issue-1996-04-18•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-18
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-18
issue-1996-04-18Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-18Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-9608 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16874-16875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9608]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 65
Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Modified base (1% annual chance) flood elevations are
finalized for the communities listed below. These modified elevations
will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings and their contents.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective dates for these modified base flood
elevations are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood
Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect for each listed community prior
to this date.
ADDRESSES: The modified base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following
table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
makes the final determinations listed below of modified base flood
elevations for each community listed. These modified elevations have
been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days
have elapsed since that publication. The Acting Associate Director has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each
community in this notice. However, this rule includes the address of
the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base
flood elevation determinations are available for inspection.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National
[[Page 16875]]
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR
part 65.
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain
management measures that the community is required to either adopt or
to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to
remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, state or regional entities.
These modified elevations are used to meet the floodplain
management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after
these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR
65.4.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies
that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are
required to maintain community eligibility in the National Flood
Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as
follows:
PART 65--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 65.4 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 65.4 are
amended as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates and name of
newspaper where Chief executive officer Effective date of Community
State and county Location notice was of community modification No.
published
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia: Effingham County (FEMA Unincorporated areas............ August 23, 1995, Mr. George G. Allen, August 15, 1995......... 130076
Docket No. 7150). August 30, 1995, Chairman of the
The Herald. Effingham County Board
of Commissioners,
Effingham County
Courthouse, P.O. Box
307, Springfield,
Georgia.
Illinois: Cook (FEMA Docket No. Village of Orland Park.......... September 28, 1995, The Honorable Daniel September 21, 1995...... 170140 B
7158). October 5, 1995, McLaughlin, Mayor of
The Daily the Village of Orland
Southtown Park, 14700 South
Economist. Ravinia Drive, Orland
Park, Illinois 60462.
Ohio: Montgomery (FEMA Docket City of Trotwood................ October 10, 1995, Mr. Michael Ratcliff, September 19, 1995...... 390417 B
No. 7158). October 17, 1995, City of Trotwood
Daily Court Manager, 35 North Olive
Reporter. Road, Trotwood, Ohio
45426.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
Dated: April 9, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-9608 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-03-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9605 Final Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16875-16878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9605]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 67
Final Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) flood elevations and modified base
flood elevations are made final for the communities listed below. The
base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are the basis
for the floodplain management measures that each community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order
to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
EFFECTIVE DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) showing base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations
for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office
where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table
below.
ADDRESSES: The final base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
[[Page 16876]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA or Agency) makes final determinations listed below of base flood
elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community
listed. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base
flood elevations were published in newspapers of local circulation and
an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed
determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of
ninety (90) days. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed
modified base flood elevations were also published in the Federal
Register.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67.
The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in
floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map
available at the address cited below for each community.
The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies
that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are
required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,
and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis
has been prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
PART 67--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 67.11 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 67.11 are
amended as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Depth in
feet above
ground.
Source of flooding and location *Elevation
in feet
(NGVD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDIANA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brownstown (Town), Jackson County (FEMA Docket No. 7164)
East Fork White River:
Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of Ewing Road........... *542
Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Ewing Road............. *544
Maps available for inspection at the Town Hall, 200 West
Walnut Street, Brownstown, Indiana.
------
Scottsburg (City), Scott County (FEMA Docket No. 7164)
Iola Lake:
Entire shoreline.......................................... *552
Pigeon Roost Creek:
At confluence with Stucker Ditch.......................... *544
Approximately 0.1 mile upstream of State Route 56......... *547
Scottsburg Drain:
At confluence with Pigeon Roost Creek..................... *547
At U.S. 31 downstream side................................ *570
Iola Run:
Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of confluence with Stucker
Ditch.................................................... *543
At Conrail Railroad....................................... *543
Stucker Ditch:
Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of confluence with
Muscatatuck River........................................ *544
Approximately 0.65 mile upstream of confluence with
Muscatatuck River........................................ *544
Maps available for inspection at the Scottsburg City Hall, 2
East McClain Avenue, Scottsburg, Indiana.
------
Seymour (City), Jackson County (FEMA Docket No. 7159)
Heddy Run, Von Fange Ditch:
Approximately 0.78 mile downstream of Chessie System at
the extraterritorial limits.............................. *561
Approximately 370 feet upstream of Eighth Street.......... *571
Maps available for inspection at the City Hall, 301 North
Chestnut, Seymour, Indiana.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARYLAND
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prince George's County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA Docket
No. 7164)
Bald Hill Branch:
Approximately 475 feet upstream of confluence with Western
Branch................................................... *93
Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Bald Hill Branch..... *164
Maps available for inspection at the Department of
Environmental Resources, Information and Permits Management
Section, Inglewood III Office Building, 9400 Peppercorn
Place, Sixth Floor, Landover, Maryland.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIGAN
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coldwater (City), Branch County (FEMA Docket No. 7155)
Sauk River:
At confluence with South Lake............................. *928
Approximately 0.1 mile upstream of Michigan Avenue........ *972
South Lake Drain:
Approximately 300 feet downstream of Race Street.......... *940
Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of most upstream
crossing of Farm Lane.................................... *985
County Drain 15:
At State Road............................................. *969
Approximately 900 feet upstream of Private Drive.......... *974
South Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *928
Randall Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *928
Maps available for inspection at the Coldwater City Hall, 28
West Chicago Street, Coldwater, Michigan.
------
Coldwater (Township), Branch County (FEMA Docket No. 7155)
Coldwater River:
At confluence with South Lake............................. *928
At Fenn Road.............................................. *959
South Lake Drain:
At confluence with South Lake............................. *928
Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Garfield Road......... *1000
Sauk River:
Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of Michigan Avenue...... *970
At Fox Road............................................... *984
County Drain 40:
At confluence with Sauk River............................. *978
Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Wood Road.............. *990
Cold Creek:
At confluence with Randall Lake........................... *928
At Jonesville Road........................................ *963
County Drain 15:
At confluence with Cold Creek............................. *946
Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Michigan Road.......... *966
Morrison Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *928
[[Page 16877]]
Randall Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *928
South Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *928
Maps available for inspection at the Coldwater Township
Hall, 571 South Sprague Road, Coldwater, Michigan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MINNESOTA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cannon Falls (City), Goodhue County (FEMA Docket No. 7164)
Cannon River:
Approximately 0.7 mile upstream from the downstream
corporate limits......................................... *781
Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of 8th Street (State Route
17)...................................................... *801
Little Cannon River:
Approximately 100 feet upstream of Sewer Crossing......... *795
At upstream corporate limits.............................. *820
Maps available for inspection at the City Hall, 306 West
Mill Street, Cannon Falls, Minnesota.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bolton (Town), Warren County (FEMA Docket No. 7159)
Lake George:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *321
Maps available for inspection at the Town of Bolton Zoning
Office, Lakeshore Drive, Bolton, New York.
------
Lake George (Village), Warren County (FEMA Docket No. 7159)
Lake George:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *321
Maps available for inspection at the Village of Lake George
Administrative Building, Amherst Street, Lake George, New
York.
------
Queensbury (Town), Warren County (FEMA Docket No. 7159)
Glen Lake:
Along entire shoreline.................................... *404
Lake George:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *321
Rush Pond:
Entire shoreline.......................................... *404
Unnamed Ponding Area:
Area near I-87............................................ *404
Maps available for inspection at the Office of the Town
Clerk, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York.
------
Ticonderoga (Town), Essex County (FEMA Docket No. 7159)
Lake George:
Entire shoreline within community of Deland Point Road.... *321
Maps available for inspection at the Ticonderoga Town Hall,
324 Champlain Avenue, Ticonderoga, New York.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PENNSYLVANIA
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Stanton (Borough), Westmoreland County (FEMA Docket No.
7110)
Belson Run:
At downstream corporate limits with Hempfield............. *1043
At upstream corporate limits with Hempfield (near
Sandworks Road).......................................... *1133
Maps available for inspection at the Borough Municipal
Building, 451 West Center Avenue, New Stanton, Pennsylvania
------
Philadelphia (City), Philadelphia County (FEMA Docket No.
7155)
Schuylkill River:
Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Passyunk Avenue...... *10
Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Flat Rock Dam (at the
upstream county boundary)................................ *54
The land area located adjacent to and east of the
Schuylkill River previously designated as the
Philadelphia Naval Base.................................. *10
Cobbs Creek:
Approximately 950 feet upstream of Market Street.......... *72
Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of confluence of Indian
Creek.................................................... *86
Byberry Creek:
At confluence with Poquessing Creek....................... *27
At the downstream side of Knights Road.................... *27
Delaware River:
The land area located adjacent to and north of the
Delaware River previously designated as the Philadelphia
Naval Base............................................... *10
Maps available for inspection at the Philadelphia Planning
Commission, 1515 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
------
Washington (Township), Westmoreland County (FEMA Docket No.
7110)
Pine Run:
Approximately 725 feet downstream of the State Route 380.. *919
Approximately .4 mile upstream of Ashbaug Road............ *1071
Pucketa Creek (Upper Reach):
Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Chamber Road (Pine Run
Road).................................................... *987
Maps available for inspection at the Washington Township
Municipal Building, 285 Pine Run Church Road, Apollo,
Pennsylvania.
-------------------------------------------------------------
WEST VIRGINIA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boone County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA Docket No. 7164)
Little Coal River:
Approximately 1.26 miles downstream of confluence of Big
Pinnacle Creek........................................... *160
Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of State Route 17......... *701
Spruce Fork:
At the confluence with Little Coal River.................. *701
Pond Fork:
At the confluence with Little Coal River.................. *701
Maps available for inspection at the Office of the Emergency
Services Director, Avenue C, Madison, West Virginia.
------
Danville (Town), Boone County (FEMA Docket 7164)
Little Coal River:
Approximately 100 feet upstream of U.S. Route 119......... *692
Approximately 0.36 mile downstream of the confluence of
Hopkins Branch........................................... *695
Maps available for inspection at the Danville City Hall,
Park Avenue, Danville, West Virginia.
------
Madison (City), Boone County (FEMA Docket No. 7164)
Little Coal River:
Approximately 0.36 mile downstream of the confluence of
Hopkins Branch........................................... *695
Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of State Route 17......... *701
Spruce Fork:
At the confluence with Little Coal River.................. *701
Approximately 32.5 feet upstream of confluence with Little
Coal River............................................... *701
Pond Fork:
At the confluence with Little Coal River.................. *701
At upstream side of CSX Transportation.................... *701
Maps available for inspection at the Madison City Hall, 261
Washington Avenue, Madison, West Virginia.
------
Mineral County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA Docket No. 7155)
Patterson Creek:
Approximately 1.55 miles downstream of George Run Road.... *593
Approximately 0.58 mile upstream of confluence of Mill
Creek.................................................... *751
Maps available for inspection at the Mineral County Planning
Office, 150 Armstrong Street, Keyser, West Virginia.
