of the Domestic Mail Manual as set 
forth below:

[[Page 29039]]

M Mail Preparation and Sortation

* * * * *

M020  Packages

1.0  BASIC STANDARDS
    [Amend 1.1 by replacing the reference to 1.6 with 1.2 to read as 
follows:]

1.1  Facing

    Except as noted in 1.2, all pieces in a package must be ``faced'' 
(i.e., arranged with the addresses in the same read direction), with an 
address visible on the top piece.
    [Amend the heading of 1.2 and revise the text to clarify when 
counter-stacking of pieces of irregular thickness is appropriate to 
read as follows:]

1.2  Counter-Stacking--Sacked and Palletized Mail

    Packages of flats and other pieces of nonuniform thickness may be 
prepared by counter-stacking under these conditions:
    a. Counter-stacking should be used only to create packages of more 
uniform thickness that are more likely to maintain their integrity 
during transportation and processing.
    b. Counter-stacking is appropriate for saddle-stitched mailpieces 
and pieces where one edge is thicker than other edges or one corner is 
thicker than other corners.
    c. When counter-stacking, pieces must all have addresses facing up 
and be divided into no more than four approximately equal groups, with 
each group rotated 180 degrees from the preceding and succeeding 
group(s); prepare as few groups as possible to create a bundle of 
uniform thickness.
    d. Counter-stacked groups within a package should be as thick as 
possible, generally at least 1 inch thick.
    e. When pieces are nonuniform in thickness because they are thicker 
in the center instead of along an edge or corner, counter-stacking will 
generally not result in a package of uniform thickness (i.e., a 
football-shaped package would be created). Instead of counter-stacking 
such pieces, limit the height (thickness) of the package to 3 to 6 
inches to ensure the package will stay together during normal transit 
and handling.
* * * * *
    [Redesignate 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 as 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7, respectively, 
and add new 1.4 to read as follows:]

1.4  Securing Packages--General

    Package preparation is subject to the following requirements:
    a. Packages must be able to withstand normal transit and handling 
without breakage or injury to USPS employees.
    b. Packages must be secured with banding, shrinkwrap, or shrinkwrap 
plus one or more bands. Banding includes plastic bands, rubber bands, 
twine/string, and similar material. Use of wire or metal banding is not 
permitted.
    c. When one band is used, it must be placed tightly around the 
girth (narrow dimension).
    d. Except under 1.5 and 2.1f, packages over 1 inch high (thick) 
must be secured with at least two bands or with shrinkwrap. When double 
banding is used to secure packages, it must encircle the length and 
girth of the package at least once. Additional bands may be used if 
none lies within 1 inch of any package edge.
    e. Banding tension must be sufficient to tighten and depress the 
edges of the package so pieces will not slip out of the banding during 
transit and processing. Loose banding is not allowed.
    f. When twine/string is used to band packages, the knot(s) must be 
secure so the banding does not come loose during transit and 
processing.
    [Amend the heading of redesignated 1.5, add new 1.5a, and 
redesignate the current content as 1.5b to read as follows:]

1.5  Packages on Pallets

    In addition to 1.1 through 1.4, packages on pallets must meet the 
following standards:
    a. Except as noted in 1.5b, packages up to 1 inch in height 
(thickness) must be secured with appropriate banding, placed at least 
once around the girth, or with shrinkwrap. Packages over 1 inch in 
height must be secured with at least two bands (plastic bands, rubber 
bands, twine/string, or similar material), one around the length and 
one around the girth, with shrinkwrap, or with shrinkwrap plus one or 
two bands.
    b. Packages may be secured with heavy-gauge shrinkwrap plus plastic 
banding, only shrinkwrap, or only banding material if they can stay 
together during normal processing. Except for packages of individually 
polywrapped pieces, packages on BMC pallets must be shrinkwrapped and 
machinable on BMC parcel sorters. Packages and bundles of individually 
polywrapped pieces may be secured with banding material only. 
Machinability is determined by the USPS. If used, banding material must 
be applied at least once around the length and once around the girth; 
wire and metal strapping are prohibited.
    [Revise the first sentence of redesignated 1.6 to indicate that 
packages of Bound Printed Matter must also meet the applicable maximum 
package size standards in M045 and M722 to read as follows. No other 
changes to text.]

