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. From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Revisions to Standards Concerning Physical Mailpiece Dimensions, Addressing, and Address Placement AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Postal Service withdraws the proposed rule to change several standards in the Domestic Mail Manual related to physical mailpiece dimensions and address placement, as published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31178-31183). DATES: July 17, 1995. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo F. Raymond, (202) 268-5199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 17, 1994, the Postal Service published for public comment several proposed changes to standards in the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) related to physical mailpiece dimensions and address placement (59 FR 31178-31183). On July 21, 1994, in order to afford more opportunity for input, the Postal Service extended the comment period through September 16, 1994 (59 FR 37190). On October 11, 1994, in response to continued interest, the Postal Service further extended the comment period through October 31, 1994, and announced a public meeting to be held in Arlington, VA, on October 20, 1994, for oral comment on the proposed rule (59 FR 51397). The proposed rule offered revisions to DMM C010 and C050 (with lesser changes to DMM A010, A200, and E312) concerning how the physical characteristics of a mailpiece would be used to determine which dimensions are its length, height, and thickness. In turn, this information would be used to determine correct address placement and the mailpiece's mailability, susceptibility to a nonstandard surcharge, processing category, and rate eligibility. The proposed rule sought to apply a consistent definition of length, height, and thickness to all mail, except for mail eligible for and claimed at a Barcoded rate for flats. The proposed rule included these specific changes to the DMM: 1. Amend A010.1.0 to standardize address placement on all letter- size mail claimed at other than a single-piece rate (or, for pieces within a small dimensional range, at the Barcoded rate for flats) to require that the address be oriented parallel to the length of the piece (as defined in revised C010.1.1). 2. Revise A010.1.0 and A200.1.3 to add mandatory address placement standards for other than single-piece rate flat-size mail either prepared in an unattached sleeve or partial wrapper or otherwise not prepared in an envelope, polybag, or similar enclosure. 3. Amend C010.1.0 to reduce the role of address placement for determining which of a mailpiece's physical dimensions are its length, height, and thickness by establishing consistent definitions based on the physical characteristics of the mailpiece. 4. Amend C050.1.0 to provide consistency in assigning most mailpieces to a processing category based solely on their dimensions, as determined by revised C010.1.0. 5. Revise C050.5.0 to clarify that merchandise samples are not, by definition, always irregular parcels and that such samples may be categorized as letter-size or flat-size pieces, based on the usual criteria. [[Page 36377]] 6. Revise A010.4.3 and 4.5 to mandate the use of a ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code in the return address on certain mail. (The standard for required use of a return address was not changed by these proposals.) 7. Add A010.5.3 to clarify the meaning and appropriate use of the terms "post office box," "P.O. Box," "PO Box," "POB," "P.O.B.," and similar combinations. 8. Change A010.5.1 to prohibit dual addresses in both the delivery and return addresses on Express Mail and Priority Mail; on registered, certified, restricted delivery, and special delivery mail; and on any mail claimed at a bulk or presort rate. Miscellaneous organizational and technical revisions were also proposed for clarity and consistency as well. Over the total comment period, the Postal Service received 53 written responses from printers, mailer associations, publishers, a consultant, and other customers, all offering hundreds of individual comments on the several aspects of the proposed rule. Of the total responses, 47 opposed all or part of the proposed rule, and 6 mixed support for some aspects of the proposal with opposition to others. The public meeting was attended by 48 industry representatives, of whom 20 offered oral comments for the record. In addition, 22 representatives submitted written comments, including 13 of those who gave oral comments. Neither the oral nor the written comments raised issues not already exposed in the written comments described earlier. The Postal Service concluded that, despite the merit of some elements of the proposed rule, the broad, general opposition expressed by commenters to the proposal argued strongly for its reconsideration. Moreover, the advent of classification reform was an opportunity, seen both by the Postal Service and the commenters, to enact more fundamental changes and thus render moot some issues in the proposed rule. Therefore, in view of the comments received and the events that have occurred since the proposed rule was published, the Postal Service has determined to withdraw its proposal at this time. The Postal Service does so, however, with the caveat that elements of the proposed rule are likely to be republished at a later date for comment, separately or in combination, as part of classification reform rulemaking or otherwise. Stanley F. Mires, Chief Counsel, Legislative. [FR Doc. 95-17472 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P