-------------------------------------------------------------
WISCONSIN
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barron County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA Docket No. 7155)
Tenmile Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1040
Lake Chetek:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1040
Prairie Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1040
Pokegama Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1040
Mud Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1040
Hemlock Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1189
Red Cedar Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1189
Kidney Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1233
Beaver Dam Lake:
[[Page 16878]]
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1233
Bear Lake:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *1222
Maps available for inspection at the Barron County Clerk's
Office, 1671 18th Street, Barron, Wisconsin.
------
Dunn County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA Docket No. 7155)
Chippewa River:
Approximately 400 feet upstream of downstream county
boundary................................................. *725
At upstream county boundary............................... *761
Elk Creek:
At the Elk Lake Dam....................................... *806
At County Highway EE...................................... *846
Eau Galle River:
At the Eau Galle Dam...................................... *763
Approximately 200 feet upstream of County Highway D....... *769
Red Cedar River:
At the confluence with Chippewa River..................... *729
Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of County Highway Y..... *729
Maps available for inspection at the Dunn County Clerk's
Office, 800 Wilson Avenue, Menomonie, Wisconsin.
------
Haugen (Village), Barron County (FEMA Docket No. 7128)
Bear Lake:
Entire shoreline within corporate limits.................. *1222
Maps available for inspection at the Haugen Village Office,
108 West Third Street, Haugen, Wisconsin.
------
Platteville (City), Grant County (FEMA Docket No. 7128)
Roundtree Branch:
Approximately 0.95 mile downstream of Southwest Road...... *830
Approximately 0.23 mile upstream of 500 Line Railroad
Bridge................................................... *931
Maps available for inspection at the Department of Community
Planning and Development, 75 North Bonson, P.O. Box 780,
Platteville, Wisconsin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Dated: April 9, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-9605 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9595 Classification Reform; Implementation Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17190-17204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9595]
[[Page 17189]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Postal Service
_______________________________________________________________________
39 CFR Part 111
Classification Reform; Implementation Standards; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 76 / Thursday, April 18, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17190]]
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Classification Reform; Implementation Standards
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Supplementary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This supplementary final rule sets forth the remaining
Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) standards adopted by the Postal Service to
implement the Decision of the Governors of the Postal Service in Postal
Rate Commission Docket No. MC95-1, Classification Reform I. These
standards address the specific aspects of the final rule published in
the Federal Register on March 12, 1996 (61 FR 10068-10217), on which
the Postal Service had sought additional comments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo F. Raymond, (202) 268-5199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 24, 1995, pursuant to its authority
under 39 U.S.C. 3621, et seq., the Postal Service filed with the Postal
Rate Commission (PRC) a request for a recommended decision on a number
of mail classification reform proposals (Classification Reform). The
PRC designated the filing as Docket No. MC95-1. The PRC published a
notice of the filing, with a description of the Postal Service's
proposals, on April 3, 1995, in the Federal Register (60 FR 16888-
16893).
Following two earlier advance notices of proposed rulemaking
seeking comments from the public (60 FR 34056-34069, June 29, 1995, and
60 FR 45298-45323, August 30, 1995), the Postal Service published for
public comment in the Federal Register a proposed rule (60 FR 66582-
66703, December 22, 1995) that included a complete listing of changes
to the standards in the DMM that it proposed to adopt if the
Classification Reform proposals requested by the Postal Service in PRC
Docket No. MC95-1 were recommended by the PRC and approved by the
Governors of the Postal Service.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3624, on January 26, 1996, the PRC issued its
Recommended Decision on Docket No. MC95-1 to the Governors of the
Postal Service. The PRC recommendations included revisions to some of
the mail classification structures and rates requested by the Postal
Service. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3625, the Governors acted on the PRC's
recommendations on March 4, 1996. With the exception of the PRC's
separate courtesy envelope mail and bulk parcel post proposals, the
Governors determined to approve the PRC's recommendations, and the
Board of Governors set an implementation date of July 1, 1996, for
those rate and classification changes to take effect. (Decision of the
Governors of the United States Postal Service on the Recommended
Decision of the Postal Rate Commission on Classification Reform I,
Docket No. MC95-1, Board of Governors Resolution No. 96-2.)
To implement the Governors' decision, the Postal Service published
a final rule containing the DMM standards adopted by the Postal Service
in the March 12, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 10068-10217). Except as
specifically noted therein, the revised DMM standards take effect July
1, 1996. As explained in that final rule, because the PRC's Recommended
Decision, as approved by the Governors, made significant changes to the
mail classification structure requested by the Postal Service, it was
necessary to change some elements of the proposed rule when producing
the final rule.
To the extent that the final rule established standards not
previously published for public comment, the Postal Service determined
to seek and consider additional input from customers. That further
opportunity for public comment was limited to matters newly introduced
in the final rule, that were not mandated by the rate and
classification provisions, and that were significant in their impact on
customers compared with the corresponding elements of the proposed rule
recommended by the PRC and approved by the Governors. Comments were
solicited for these specific provisions:
1. New standards applied to Regular Periodicals similar to those
adopted in the final rule for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail:
a. All pieces in an automation rate mailing must be delivery point
barcoded (for letter-size pieces) or ZIP+4 or delivery point barcoded
(for flat-size pieces).
b. Presort and other preparation standards must be met, including a
150-piece minimum for preparing trays of automation rate letter-size
mail.
c. All 5-digit ZIP Codes used in the addresses on nonautomation
rate Regular Periodicals must be verified annually for accuracy.
Mailers must certify this verification at the time of mailing.
d. Letter-size reply envelopes and cards enclosed in automation
rate pieces must meet specific standards for automation compatibility.
Mailers must certify this automation compatibility at the time of
mailing.
2. Standards for documentation produced by Presort Accuracy
Validation and Evaluation (PAVE)-certified software and for
standardized documentation produced otherwise.
Because the list of provisions on which comment was sought was
limited and straightforward, because mailers were expected to have
little difficulty evaluating the impact of those limited provisions on
their operations and preparing comments quickly, and because the Postal
Service wanted to ensure that mailers have sufficient time to make any
necessary changes to their operations before the July 1, 1996,
implementation date, the Postal Service set March 27, 1996, as the
closing date for comments on the specific matters identified in the
final rule.
Part A of this supplementary final rule provides an analysis of
comments received and the Postal Service responses. Part B provides
policy information about plant-verified drop shipments. Significant
changes made to the final rule since its issuance, including the
excerpted text of revised DMM standards that have been amended based on
comments, are at the end of this notice.
A. Summary of Comments
1. General Information
The Postal Service received 77 pieces of correspondence offering
comments on the identified aspects of the final rule. (Of that number,
18 pieces were form letters received from employees of one company;
these letters are treated as a single comment. Another 14 letters,
based on a different form letter, were submitted by 14 different
companies; these letters are treated as individual comments.)
Commenters included mailers, printers, industry consultants, individual
publishers, and major mailer associations.
Of those items on which comment was sought, all but two commenters
wrote on issues relevant to Periodicals. Comments on Periodicals are
discussed in section 2 below. Only two commenters wrote about the
portion of the final rule concerning standardized documentation. One of
those two commenters was a major billing service; the other, a list and
data management service. Their comments are discussed in section 3.
Although comment was sought on only the specific listed issues and
not on other aspects of the final rule, many commenters submitted
comments on other issues. This group of comments is discussed in
section 4.
[[Page 17191]]
2. Periodicals
a. 100% Barcoding
Of the comments on those specific points for which comment was
sought, 38 commenters focused on the Postal Service's proposal that
automation rate Regular Periodicals mailings must be 100% barcoded.
Commenters generally supported the concept of efficient mail and the
Postal Service's desire to optimize the volume of such mail, but they
generally disagreed with the feasibility of the Postal Service's
proposed implementation of a 100% barcoding standard for Regular
Periodicals and an implementation date for this standard. Seven of
those commenters suggested that carrier route presorted pieces count
toward the percentage of barcoded pieces, two urged inclusion of firm
packages, and three recommended counting 5-digit barcoded pieces toward
the required percentage. Twenty-eight commenters offered various
timetables on which the Postal Service could ``ramp up'' to a higher
percentage of barcoded pieces in Regular Periodicals mailings, but few
accepted an eventual 100% environment. One commenter advocated
retaining the current ``85% rule,'' whereas six other commenters stated
that the Postal Service should defer requiring 100% barcoding until it
can provide ZIP+4 codes for all addresses that a mailer submits for
address matching and coding.
The Postal Service has identified efficient mail as a major
expected result of Classification Reform and has publicized that
expectation since the earliest phases of the reform process. Moreover,
the Postal Service has invested heavily in barcode-based automated
systems as a strategy to drive cost from its mail processing
operations, another objective set early in the reform process and
strongly supported by customers. The rates adopted as a result of
Docket No. MC95-1 underwrite mailers' efforts and investments in
producing the efficient 100% barcoded mailstream needed to allow
automated systems to yield their planned cost and service benefits.
Throughout the years that the Postal Service's Classification
Reform proposals were developed, a clear message was maintained, not
only about the need for and benefits of a pure barcoded mailstream, but
also for heightened awareness that quality address information is the
key enabling factor for successful address matching and barcoding. In
view of this clear record, the Postal Service has determined not to
retain standards supporting the current inefficient mailstream (e.g.,
the ``85% rule'') and not to adopt new standards that compromise
achievement of its automation objectives.
For example, allowing inclusion of carrier route presort pieces or
pieces bearing a 5-digit barcode in the percentage of barcoded mail
does not offer a benefit consistent with the Postal Service's
automation goal. Although presorting mail by carrier route enables
movement of that mail directly to the carrier with minimal en route
distribution, such preparation has no effect on the rest of the mailing
(i.e., the remaining copies of an issue of a publication not sorted to
carrier routes) and does not increase the volume of mail compatible
with automation. Moreover, the 100% barcoding standard would apply only
to automation rate pieces (an automation rate is not available for
carrier route sorted pieces), making the coexistence of a separate
carrier route sorted mailstream essentially irrelevant regardless of
its volume. As a result, the final rule will not allow the quantity of
mail prepared for carrier route rates to count toward the required
percentage of a mailing that must be barcoded.
Firm packages and pieces bearing only a 5-digit barcode will not be
included either. Aside from the likely incompatibility of their
wrapping material with automated processing, firm packages often exceed
the physical size restrictions of automated equipment and, if included
in automation rate mailings, would require culling for separate
processing. This scenario is inconsistent with an efficient mailstream
and argues for the exclusion of firm packages from an automated mailing
(both physically and as a contributor toward the 100% barcoding level).
The final rule will continue the exclusion of firm packages.
Five-digit barcoded pieces represent no assurance of quality in the
mailpiece address. Otherwise, a ZIP+4 code could have been determined
and translated into a delivery point barcode (or a ZIP+4 barcode on a
flat-size piece). Therefore, despite the limited processing benefit of
a 5-digit barcode, the Postal Service remains convinced that quality
addressing and the best possible depth of code should remain the sole
objectives of automation rate mailers. The final rule will retain the
specification for a delivery point barcode (or, for a flat, a ZIP+4
barcode).
