NOTE: COMMENTS REGARDING ANY FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN THE DOCUMENT. ANY COMMENTS ON THE RAPID INFORMATION BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (RIBBS) ABOUT ANY FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES WILL NOT BE USED OR CONSIDERED IN THE COURSE OF ANY RULE MAKING. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Revisions to Standards Concerning Physical Mailpiece Dimensions, Addressing, and Address Placement AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Postal Service published in the Federal Register (59 FR 31178-31183) on June 17, 1994, a proposal to amend the Domestic Mail Manual concerning standards defining a mailpiece's dimensions and relating them to processing category and other criteria, as well as standards concerning the content and placement of delivery and return addresses; 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. The Postal Service requested comments by August 1, 1994. Owing to the needs of the mailing public, from whom several requests for additional time were received, the Postal Service is extending the comment period to September 16, 1994. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before September 16, 1994. ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 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. Stanley F. Mires, Chief Counsel, Legislative. [FR Doc. 94-17781 Filed 7-20-94; 8:45 am]