1.6  Package Size--Bound Printed Matter

    Each ``logical'' package (the total group of pieces for a package 
destination) of Bound Printed Matter must meet the applicable minimum 
and maximum package size standards prescribed in M045 or M722. * * *

1.7  Package Size--Other Mail Classes

    Except for Bound Printed Matter, an individual package may be 
prepared with fewer than the minimum number of pieces required by the 
standards for the rate claimed without loss of rate eligibility under 
either of these conditions:
    a. A greater number of pieces would exceed the maximum physical 
size for a package and the total number of pieces for that presort 
destination meets the minimum volume standard (e.g., 30 pieces are 
available to meet a 10-piece minimum, but a package of eight pieces is 
6 inches thick).
    b. The pieces constitute the ``last package'' for a presort 
destination and previously prepared packages met the applicable minimum 
volume standard (e.g., 505 pieces prepared in 10 50-piece packages and 
one five-piece package)
    [Redesignate former 1.7 as 1.9 and add new 1.8 to read as follows:]

1.8  Packages in Sacks--Periodicals and Standard Mail

    Periodicals and Standard Mail prepared in sacks must be secured in 
packages as follows:
    a. The maximum weight for all packages is 20 pounds.
    b. Packages up to 1 inch in height (thickness) must be secured with 
appropriate banding, placed at least once around the girth (narrow 
dimension), or with shrinkwrap. Packages over 1 inch in height must be 
secured with at least two bands (plastic bands, rubber bands, or twine/
string), one around the length and one around the girth, with 
shrinkwrap, or with shrinkwrap plus one or two bands.
    c. Packages should be measured at the lowest (thinnest) point to 
determine the package height.
    d. A package that exceeds the maximum prescribed height by less 
than the thickness of a single piece meets the standard (e.g., if a 
glossy piece is 0.625 (\5/8\) of an inch thick, five pieces may be 
secured in a package 3.125 inches high; if a piece with uncoated cover 
stock is 0.75 (\3/4\) of an inch thick, 11 pieces may be secured in a 
package 8.25 inches high).

[[Page 29040]]

    e. Packages of pieces with covers of coated stock that are not 
individually enclosed in a mailing wrapper (e.g., magazines or catalogs 
with glossy covers not individually enclosed in an envelope, uncoated 
paper wrapper, or plastic wrapper (polybag)) are subject to these 
conditions:
    (1) Except as noted in e(2), packages must not exceed 3 inches in 
height (thickness).
    (2) Packages of such pieces secured with shrinkwrap plus one or two 
plastic straps, or with at least two plastic straps, one around the 
length and one around the girth, must not exceed 6 inches in height 
(thickness).
    f. Packages containing pieces with outer surfaces of uncoated stock 
are subject to these conditions:
    (1) ``Uncoated stock'' also refers to pieces with coated covers 
that are individually enclosed in a cover or mailing wrapper of 
uncoated stock such as an envelope, sleeve, protective cover, partial 
wrapper, or polybag and pieces with outer surfaces composed of material 
other than paper (e.g., plastic, cloth, fiberboard, or metal).
    (2) Packages must not exceed 8 inches in height (thickness); 
however, it is recommended that such packages not exceed 6 inches in 
height (thickness).
    [Amend the heading of redesignated 1.9 to read as follows. No other 
changes to text.]

1.9  Exception to Package Preparation--Mail in Trays

* * * * *
2.0  ADDITIONAL STANDARDS--FIRST-CLASS MAIL, PERIODICALS, AND STANDARD 
MAIL, AND FLAT-SIZE BOUND PRINTED MATTER
    [Amend 2.1 by copying the content of 2.3b to new 2.1f and revising 
the content to read as follows:]

2.1  Cards and Letter-Size Pieces

    Cards and letter-size pieces are subject to these packaging 
standards:
* * * * *
    f. Packages up to 1 inch thick must be secured with appropriate 
banding placed once around the girth (narrow dimension). Packages over 
1 inch thick must be secured with at least two bands, one around the 
length and one around the girth.
    [Amend 2.2 by revising the content to read as follows:]

2.2  Flat-Size Pieces

    Packages of flat-size pieces must be secure and stable subject to 
specific weight limits in M045 if placed on pallets, specific weight 
and height limits in 1.8 for Periodicals and Standard Mail placed in 
sacks, and, for Bound Printed Matter in sacks, specific weight limits 
in M720. Flat-size pieces must be prepared in packages except under 1.9 
and, for First-Class Mail, under M820.3.0.
    [Amend the heading of 2.3 and amend the content by copying and 
amending 2.3a and deleting current 2.3b to read as follows:]

2.3  Pieces With Simplified Address

    For mail prepared with a simplified address, all pieces for the 
same post office must be prepared in packages of 50 when possible. If 
packages of other quantities are prepared, the actual number of pieces 
must be shown on the facing slip attached to show distribution desired 
(e.g., rural route, city route, post office boxholder). Packages must 
be secure and stable subject to specific weight limits in M045 if 
placed on pallets, specific weight and height limits in 1.8 for 
Periodicals and Standard Mail placed in sacks, specific thickness 
limits in 2.1 for cards and letter-size pieces, and, for Bound Printed 
Matter in sacks, specific weight limits in M720.
* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 01-13397 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P