Concerns are unfounded that nonbarcoded mail will be excluded from
the mailstream. Nonbarcoded mail will still be acceptable but will have
to be mailed separately from barcoded mail. However, in line with the
basic theme of Classification Reform that mail should pay rates more
closely aligned with the cost of the mail, nonbarcoded mail (other than
carrier route sorted mail) will be subject to rates that are higher
than those available for barcoded pieces. Without excluding them from
the mail, nonbarcoded pieces not sorted to carrier routes are clearly
priced in a manner that encourages the mailer to evaluate ways to move
such pieces into the more efficient and economical barcoded mailstream.
Throughout the years that Classification Reform was developed, the
Postal Service conducted a dialogue with the mailing industry regarding
address quality. During that time, customers defined various challenges
that they perceived as limiting their ability to reach the quality
standards proposed by the Postal Service. In response, the Postal
Service worked to find solutions, either within existing address
management strategies or by new methods tailored to the needs of
specific customers.
Throughout this time, there were concerns that the entirety of
customer address lists could not be matched to postal databases. Many
customers argued, as did the commenters mentioned above, that standards
for a 100% barcoded mailstream should be deferred until the Postal
Service can ``guarantee to code and match 100% of all addresses,'' as
stated by one commenter. In response, the Postal Service determined to
work with customers to rectify hindrances, within the customer's
address files or elsewhere, so that 100% coding could be achieved. The
Postal Service has not accepted a less-than-100% barcoded mailstream as
an alternative.
The Postal Service does not accept the general statement of some
commenters that noncodable addresses are caused by deficiencies in the
Postal Service's database or in the matching software used to compare
customer address lists with that database. Rather, the Postal Service
continues to affirm that a ZIP+4 code is available for every known and
recorded delivery address, including addresses at institutions that
have worked with the Postal Service to establish an internal address
system, and that the inability to barcode some mail is based on address
quality problems. Although the reasons vary for which specific
addresses frustrate efforts at ZIP+4 matching (and, in some cases,
resist easy identification), the Postal Service disagrees that most
customers cannot meet the challenge of 100% matching after application
of sufficient diagnostic measures. To that end, the Postal Service
restates its
[[Page 17192]]
commitment to work with customers in identifying and applying the
necessary tools to permit 100% coding of address lists.
The Postal Service believes that such concerted effort is
worthwhile to generate the efficiencies of a pure barcoded mailstream.
Given that benefit, the Postal Service cannot agree that it is prudent
or necessary to defer standards for 100% barcoding until all known
address problems are resolved. Because of the importance of address
quality and its central role in producing a barcoded mailstream, the
Postal Service has determined to apply a 100% barcoding standard to
automation rate Regular Periodicals just as it has to automation rate
First-Class Mail and Standard Mail. The final rule will therefore
retain this basic standard.
However, despite the many months of general discussion about 100%
barcoding, the Postal Service is aware that Regular Periodicals mailers
have experienced a belated introduction to the 100% barcoding standard.
(It was because of this awareness that comments were accepted on the
cited aspects of the final rule.) Although the Postal Service does not
believe that the address management challenges facing Regular
Periodicals are any more daunting than those facing mailers of First-
Class Mail and Standard Mail, it acknowledges that Regular Periodicals
mailers need time to implement internal adjustments to upgrade address
quality and codability, to modify internal production systems, and to
make other changes necessary to produce pure barcoded mailings.
Therefore, while remaining firm that standards for mailstream
efficiency (barcoding) and address quality should apply equally to all
classes of mail, the Postal Service has concluded that mailers of all
classes of mail should be afforded a comparable period during which to
prepare to meet those standards. Therefore, the Postal Service will not
fully implement the 100% barcoding standard for automation rate Regular
Periodicals until January 1, 1997.
From July 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, up to 10% of the
pieces in an automation rate Regular Periodicals mailing may bear only
a 5-digit barcode (if a flat) or a ZIP+4 barcode or no barcode (if a
letter). However, all pieces will have to meet the applicable standards
for physical automation compatibility and barcode quality. Nonbarcoded
pieces must be claimed at nonautomation rates and presorted with the
barcoded pieces. Carrier route pieces, firm pieces, and pieces not
bearing a delivery point barcode (or, if a flat, a ZIP+4 barcode) may
not be counted toward the temporary 90% barcoded minimum. (In effect,
this continues the existing mixed mailstream, only at a 90/10 level
rather than the 85/15 level in place through June 30, 1996.) Beginning
January 1, 1997, all pieces in an automation rate Regular Periodicals
mailing must meet the same barcoding standard applicable to automation
rate First-Class Mail and other-than-Nonprofit Standard Mail (i.e.,
letter-size mail must bear a delivery point barcode; flat-size mail
must bear a ZIP+4 barcode or delivery point barcode).
b. Unique 3-Digit Cities
One commenter suggested that the Postal Service return to package-
based rates for letter-size Periodicals until a DMCS change can be made
to allow all 3-digit mail to qualify for the 3/5 rates. (Only unique 3-
digit cities are eligible for 3/5 (Level B) rates today. The Postal
Service requested a redefinition of the rate to apply 3/5 rates to all
3-digit sortations, but this was not recommended by the PRC.) Barring
that, the commenter argued, the Postal Service should allow the
inclusion of unique 3-digit cities in scheme groups where applicable.
The Postal Service has reconsidered its original position on this
matter and has amended the final rule (DMM E241.2.1a) to allow pieces
for a unique 3-digit city to qualify for the 3/5 rate, regardless of
volume, when included in a scheme group (where applicable) if those
pieces are separated from the remainder of the scheme group's mail.
c. Enclosed Reply Pieces
Three commenters opposed the standard for enclosed reply pieces,
i.e., that enclosed letter-size reply cards and envelopes bear the
correct FIM and delivery point or ZIP+4 barcode (as applicable). The
commenters were particularly concerned over inserted pieces whose
production was ``beyond [their] control,'' i.e., produced by a third
party for inclusion in their publications. One commenter worried that
mail would be held ``hostage'' if an enclosed piece does not meet the
applicable standards or that the Postal Service will ``punish''
publications for their enclosures.
The Postal Service does not believe fears of punishment are
warranted. The commenters correctly noted the problems with materials
provided by third parties for enclosure in publications, but this
circumstance has parallels in First-Class Mail and many Standard Mail
situations as well. In all cases, responsible persons, including at
least one of the commenters, identified the need for preparatory steps
to preclude problems with provided materials. The Postal Service
deferred implementing the standard for enclosed reply mail until
January 1, 1997, to provide sufficient time to correspond with and
educate suppliers and printers that prepare third-party enclosures.
Accordingly, the final rule will retain the provisions for enclosed
reply pieces, effective January 1, 1997.
d. 150-Piece Minimum
Four commenters opposed the imposition of 150-piece presort
eligibility and preparation standards for automation rate letter-size
Periodicals. These comments are similar to comments received from some
preparers of First-Class Mail and Standard Mail during the comment
period following the December 22 proposed rule and addressed at some
length in the Postal Service's March 12 final rule. From a physical or
mail processing perspective, automation rate letter-size mail is
comparable regardless of class, and the reasons for which the Postal
Service applied a 150-piece minimum for automation rate First-Class
Mail and Standard Mail are equally valid for similar mailpieces mailed
at Periodicals rates. Therefore, because the issues raised by these
commenters have already been answered with respect to mail for other
classes, the final rule will retain the 150-piece standard for
automation rate Periodicals.
e. Six-Piece Minimum Per Sack
Three commenters raised concerns over the six-piece minimum per
sack, arguing that they will be unable to continue preparing smaller
sack volumes to some 5-digit destinations that, they feel, give their
publications a better service opportunity than when prepared in 3-digit
or lesser destination sacks with six or more pieces. (Standards were
announced in the final rule that required preparation of a sack/tray
regardless of volume for each 3-digit served by the origin SCF (mail
processing plant), and permitted such a sack/tray for each entry point
for drop shipment mailers. This provision is also applicable to
Periodicals.) The Postal Service understands customers' desire for good
service and appreciates their efforts to facilitate such service by
going beyond the required level of preparation. However, in this case,
the Postal Service balanced the potential benefits of sacks with fewer
than six pieces against the costs of handling so little mail per sack
and determined that it is preferable to retain the minimum volume
prescribed in the final rule. The Postal Service will strive, on a
case-by-
[[Page 17193]]
case basis, to resolve any service problem that results from this
required minimum volume.
f. Presort Changes
Three commenters stated concerns over changes in sortation
(elimination of SCF packages, elimination of the optional city sort,
and changes to sortation standards generally). The Postal Service has
repeatedly publicized its intention to implement major network changes
at the same time that Classification Reform is implemented.
Accordingly, sortation standards for all reformed classes of mail align
with the simpler mail processing and distribution network. SCF and
optional city sortations are two examples of levels no longer useful
and, like state and mixed states sortations, were eliminated under
Classification Reform. Because of the clear need to align customers'
sortation with the pattern of the postal distribution network, and the
impracticability of phasing in a fundamental network change or
operating two networks concurrently, the implementation of new
sortation standards must proceed as prescribed in the final rule.
g. Barcoded Labels
One commenter asked for a 10% to 15% allowance for nonbarcoded
sack/tray labels. In response to comments on the December 22 proposed
rule, the Postal Service deferred implementation of the barcoded label
standard for automation rate mailings until January 1, 1997. At that
point, the Postal Service expects to improve its ability to handle such
mail more economically by distributing trays and sacks according to the
barcode printed on the sack or tray labels. Allowing a significant
portion of that mailstream to have nonbarcoded labels would not only
dilute the benefit of the remaining labels but also retain needless
costs for the mail inside the sacks and trays. Consequently, the final
rule will retain the standard for barcoded sack and tray labels,
effective January 1, 1997.
h. Other Issues
(1) One commenter asked the Postal Service to permit the continued
use of ``second-class'' on wrappers and polywrap enclosing
publications. Because MC95-1 renamed second-class mail as Periodicals,
the Postal Service will not amend its standards to permit ``second-
class'' on wrappers and other enclosures. However, requests to exhaust
stock of enclosure material already preprinted with ``second-class''
will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.
(2) Three commenters questioned the need for a separate Form 3553,
Coding Accuracy Support System (CASS) Report, for mailings made
repeatedly from the same list (e.g., a list used by a daily newspaper).
Although the basic standard for generation and submission of Form 3553
will be retained as stated in the final rule, the Postal Service will
consider how this standard can be most sensibly implemented in cases
where regular mailings are submitted for a relatively stable address
list.
(3) Two commenters questioned the availability of ``working''
pallets for each entry point. The DMM standards for palletization were
revised in a separate rulemaking concluded before the final rule on
Classification Reform was announced, but were shown in their entirety
in the March 12 notice. ``Working'' pallets may be prepared by the
mailer, subject to the general 10% limit on such pallets, and may be
deposited at those post offices that are appropriate for the mail
contained on the pallet. To eliminate any confusion over the definition
of ``working'' pallet, the DMM standards will be amended to remove
``working'' in favor of ``mixed BMC'' or ``mixed ADC,'' as appropriate.
(4) One commenter questioned the correct rate for Standard Mail (A)
enclosed in Periodicals claimed at a carrier route presort rate. The
applicable standards were not significantly altered in the final rule
and continue to allow the enclosure to pay the corresponding rate paid
for the host piece. Therefore, enclosed Standard Mail (A) would be
charged the basic carrier route (nonautomation) rate if enclosed in a
publication claimed at the carrier route Periodicals rates.
(5) One commenter claimed the rate increase for some Periodicals
was greater than stated by the PRC. He also urged elimination of
``unique 3-digit city'' as a factor in presort or rate eligibility. The
Postal Service did not request retention of ``unique 3-digit city'' in
its filing, but the PRC retained this distinction in its Recommended
Decision. A consideration of the reasons for that action is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.
(6) Two commenters suggested that the rules for address matching
should be interpreted to allow the matched list to be valid for 90 days
beyond the ``last permissible use'' date of the Postal Service file,
rather than 90 days after the date of matching. The Postal Service
discussed this issue extensively in its proposed and final rules and
determined to set the date of matching as the start of the 90-day
clock.
(7) Although the list of issues on which comments were sought did
not include tabloid-size publications' eligibility for automation
rates, both groups of form letters contained a statement on that
subject, and the comments of one association, prepared by an executive
of one of the form letter commenters, also mentioned tabloid-size
publications. The one company whose employees submitted a total of 18
identical letters urged the Postal Service to accelerate deployment of
a next-generation flat sorter (the FSM 1000) to process tabloids. The
remaining group of comments cited the ``injustice'' of excluding
tabloids from barcoded rates. Those commenters' letter stated that it
is unfair for tabloids to pay higher rates ``when we have followed the
requirements for Periodical Class mail.''
Although this is not an issue on which comments were sought, the
Postal Service will respond. The final rule will contain no change
either to redefine the physical characteristics of an automation-
compatible flat or to extend automation rate eligibility to
incompatible flat-size pieces. The Postal Service will not consider
allowing any publication that is incompatible with current automated
flat mail processing equipment (the FSM 881) to have access to
automation rates. Such a suggestion offers no benefit to the Postal
Service and would improperly extend a cost avoidance discount to mail
that does not offer any compensatory opportunity for cost reduction in
postal handling. The Postal Service is deploying the FSM 1000 on a
timetable that meets the operational needs of the Postal Service. Any
enlargement of the current dimensions for automation-compatible flats
will need to await the general availability of the FSM 1000.
As always, the Postal Service will continue to work with mailers to
assist them to qualify for the most favorable rates for which they are
potentially eligible. However, the Postal Service notes that all
Periodicals mailers, including those of tabloid-size publications,
already benefit from favorable rates as a result of their compliance
with the basic standards for Periodicals eligibility. Mailers who
desire to participate in the added price or service benefits of
automation should weigh those benefits against the value of the current
format of their publications and make an appropriate business decision
within their own best interests.
3. Documentation
Only two commenters responded to the Postal Service's standard that
documentation of mailings, where required to support postage statement
data, had to be produced from software certified by Presort Accuracy
Validation
[[Page 17194]]
and Evaluation (PAVE) or in a standardized format. Examples of
standardized documentation were published as part of the final rule.
One commenter, a major billing service claiming to have submitted
its own form of computer-generated mailing documentation for PAVE
certification, states that the final rule has caused ``PAVE
certification [to be] taken away and made the sole property of hardware
and software vendors,'' forcing that company ``to comply with what the
[software] vendors and the Postal Service have agreed.''
The other commenter, a large list and data management service,
stated that the timetable for implementation of standardized
documentation of Periodicals mailings was too short. Noting how much
time in advance of the issue date a publication's address and presort
data are developed, the current absence of completed Postal Service
specifications for standardized documentation for Periodicals, and the
time needed for software vendors to produce and distribute presort
software once postal specifications are released, the commenter argued
that software could not be developed in time to produce issues of
publications that will appear on January 1, 1997. Instead, the
commenter urged delay in implementing standardized documentation for
Periodicals until September 1, 1997.
The Postal Service has required documentation in support of postage
statements for many years. Recently, it required documentation to
describe the volume of pieces at various presort levels within
automation rate mailings and the number of pieces with or without a
barcode. As early as 1976, presort rates necessitated some form of
proof by the mailer that mailings contained the same number of properly
prepared, qualifying pieces as claimed at the reduced rate on the
postage statement. In view of this history, the Postal Service does not
believe that producing accurate documentation, keyed to the mailing
that it accompanies, should be a significant task for most customers,
especially given most contemporary business mailers' heavy dependence
on computer systems for many aspects of mail production.
With the advent of complex mailings, which in recent years include
combinations of rate categories, presort levels, and entry discounts,
the role of documentation has become increasingly significant both as a
source of information for use in completing postage statements and as a
tool for postal verification. As a result, the importance of accuracy
has been matched by the importance of usability and clarity. If
documentation is ambiguous or cumbersome to review, attempts to relate
it to the physical mailing are frustrating if not unsuccessful,
bringing into question how well the information is mirrored on the
postage statement and defeating the purpose for the documentation's
generation and submission for use by the Postal Service to verify the
mailing. Therefore, the Postal Service has increasingly emphasized
clarity and consistency in documentation, both in content and in
format. Mailers have been required to meet specific documentation
standards for many years, especially those mailers who mail at
automation rates. As a result of this experience, the Postal Service
does not believe that the documentation standards in the final rule
present a significant hurdle for those customers already generating
quality mailing documentation.
Moreover, it is only reasonable to expect that the Postal Service's
extensive discussions of documentation standards would be with those
parties whose products will produce the documentation: providers of
software to the mailing industry. These discussions have been neither
exclusive nor private, and they have been designed to set criteria for
documentation that are achievable by computer software generally,
regardless of whose software is used, including software developed
proprietarily by independent mailers. Because of the generality of the
criteria for standardized documentation and the essential level of
quality that those criteria demand, the Postal Service does not agree
that those criteria are burdensome or beyond the ability of its
customers. The Postal Service expects each customer to decide on a
cost-benefit basis whether to produce software in-house or purchase it
from the commercial market. No customer is being forced either to
abandon proprietary software or to purchase software from a vendor.
Standardized documentation, including that generated by PAVE-certified
presort software, is a generic commodity and a reasonable product to
expect from a customer producing automation mailings. As a result, the
Postal Service finds no basis to amend the final rule to recraft its
definition of standardized documentation's content or format.
Regarding the timeframe for implementing standardized documentation
requirements, the Postal Service must conclude that mailers and vendors
attentive to the Classification Reform process are well aware of the
reasons for a July 1 implementation date and what they each must do to
be ready on that date. Although individual circumstances may
necessitate individual consideration, the Postal Service finds no
reason to conclude that, through application of adequate resources,
most if not all customers cannot have the necessary software ready and
in use when Classification Reform is implemented (or, for mailers of
Periodicals, on January 1, 1997). Therefore, the final rule will not be
amended to delay implementation of standards for documentation
generated by PAVE-certified software or produced in a standardized
format.
4. Other Issues
a. AUTO Marking on Automation Mail
Six correspondents submitted statements that they would have
difficulty complying with the standard for the marking of automation
rate First-Class Mail and Standard Mail (i.e., that each piece be
marked ``AUTO'' (or ``AUTOCR'' if carrier route presort) and that no
other piece bear that marking if not paid at that rate). One commenter
complained about the requirement that ``AUTO'' must be shown in all
uppercase letters. This was not an issue open for further comment. The
Postal Service will note, however, that marking of mail is essential
for accurate identification and cost ascertainment when sampling the
mailstream, and the effort to provide such a marking is necessary so
that future automation mail rates will be based on a more accurate
determination of the cost of that mail. Therefore, the Postal Service
believes that measures required of customers to apply the appropriate
markings on mail are consistent with and responsive to customers'
overall desire for cost-based rates.
The Postal Service recognizes that various mailer systems could
produce the required markings if additional alternative methods were
provided beyond those in the final rule. Accordingly, the DMM standards
shown below incorporate new revisions to permit placement of ``AUTO''
or ``AUTOCR'' in a mailer or manifest keyline (where appropriate).
Placement of these markings will be allowed in an MLOCR date
correction, meter drop shipment, or manifest keyline if preceded by two
asterisks. To correct an incorrectly applied ``AUTO'' or ``AUTOCR''
marking, the Postal Service has also amended the final rule to allow
the mailer to add the marking ``Single-Piece'' or ``SNGLP'' below or to
the left of the postage area, in a line above the
[[Page 17195]]
address, or in an ink-jet applied date line.
The Postal Service also recognizes that some customers' systems
might require relatively significant adjustments in order to identify
the correct marking for a mailpiece and/or apply it and/or suppress an
incorrect marking. Because producing the desired mailpiece marking
might need creative solutions in some cases, the Postal Service will
continue to discuss its marking standards with affected customers on a
case-by-case basis. It must be emphasized, however, that such
discussions will be solely to develop solutions about how to meet the
marking standards.
b. Exception for Letter-Size Pieces at Automation Rate for Flats
One commenter objected to the time limit on that portion of the
final rule in which the Postal Service provided an exception for
Standard Mail letter-size pieces prepared to qualify for the automation
rate for flats. In effect, that exception allowed an entire job to be
prepared as flats on pallets if the Regular rate portion was 10% or
less of the combined volume of the Enhanced Carrier Route and
automation rate pieces. (The final rule incorrectly showed this as 15%;
that error is among the corrections noted below.) The Postal Service
allowed this exception through the end of 1996 to give customers
preparing such mail ample opportunity to redesign and modify production
lines to prepare thereafter all letter-size mail in trays regardless of
the rate paid for it.
The consistent preparation of letter-size mail in trays is an
important objective of the Postal Service in implementing
Classification Reform. Such preparation is an element of the
standardization and efficiency that reform is intended to provide.
However, because of the problems cited by mailers of this specific
type of mail, commonly called ``fletters'' or ``slim jim catalogs,''
the Postal Service has determined to explore further with the industry
how to achieve the intended benefit for the Postal Service while
minimizing disruption for mailers. Pending further review of the
preparation of this type of letter-size mail, the exception cited above
will continue in effect without an expiration date.
c. Use of CDS for Sequenced Mail
One commenter pointed out that the Postal Service's requirement
that a mailer document use of CASS-certified software for matching
carrier route codes is irrelevant if the mailer uses the Postal
Service's own Computerized Delivery Sequence (CDS) product when
producing walk-sequenced Enhanced Carrier Route mailings.
A mailer who uses CDS is provided Form 3553 with each product
update so that the mailer can submit the necessary documentation with
mailings. Rather than establish a separate procedure for CDS users, the
Postal Service will continue to interpret DMM E632.1.4 (``another AIS
product'') to include CDS among the appropriate tools for carrier route
coding.
d. Postage Statement
One commenter, a major billing service, objected to the
``requirement for a single postage statement.'' The Postal Service is
unable to identify the genesis of this comment but must emphasize that
the commenter is incorrect. The final rule allows customers to report
many separate groups of mail (commonly called ``mailings'') on a single
statement but does not require that this be done. Customers retain the
right to prepare a separate statement with each group of mail if that
is their practice or preference.
e. Strapping of Trays
One commenter asked for a delay in implementing the standards for
tray strapping. The Postal Service explained in earlier phases of this
rulemaking the reasons for the required strapping of trays. Those
reasons remain and, as a result, the standards will be implemented as
announced in the final rule.
f. Other Issues
Various commenters offered observations or asked questions on other
issues beyond the scope of this phase of the final rulemaking and, as
such, will not be responded to in this supplementary final rule.
However, the Postal Service remains interested in answering the
questions and concerns of its customers. Mailers are asked to direct
their questions to their respective area or district Classification
Reform Implementation Coordinator; Manager, Business Mail Entry; or
Rates and Classification Service Center, as appropriate.
B. Plant-Verified Drop Shipments
The Postal Service also has formulated its policy concerning the
rates and preparation standards that will apply to any plant-verified
drop shipment (PVDS) that is prepared for entry during the period
immediately surrounding the implementation date for Classification
Reform (July 1, 1996) as follows:
1. PVDS verified and paid for before July 1, 1996, will be accepted
into the mailstream through July 5, 1996, if presented with appropriate
documentation of verification and payment.
2. PVDS may be verified and paid for beginning June 1, 1996, under
the rates and preparation standards that take effect July 1, 1996, if
the shipment is not accepted into the mailstream until July 1, 1996, or
later.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
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, 3001-
3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
2. The following substantive changes are made to the Domestic Mail
Manual. (This list is to show significant revisions only and is not
intended to detail amendments for typographical correction,
organizational consistency, or editorial clarity.)
A ADDRESSING
* * * * *
A900 Customer Support Services
* * * * *
A950 Coding Accuracy Support System (CASS)
1.0 BASIC INFORMATION
* * * * *
1.2 Requirement
[Amend 1.2 by replacing ``CASS certification'' with ``CASS
certification (including Multiple Accuracy Support System (MASS))'' to
read as follows:]
Any mailing claimed at an automation rate must be produced from
address lists properly matched and coded with CASS-certified address
matching methods listed below. Mailers using multiline optical
character readers (MLOCRs) to print delivery point barcodes on
mailpieces (or for flats, ZIP+4 barcodes) must also obtain CASS
certification (including Multiline Accuracy Support System (MASS)) for
the address matching software used on their MLOCRs.
* * * * *
[[Page 17196]]
5.0 DOCUMENTATION
* * * * *
5.5 Using Single Lists
[Amend 5.5 by replacing ``within 1 year'' with ``within 6 months''
in the second sentence to read as follows:] When a mailing is produced
from all or part of a single address list, the mailer must submit one
Form 3553 and other required documentation reflecting the summary
output information for the entire list, as obtained when the list was
coded. When the same address list is used to make other mailings within
6 months of the date it was matched and coded, an original or a copy of
the computer-generated Form 3553 must be submitted with each.
* * * * *
C CHARACTERISTICS AND CONTENT
* * * * *
C800 Automation-Compatible Mail
C810 Letters and Cards
* * * * *
8.0 ENCLOSED REPLY CARDS AND ENVELOPES
8.1 Basic Standard
[Revise 8.1 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, all letter-size reply cards and
envelopes (business reply, courtesy reply, and metered reply mail)
provided as enclosures in automation First-Class Mail, automation
Regular Periodicals, and automation Regular and Enhanced Carrier Route
Standard Mail must meet the applicable standards in 1.0 through 7.0,
bear a facing identification mark meeting the standards in 8.2, and
bear the correct delivery point barcode (or, for business reply mail
(BRM), the correct ZIP+4 barcode) for the delivery address on the reply
piece as defined by the USPS, subject to the barcode standards in C840.
Mailers must certify that these standards have been met when the
corresponding mail is presented to the USPS. BRM pieces must also meet
the applicable standards in S922.
* * * * *
E ELIGIBILITY
* * * * *
E100 First-Class Mail
* * * * *
E130 Nonautomation Rates
* * * * *
3.0 PRESORTED RATES
* * * * *
3.3 Address Qualify
[Revise 3.3 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, addresses appearing on all pieces
claimed at the Presorted rate must be updated within 6 months before
the mailing date by a USPS-approved address update tool (e.g., the
``Address Correction Endorsement,'' ACS, or NCOA). Additional
alternatives currently under development (such as FASTforward SM)
may be used to meet this standard when they have received final
approval. Mailers must certify that this standard has been met when the
corresponding mail is presented to the USPS. This standard applies to
each address individually, not to a specific list or mailing. If a
USPS-approved address update tool is used, a valid update is obtained
regardless of the class of mail on which the address is placed. An
address meeting this standard may be used in mailings at any other rate
to which the standard applies throughout the 6-month period following
its must recent update.
* * * * *
E140 Automation Rates
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
* * * * *
1.3 Address Quality
[Revise 1.3 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, addresses appearing on all pieces
claimed at the automation rates must be updated within 6 months before
the mailing date by a USPS-approved address update tool (e.g., the
``Address Correction Endorsement,'' ACS, or NCOA). Additional
alternatives currently under development (such as FASTforward SM)
may be used to meet this standard when they have received final
approval. Mailers must certify that this standard has been met when the
corresponding mail is presented to the USPS. This standard applies to
each address individually, not to a specific list or mailing. If a
USPS-approved address update tool is used, a valid update is obtained
regardless of the class of mail on which the address is placed. An
address meeting this standard may be used in mailings at any other rate
to which the standard applies throughout the 6-month period following
its must recent update.
* * * * *
1.5 Enclosed Reply Cards and Envelopes
[Revise 1.5 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, all letter-size reply cards and
envelopes (business reply, courtesy reply, and metered reply mail)
provided as enclosures in automation First-Class Mail must meet the
standards in C810 for enclosed reply cards and envelopes. Mailers must
certify that this standard has been met when the corresponding mail is
presented to the USPS.
2.0 RATE APPLICATION
2.1 Letters or Cards
[Amend 2.1 by revising 2.1d to read as follows:]
First-Class automation rates apply to each piece that is sorted
under M810 into the corresponding qualifying groups:
* * * * *
d. Pieces in origin/entry 3-digit/scheme trays containing fewer
than 150 pieces and all pieces in AADC and mixed AADC trays qualify for
the Basic automation rate.
* * * * *
E200 Periodicals
* * * * *
E230 Nonautomation Rates
E231 Regular Periodicals
* * * * *
3.0 3/5 RATES
[Amend 3.0 by revising 3.0a to read as follows:]
Subject to M210, 3/5 rates apply to:
a. Letter-size pieces in 5-digit or unique 3-digit packages of six
or more pieces each, either placed in 5-digit or unique 3-digit trays
or in an overflow unique 3-digit tray.
* * * * *
5.0 WALK-SEQUENCE DISCOUNTS
5.1 Eligibility
[Revise 5.1 to read as follows:]
The High Density or Saturation rates apply to each walk-sequenced
piece in a carrier route mailing, eligible under 2.2 and prepared under
M210, that also meets the corresponding addressing and density
standards in 5.4. High Density and Saturation rate mailings must be
prepared in carrier walk sequence according to schemes prescribed by
the USPS (see M050).
* * * * *
E240 Automation Rates
E241 Regular Periodicals
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
1.1 All Pieces
[Amend 1.1 by revising 1.1g to read as follows:]
All pieces in an automation Regular Periodicals mailings must:
* * * * *
g. Except under 1.3, bear an accurate barcode meeting the standards
in C840, either a DPBC (if a letter) or a ZIP+4 barcode or DPBC (if a
flat), either on the piece or on an insert showing through a barcode
window.
[[Page 17197]]
1.2 Enclosed Reply Cards and Envelopes
[Revise 1.2 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, all letter-size reply cards and
envelopes (business reply, courtesy reply, and metered reply mail)
provided as enclosures in automation Regular Periodicals must meet the
standards in C810 for enclosed reply cards and envelopes. Mailers must
certify that this standard has been met when the corresponding mail is
presented to the USPS.
1.3 Temporary Exception to Barcoding
[Add 1.3 to read as follows:]
From July 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, up to 10% of the
pieces in an automation Periodicals mailing of flat-size pieces may
bear only a 5-digit barcode (subject to C840); and up to 10% of the
pieces in an automation Periodicals mailing of letter-size pieces may
be prepared without a barcode or with only a ZIP+4 barcode (subject to
C840). Pieces within this 10% allowance must be combined and presorted
correctly with the balance of the mailing. Postage for pieces in the
10% allowance must be paid at the applicable nonautomation Regular
Periodicals rate and supported by documentation such as that required
under M893 (letter-size) or M897 (flat-size).
2.0 RATE APPLICATION
2.1 Letters
[Amend 2.1 by revising 2.1a and 2.1b to read as follows:]
Automation rates apply to each letter-size piece that is sorted
under M810 into the corresponding qualifying groups:
a. Pieces for a unique 3-digit destination that is part of a 3-
digit scheme group in L003 qualify for the 3/5 automation rate when
placed in a 3-digit scheme tray if grouped separately from pieces for
other 3-digit areas.
b. Pieces in origin/entry 3-digit/scheme trays containing fewer
than 150 pieces and groups of 150 or more pieces in other 3-digit, 3-
digit scheme, or AADC trays or any pieces in mixed AADC trays qualify
for the Basic automation rate.
2.2 Flats
[Amend 2.2 by revising 2.2a to read as follows:]
Automation rates apply to each flat-size piece that is sorted under
M820 into the corresponding qualifying groups:
a. Pieces in 5-digit or unique 3-digit packages of 6 or more pieces
each qualify for the 3/5 automation rate.
* * * * *
E600 Standard Mail
E610 Basic Standards
* * * * *
E612 Additional Standards for Standard Mail (A)
* * * * *
4.0 BULK RATES
* * * * *
4.9 Preparation
[Amend 4.9 by revising 4.9c to read as follows:]
Each Nonprofit, Regular, or Enhanced Carrier Route rate mailing
must be prepared under these general standards:
* * * * *
c. The same mailing may not contain both automation and
nonautomation rate pieces except as permitted under E649.
* * * * *
[Revise heading of E641 to read as follows:]
E640 Automation Rates
E641 Regular and Enhanced Carrier Route Standard Mail
1.0 AUTOMATION REGULAR RATES
* * * * *
1.2 Enclosed Reply Cards and Envelopes
[Revise 1.2 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, all letter-size reply cards and
envelopes (business reply, courtesy reply, and metered reply mail)
provided as enclosures in automation Regular Standard Mail must meet
the standards in C810 for enclosed reply cards and envelopes. Mailers
must certify that this standard has been met when the corresponding
mail is presented to the USPS.
1.3 Rate Application--Letters and Cards
[Amend 1.3 by revising 1.3c to read as follows:]
Regular automation rates apply to each piece that is sorted under
M810 into the corresponding qualifying groups:
* * * * *
c. Pieces in origin/entry 3-digit/scheme trays containing fewer
than 150 pieces and all pieces in full or overflow AADC trays and in
all mixed AADC trays qualify for the Basic automation rate.
* * * * *
[Revise the heading of 2.0 to read as follows:]
2.0 AUTOMATION ENHANCED CARRIER ROUTE RATES
* * * * *
2.4 Enclosed Reply Cards and Envelopes
[Redesignate current 2.4 as 2.5 and add new 2.4 to read as
follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, all letter-size reply cards and
envelopes (business reply, courtesy reply, and metered reply mail)
provided as enclosures in automation Enhanced Carrier Route Standard
Mail must meet the standards in C810 for enclosed reply cards and
envelopes. Mailers must certify that this standard has been met when
the corresponding mail is presented to the USPS.
* * * * *
E650 Destination Entry
E651 Regular, Nonprofit, and Enhanced Carrier Route Standard Mail
* * * * *
2.0 VERIFICATION
2.1 Place
[Amend 2.1 by revising 2.1b to read as follows:]
As directed by the postmaster, the mailer must present destination
entry mailings to USPS employees for verification either:
* * * * *
b. At the destination post office or business mail entry unit.
* * * * *
M MAIL PREPARATION AND SORTATION
M000 General Preparation Standards
M010 Mailpieces
M011 Basic Standards
1.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS
* * * * *
1.4 Mailing
[Revise 1.4 to read as follows:]
A mailing is a group of pieces within the same class of mail and
processing category that may be sorted together under the applicable
standards. Other specific standards may define whether separate
mailings may be combined, palletized, reported, or deposited together.
These types of mail may not be part of the same mailing despite being
in the same class and processing category: automation and nonautomation
mail (except as permitted by the ``85% rule'' where applicable);
automation Enhanced Carrier Route rate and other mail; any
[[Page 17198]]
combination of Enhanced Carrier Route, Regular, and/or Nonprofit
Standard Mail; 3/5 and carrier route Nonprofit Standard Mail.
* * * * *
M012 Endorsements and Markings
* * * * *
2.0 METHOD
2.1 Placement
[Amend 2.1 by revising 2.1b to read as follows:]
Unless otherwise directed or permitted by standard, placement of
markings is subject to these standards:
* * * * *
b. Other rate markings (e.g., ``AUTO,'' ``Carrier Route Presort,''
``ECRLOT'') may be placed in the locations shown in 2.1a; or in the
address area on the line immediately above the address or, preferably,
two lines above the address if the marking appears alone, or if no
other information appears on the line with the marking except postal
optional endorsement line information under M013 or postal carrier
route package information under M014. If preceded by two asterisks, the
``AUTO'' or ``AUTOCR,'' or ``Single Piece'' or ``SNGLP'' information
may also be placed in the line above or two lines above the address in
a mailer keyline or a manifest keyline, or placed above the address and
below the postage in an MLOCR ink jet printed date correction/meter
drop shipment line. Alternatively, the mailer may apply ``AUTO'' or
``AUTOCR'' to the left of the DPBC or below the postage.
* * * * *
[Remove current 2.2 and 2.3 and renumber 2.4 and 2.5 as 2.2 and
2.3, respectively.]
* * * * *
M013 Optional Endorsement Lines
1.0 USE
1.1 Basic Standards
[Amend chart by revising left column under Carrier Route and SCF to
read as follows:]
Carrier Route
(Automation First-Class Mail and automation Enhanced Carrier Route
Standard Mail)
* * * * *
SCF
(Preferred Periodicals, Nonprofit Standard Mail, and bound printed
matter only)
* * * * *
M014 Carrier Route Information Lines
1.0 BASIC INFORMATION
[Amend 1.0 by removing ``carrier route'' in the last sentence to
read as follows:]
Packages for individual carrier routes, rural routes, highway
contract routes, post office box sections, or general delivery units
may be prepared without facing slips if prepared with optional
endorsement lines under M013 or with carrier route information lines
under 2.0. These standards apply to automation Carrier Route rate
First-Class, carrier route and Level I/K Periodicals, automation Basic
Carrier Route rate and Enhanced Carrier Route Standard Mail, and
carrier route bound printed matter mailings. Carrier route information
lines may be on all pieces in a mailing, regardless of presort level.
2.0 FORMAT AND CONTENT
* * * * *
2.4 Other Contents
[Amend 2.4 by revising 2.4c to read as follows:]
Other elements of the carrier route information line include:
* * * * *
c. The carrier route information line may also contain the basic
markings required by standard for the class of mail and rate claimed,
prepared under M012.
* * * * *
M030 Containers
M031 Labels
1.0 SACK AND TRAY LABELS
1.1 Basic Standards
[Revise 1.1 to read as follows:]
Only sack labels may be used for sacks, only tray labels for trays.
Machine-printed labels (available from the USPS) ensure legibility.
Legible hand-printed labels are acceptable. Illegible labels are not
acceptable. Container labels for automation rate mailings are subject
to M032.
* * * * *
4.0 PALLET LABELS
* * * * *
[Revise heading of 4.9 to read as follows:]
4.9 Automation and Carrier Route Rates
[Amend 4.9 by removing heading of 4.10 and adding text from 4.10,
redesignating 4.11 through 4.14 as 4.10 through 4.13, and revising the
first sentence of 4.9 to read as follows:]
Pallets containing copalletized automation rate (barcoded) and
carrier route rate mailings must show the words BARCODED/CARRIER ROUTES
(or authorized abbreviation) on the contents line. Pallets containing
automation-rate flat-size mail must show the word BARCODED on the
contents line. The word BARCODED must not be abbreviated on the
contents line.
* * * * *
[Revise the heading of 5.0 to read as follows:]
5.0 SECOND LINE CODES
[Revise 5.0 to read as follows:]
The codes shown below must be used as appropriate on Line 2 of
sack, tray, and pallet labels.
[Replace the chart heading ``Identifier'' with ``For these content
types'' and the heading ``Abbreviations'' with ``Use these codes''; add
``Barcoded'' and ``BC'' on the first line; replace ``Irregular
Parcels'' and ``IRREG'' (Standard Mail only)'' with ``Irregular
Parcels'' and ``IRREG (First-Class and Standard Mail only)''; replace
``Standard Mail'' and ``3C/4C'' with ``Standard Mail'' and ``STD.'']
M032 Barcoded Labels
1.0 BARCODED TRAY LABELS
1.1 Standards
[Revise 1.1 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, barcoded tray labels are required for
automation rate mailings of First-Class, Regular Periodicals, and
Regular and Enhanced Carrier Route Standard Mail letter-size pieces and
for First-Class flat-size pieces. Barcoded tray labels may be used
earlier and may be used on any other mailing. Mailer-produced barcoded
tray labels must meet the standards below. Revisions to preprinted
barcoded labels (e.g., handwritten changes) are not permitted.
* * * * *
2.0 BARCODED SACK LABELS
2.1 Standards
[Revise 2.1 to read as follows:]
Effective January 1, 1997, barcoded sack labels meeting the
standards in this section are required for automation rate Regular
Periodicals and Standard Mail flat-size pieces prepared in sacks. These
sack labels may be used earlier and may be used for other Periodicals
and Standard Mail prepared in sacks. Revisions to preprinted barcoded
labels (e.g., handwritten changes) are not permitted.
* * * * *
[[Page 17199]]
M033 Sacks and Trays
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
* * * * *
1.3 Tray Sizes
[Amend 1.3 by revising 1.3a to read as follows:]
These approximate measurements define the tray sizes that apply to
all mail preparation standards:
a. Letter trays:
(1) 2-foot MM trays: 21 inches long by 10 inches wide (inside
bottom dimensions) by 4-5/8 inches high.
(2) 1-foot MM trays: 10-1/4 inches long by 10 inches wide (inside
bottom dimensions) by 4-5/8 inches high.
(3) 2-foot EMM trays: 21-3/4 inches long by 11-1/2 inches wide
(inside bottom dimensions) by 6-1/8 inch high.
* * * * *
1.6 Exception
[Revise 1.6 to read as follows:]
If the processing and distribution manager gives a written waiver,
strapping is not required for mixed ADC or mixed AADC letter trays of
First-Class Mail; any letter tray placed on a 5-digit, 3-digit, or SCF
pallet secured with stretchwrap; or any letter tray that originates and
destinates in the same SCF (mail processing plant) service area.
1.7 Origin/Entry SCF/Plant Sacks and Trays
[Revise 1.7 to read as follows:]
Except for Nonprofit Standard and Preferred Periodicals mailings,
after all required carrier route, 5-digit, 3-digit (and, where
permitted, 3-digit/scheme) sacks/trays are prepared, a 3-digit (or 3-
digit/scheme) sack/tray must be prepared to contain any remaining mail
for each 3-digit (or 3-digit/scheme) area served by the SCF (mail
processing plant) serving the post office where the mail is verified,
and may be prepared for each 3-digit (or 3-digit/scheme) area served by
the SCF/plant where mail is entered (if that is different from the SCF/
plant serving where the mail is verified, e.g., a PVDS deposit site).
In all cases, only one less-than-full sack/tray may be prepared for
each 3-digit (or 3-digit/scheme) area.
2.0 FIRST-CLASS, REGULAR PERIODICALS, AND REGULAR AND ENHANCED CARRIER
ROUTE STANDARD MAIL
2.1 Letter Tray Preparation
[Amend 2.1 by revising 2.1b and 2.1i to read as follows:]
Pieces must be prepared to result in the fewest practical number of
packages (where required) and trays to contain the mail sorted to a
destination. Letter tray preparation uses terms defined in M011 and is
subject to these further standards:
* * * * *
b. Regardless of minimum volumes that may be allowed or required
per tray, each tray prepared must be filled before filling of the next
tray is begun, with the contents in multiple trays relatively balanced.
A tray with less mail may be prepared only if permitted by the
standards in 2.1c, 2.1d, and 2.1e and for the rate claimed. Subject to
availability, 2-foot trays must be used whenever available, except that
1-foot trays must be used for lesser volume or as less-than-full trays.
* * * * *
i. As a general exception, pieces do not have to be grouped by 3-
digit ZIP Code prefix in AADC trays if the mailing is prepared using an
MLOCR/barcode sorter and standardized documentation is submitted.
* * * * *
M040 Pallets
M041 General Standards
* * * * *
4.0 PALLET BOXES
* * * * *
4.3 Securing
[Amend 4.3 by revising 4.3a to read as follows:]
Pallet boxes must be secured to the pallet with strapping, banding,
stretchable plastic, shrinkwrap, or other material that ensures that
the pallet can be safely unloaded from vehicles, transported, and
processed as a single unit to the point where the contents are
distributed with the load intact if:
a. The pallet and its contents are transported by the USPS from the
office where the mail is accepted to another postal facility where the
contents are distributed, and
* * * * *
5.0 PREPARATION
* * * * *
5.2 Required Preparation
[Revise 5.2 to read as follows:]
A pallet must be prepared to a required sortation level when there
are 500 pound of Periodicals or Standard Mail packages, sacks, or
parcels or six layers of Periodicals or Standard Mail (A) letter trays.
Up to 10% of the total pallets in any mailing or job may be mixed BMC
(Standard Mail) or mixed ADC (Periodicals). Such pallets must be
labeled to the BMC or ADC (as appropriate) serving the post office
where mailings are accepted into the mailstream. The processing and
distribution manager of that facility may issue a written authorization
to the mailer to label mixed BMC or mixed ADC pallets to the post
office or processing and distribution center serving the post office
where mailings are entered. These pallets contain all mail remaining
after required and optional pallets are prepared to finer levels of
sortation under M045, as appropriate.
* * * * *
M045 Palletized Mailings
* * * * *
2.0 PACKAGES
* * * * *
2.4 Size--Standard Mail (B)
[Amend 2.4 by revising 2.4c to read as follows:]
Package size: 10-pound or 1,000-cubic-inch minimum (whichever
occurs first), 40-pound maximum, except that:
* * * * *
c. Packages must be prepared to carrier route sortations if the
carrier route bulk bound printed matter rate is claimed. Mail at other
rates must be sorted to 5-digit, 3-digit, optional SCF, ADC, BMC, and
mixed ADC destinations, as appropriate.
* * * * *
5.0 PALLETS OF PACKAGES, BUNDLES, AND TRAYS OF LETTER-SIZE MAIL
* * * * *
5.5 Securing Trays
[Revise 5.5 to read as follows:]
Trays must be sleeved and strapped under M033, except that if the
processing and distribution manager gives a written waiver, strapping
is not required for mixed ADC or mixed AADC letter trays of First-Class
Mail; any letter tray placed on a 5-digit, 3-digit, or SCF pallet
secured with stretchwrap; or any letter tray that originates and
destinates in the same SCF (mail processing plant) service area.
* * * * *
M100 First-Class Mail (Nonautomation)
* * * * *
M130 Presorted First-Class
* * * * *
2.0 BASIC PREPARATION--LETTER-SIZE OR CARD-SIZE PIECES
* * * * *
[[Page 17200]]
2.2 Tray Preparation
[Amend 2.2 by revising 2.2b to read as follows:]
Tray size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required (full trays except for required origin/
optional entry 3-digit(s)); no overflow; use L002, Column A, for Line
1.
* * * * *
3.0 OPTIONAL PREPARATION--UPGRADABLE LETTER-SIZE OR CARD-SIZE PIECES
* * * * *
3.2 Tray Preparation
[Amend 3.2 by revising 3.2b to read as follows:]
Tray size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required (full trays except for required origin/
optional entry 3-digit(s)); no overflow; use L002, Column A, for Line
1.
* * * * *
4.0 PREPARATION OF FLAT-SIZE PIECES
4.2 Tray Preparation
[Amend 4.2 by revising 4.2b to read as follows:]
Tray size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required (full trays except for required origin/
optional entry 3-digit(s)); no overflow; use L002, Column A, for Line
1.
* * * * *
5.0 PREPARATION OF PARCELS
* * * * *
5.3 Sack Preparation
[Amend 5.3 by revising 5.3b to read as follows:]
Sack size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required (10-pound minimum except for required origin/
optional entry 3-digit(s)); no overflow; use L002, Column A, for Line
1.
* * * * *
6.0 DOCUMENTATION
[Amend 6.0 by revising the last sentence to read as follows:]
A complete, signed postage statement, using the correct USPS form
or an approved facsimile, must accompany each mailing, supported by
documentation produced by PAVE- or MAC-certified software, or
standardized documentation meeting the standards in P012. Documentation
of postage is not required if the correct rate is affixed to each piece
or each piece is of identical weight and the pieces are separated by
rate when presented for acceptance.
M200 Periodicals (Nonautomation)
M210 Regular Periodicals
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
* * * * *
1.3 Firm Packages
[Revise 1.3 to read as follows:]
A firm package is two or more copies for the same address placed in
one package. If each copy has a delivery address, each may be claimed
as a separate piece for presort and on the postage statement, or the
firm package may be claimed as one piece. A firm package sorted and
claimed as one piece must be accompanied by (but must be physically
separate from) five other pieces packaged to the same destination to
satisfy a six-piece package requirement when applicable, regardless of
the number of copies in the firm package.
* * * * *
2.0 PACKAGE PREPARATION
* * * * *
2.2 Carrier Route Packages
[Revise 2.2 to read as follows:]
Carrier route packages may be placed only in (on) carrier route or
5-digit carrier routes sacks or trays (or pallets). Mailers may choose
to prepare carrier route packages at a higher level of route saturation
(e.g., only if there are at least 15 pieces per route). Under this
option, smaller packages of six or more pieces per carrier route not
prepared for carrier route rates must be prepared for and paid at
another applicable rate.
* * * * *
3.0 SACK PREPARATION (FLATS)
3.1 Sack Preparation
[Amend 3.1 by revising 3.1d to read as follows:]
Sack size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
d. 3-digit: required at 24 pieces (no minimum for required origin/
optional entry 3-digit(s)), optional with one six-piece package
minimum; use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
4.0 TRAY PREPARATION (LETTER-SIZE PIECES)
4.1 Tray Preparation
[Amend 4.1 by revising 4.1d to read as follows:]
Tray size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
d. 3-digit: required at 24 pieces (no minimum for required origin/
optional entry 3-digit(s)), optional with one six-piece package
minimum; use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
M290 Preferred Periodicals
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
* * * * *
1.4 Firm Packages
[Revise 1.4 to read as follows:]
A firm package is two or more copies for the same address placed in
one package. If each copy has a delivery address, each may be claimed
as a separate piece for presort and on the postage statement, or the
firm package may be claimed as one piece. A firm package sorted and
claimed as one piece must be accompanied by (but must be physically
separate from) five other pieces packaged to the same destination to
satisfy a six-piece package requirement when applicable, regardless of
the number of copies in the firm package.
* * * * *
M600 Standard Mail (Nonautomation)
M610 Single-Piece and Nonautomation Regular Standard Mail (A)
1.0 SINGLE-PIECE RATES
[Revise 1.0 to read as follows:]
Each piece must be legibly marked ``Standard'' or ``STD,'' or may
also be marked ``Single-Piece'' or ``SNGLP'' under P600 to correct an
incorrect rate marking. Unmarked pieces are treated as First-Class Mail
and charged postage at the applicable First-Class rate.
2.0 BASIC STANDARDS--REGULAR NONAUTOMATION RATES
* * * * *
2.3 Exception--Standard Mail (A)
[Amend 2.3 by removing ``Limited'' in the heading and the
introductory text in italics: The following exception is applicable
until January 1, 1997; after that time, preparation will be based
solely on the standards for the rate claimed and the processing
category of the pieces, whether the same standards apply to other
pieces claimed at other
[[Page 17201]]
rates and produced as part of the same mailing job:''; change 15% to
10% in the last sentence to read as follows:]
When a Standard Mail (A) mailing job could, by size, qualify for
Regular Standard Mail automation rates as either letters or flats, if
part of the job is prepared as palletized flats at automation rates for
flats, the remainder may be prepared as palletized flats at Enhanced
Carrier Route rates and Regular nonletter nonautomation rates if the
number of Regular nonletter nonautomation rate pieces does not exceed
10% of the total number of pieces in the entire mailing job.
* * * * *
3.0 BASIC PREPARATION--REGULAR NONAUTOMATION RATE LETTER-SIZE PIECES
* * * * *
3.2 Tray Preparation
[Amend 3.2 by revising the introductory text and 3.2c to read as
follows:]
Only mail eligible for the 3/5 rate (i.e., 150 or more pieces in
total for the 3-digit area) may be prepared in 5-digit and 3-digit
trays under 3.2a and 3.2b. Tray size, preparation sequence, and
labeling:
* * * * *
c. Origin 3-digit(s): required (no minimum); optional for entry 3-
digit(s) (no minimum); use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
4.0 OPTIONAL PREPARATION--UPGRADABLE REGULAR NONAUTOMATION RATE
LETTER-SIZE PIECES
* * * * *
4.2 Tray Preparation
[Amend 4.2 by revising the introductory text and 4.2c to read as
follows:]
Only mail eligible for the 3/5 rate (i.e., 150 or more pieces in
total for the 3-digit area) may be prepared in 5-digit and 3-digit
trays under 4.2a and 4.2b. Tray size, preparation sequence, and
labeling:
* * * * *
c. Origin 3-digit(s): required (no minimum); optional for entry 3-
digit(s) (no minimum); use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
5.0 PREPARATION--REGULAR NONAUTOMATION RATE FLAT-SIZE PIECES AND ALL
IRREGULAR PARCELS
* * * * *
5.7 Sack
FR Doc. 96-9595 Classification Reform; Implementation Standards
Preparation
[Amend 5.7 by revising 5.7b to read as follows:]
Sack size (subject to 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6), preparation sequence, and
labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required (minimum of 125 pieces/15 pounds, smaller
volume not permitted, except for required origin/optional entry 3-
digit(s)); use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
M620 Enhanced Carrier Route Standard Mail
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
1.1 All Mailings
[Amend 1.1 by revising 1.1e to read as follows:]
All nonautomation rate Enhanced Carrier Route mailings are subject
to these general standards (automation rate Enhanced Carrier Route
mailings must be prepared under M810):
* * * * *
e. Subject to M012, all pieces must be marked ``Bulk Rate'' or
``Blk. Rt.'' In addition, Basic, High Density, and Saturation rate
pieces must each be marked ``ECRLOT,'' ``ECRWSH,'' or ``ECRWSS,''
respectively, either in the optional endorsement line under M013 or in
the carrier route information line under M014. Pieces not claimed at
the corresponding rate must not bear the ``ECRLOT,'' ``ECRWSH,'' or
``ECRWSS'' marking unless paid at single-piece rate and a corrective
single-piece rate marking is applied under P600.
* * * * *
1.4 Exception--Standard Mail (A)
[Amend 1.4 by removing ``Limited'' in the heading and the
introductory text in italics: The following exception is applicable
until January 1, 1997; after that time, preparation will be based
solely on the standards for the rate claimed and the processing
category of the pieces, whether the same standards apply to other
pieces claimed at other rates and produced as part of the same mailing
job:''; change 15% to 10% in the last sentence to read as follows:]
When a Standard Mail (A) mailing job could, by size, qualify for
Regular Standard Mail automation rates as either letters or flats, if
part of the job is prepared as palletized flats at automation rates for
flats, the remainder may be prepared as palletized flats at Enhanced
Carrier Route rates and Regular nonletter nonautomation rates if the
number of Regular nonletter nonautomation rate pieces does not exceed
10% of the total number of pieces in the entire mailing job.
* * * * *
2.0 PACKAGE PREPARATION
* * * * *
2.6 Sack Preparation
[Amend 2.6 by revising 2.7b to read as follows:]
Sack size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required at 10 pieces/20 pounds/1,000 cubic inches (no
minimum for required origin/optional entry 3-digit(s)); smaller volume
permitted; use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
M690 Nonprofit Standard Mail
M692 Basic and 3/5 Presort
* * * * *
3.0 SACK PREPARATION
* * * * *
3.2 Machinable, Irregular Parcels
[Revise 3.2 to read as follows:]
If a mailing consists of both machinable and irregular parcels, a
5-digit sack must be prepared when there are 10 pounds of mail for a 5-
digit ZIP Code destination. Sacks containing less than 10 pounds of
mail may be prepared.
* * * * *
3.5 Presort and Labeling
[Amend 3.5 by revising 3.5e to read as follows:]
Sack presort sequence and labeling:
* * * * *
e. Mixed ADC (required); for Line 1, use MXD followed by the city/
state/ZIP of the ADC serving the 3-digit ZIP Code of the entry post
office, as shown in L004 (for flats) or L604 (for irregular parcels),
as applicable.
3.6 Line 2
[Amend M692.3.6 by removing 3.6b and redesignating 3.6c as 3.6b and
3.6d as 3.6c to read as follows:]
Line 2: STD, processing category, and:
a. 5-digit sacks of machinable and irregular parcels: MACH AND
IRREG.
b. Mixed ADC sacks: MIXED ADC.
c. As required by the applicable labeling list, Line 2 processing
code information must be right-justified under the ZIP Code on Line 1.
* * * * *
[[Page 17202]]
M800 All Automation Mail
M810 Letter-Size Mail (Except Preferred Periodicals and Nonprofit
Standard Mail)
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
* * * * *
1.2 Mailings
[Revise 1.2 to read as follows:]
All pieces in a mailing must meet the standards in C810 and must be
sorted together to the finest extend required. A single automation rate
mailing may include pieces prepared at 5-Digit, 3-Digit, 3/5, and Basic
automation rates, as applicable; all may be reported on the same
postage statement and documentation. The definitions of a mailing and
permissible combinations are in M011.
1.3 Marking
[Revise 1.3 to read as follows:]
First-Class pieces must be marked ``First-Class'' or ``Presorted
First-Class''; Standard Mail must be marked ``Bulk Rate'' or ``Blk.
Rt.'' In addition, pieces must be marked ``AUTO'' (or ``AUTOCR'' for
carrier route rate pieces, as appropriate). Periodicals require no
markings. Pieces not claimed at an automation rate must not be marked
``AUTO'' or ``AUTOCR'' unless paid at single-piece rate and a
corrective single-piece rate marking is applied under P100 or P600.
1.4 General Preparation
[Revise 1.4 to read as follows:]
Grouping, packaging, and labeling are not generally required or
permitted, except packaging is required in any mailing consisting
entirely of card-size pieces and for pieces in overflow and less-than-
full trays; pieces must be grouped as specified in 2.0 and 3.0; and
package labels are required only for Regular Periodicals.
1.5 Carrier Route
[Revise 1.5 to read as follows:]
Carrier route groups may be placed in only carrier route or 5-digit
carrier routes trays. Preparation of mail to qualify for automation
carrier route rates is optional for First-Class and Standard Mail (A)
pieces, subject to E140 and E641.
* * * * *
2.0 PREPARATION--FIRST-CLASS AND STANDARD MAIL (A)
* * * * *
2.2 Tray Preparation
[Amend 2.2 by revising 2.2d and 2.2e to read as follows:]
Tray size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
d. 3-digit/scheme: required (150-piece minimum except no minimum
for required origin/optional entry 3-digit(s)/scheme); overflow
allowed; for Line 1, use L002, Column B.
e. AADC: required (150-piece minimum); overflow allowed; group
pieces by 3-digit ZIP Code prefix (or 3-digit/scheme if applicable);
use L801 for Line 1.
* * * * *
3.0 PREPARATION--PERIODICALS
3.1 Tray Preparation
[Revise 3.1 to read as follows:]
Tray size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
a. 5-digit: required (150-piece minimum); overflow allowed; use 5-
digit ZIP Code destination of pieces for Line 1, preceded for military
mail by the prefixes under M031.
b. 3-digit/scheme: required (150-piece minimum except no minimum
for required origin/optional entry 3-digit(s)/scheme); overflow
allowed; for Line 1, use L002, Column B.
c. AADC: required (150-piece minimum); overflow allowed; group
pieces by 3-digit ZIP Code prefix (or 3-digit/scheme if applicable);
use L801 for Line 1.
d. Mixed AADC: required (no minimum); group pieces by AADC; for
Line 1, use L802 (mail entered by the mailer at an ASF or BMC) or L803,
as appropriate.
* * * * *
4.0 DOCUMENTATION
[Revise 4.0 to read as follows:]
A complete, signed postage statement, using the correct USPS form
or an approved facsimile, must accompany each mailing, supported by
documentation produced by PAVE-certified (or, except for Periodicals,
MAC-certified) software or standardized documentation under P012.
Documentation of postage is not required if the correct rate is affixed
to each piece or if each piece is of identical weight and the pieces
are separated by rate when presented for acceptance. Combined mailings
of Periodicals publications must also be documented under M210.
Periodicals are not subject to the standard for supporting
documentation produced by PAVE-certified software or standardized
documentation under P012 until January 1, 1997.
M820 Flat-Size Mail (Except Preferred Periodicals and Nonprofit
Standard Mail)
1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
* * * * *
1.2 Mailings
[Amend 1.2 by revising the second sentence to read as follows:]
All pieces in a mailing must meet the standards in C820 and must be
sorted together to the finest extent required. A single automation rate
mailing may include pieces prepared at 5-Digit, 3-Digit, 3/5, and Basic
automation rates, as applicable; all may be reported on the same
postage statement and documentation. The definitions of a mailing and
permissible combinations are in M011.
* * * * *
1.4 Marking
[Revise 1.4 to read as follows:]
First-Class pieces must be marked ``AUTO'' and either ``First-
Class'' or ``Presorted First-Class.'' Standard Mail must be marked
``AUTO'' and either ``Bulk Rate'' or ``Blk. Rt.'' Periodicals require
no markings. Pieces not claimed at an automation rate must not be
marked ``AUTO'' unless paid at single-piece rate and a corrective
single-piece rate marking is applied under P100 or P600.
1.5 Exception--Standard Mail (A)
[Amend 1.5 by removing ``Limited'' in the heading and the
introductory text in italics: The following exception is applicable
until January 1, 1997; after that time, preparation will be based
solely on the standards for the rate claimed and the processing
category of the pieces, whether the same standards apply to other
pieces claimed at other rates and produced as part of the same mailing
job:''; and by replacing ``15%'' with ``10%'' in the last sentence to
read as follows:]
When a Standard Mail (A) mailing job could, by size, qualify for
Regular Standard Mail automation rates as either letters or flats, if
part of the job is prepared as palletized flats at automation rates for
flats, the remainder may be prepared as palletized flats at Enhanced
Carrier Route rates and Regular nonletter nonautomation rates if the
number of Regular nonletter nonautomation rate pieces does not exceed
10% of the total number of pieces in the entire mailing job.
* * * * *
2.0 PREPARATION--FIRST-CLASS MAIL
* * * * *
[[Page 17203]]
2.2 Tray Preparation
[Amend 2.2 by revising 2.2b to read as follows:]
Tray size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required full trays, no overflow, except no minimum for
required origin/optional entry 3-digit(s); use L002, Column A, for Line
1.
* * * * *
3.0 PREPARATION--PERIODICALS
* * * * *
3.2 Sack Preparation
[Amend 3.2 by revising 3.2b to read as follows:]
Sack size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required at 24 pieces, optional with one six-piece
minimum, except no minimum for required origin/optional entry 3-
digit(s); use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
4.0 PREPARATION--STANDARD MAIL
* * * * *
4.3 Sack Preparation
[Amend 4.3 by revising 4.3b to read as follows:]
Sack size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
* * * * *
b. 3-digit: required (125-piece/15-pound minimum, smaller volume
not permitted, except no minimum for required origin/optional entry 3-
digit(s)); use L002, Column A, for Line 1.
* * * * *
5.0 DOCUMENTATION
[Revise 5.0 to read as follows:]
A complete, signed postage statement, using the correct USPS form
or an approved facsimile, must accompany each mailing, supported by
documentation produced by PAVE-certified (or, except for Periodicals,
MAC-certified) software or standardized documentation under P012.
Documentation of postage is not required if the correct rate is affixed
to each piece or if each piece is of identical weight and the pieces
are separated by rate when presented for acceptance. Combined mailings
of Periodicals publications must also be documented under M210.
Periodicals are not subject to the standard for supporting
documentation produced by PAVE-certified software or standardized
documentation under P012 until January 1, 1997.
* * * * *
P POSTAGE AND PAYMENT METHODS
P000 Basic Information
P010 General Standards
* * * * *
P012 Documentation
* * * * *
2.0 STANDARDIZED DOCUMENTATION--FIRST-CLASS MAIL, REGULAR PERIODICALS,
AND REGULAR STANDARD MAIL
* * * * *
2.3 Rate Level Column Headings
[Amend 2.3 by revising 2.3 to read as follows:]
The actual name of the rate level (or corresponding abbreviation)
is used for column headings required by 2.2 and shown below:
* * * * *
c. Enhance Carrier Route Standard Mail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate Abbreviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturation............................... WS
High Density............................. HD
Basic.................................... CR
Basic Automation [letters]............... CB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4 Tray, Sack, Pallet, Package Sortation Level
[Revise 2.4 to read as follows:]
The actual sortation level (or corresponding abbreviation) is used
for the tray, sack, pallet, or package sortation levels required by 2.2
and shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sortation level Abbreviation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Route............................ CRD
5-Digit Carrier Routes................... CR5
5-Digit.................................. 5DG
3-Digit.................................. 3DG
3-Digit Scheme [barcoded letters]........ 3DGS
ADC...................................... n/a
AADC..................................... n/a
Mixed ADC................................ MADC
Mixed AADC............................... MAAD
SCF [pallets]............................ n/a
BMC or ASF............................... n/a
Mixed BMC (working)...................... MBMC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
P023 Precanceled Stamps
1.0 BASIC INFORMATION
* * * * *
1.5 Amount of Postage
[Revise 1.5 to read as follows:]
The value of precanceled stamps affixed to each piece in a mailing
must be either the exact amount due or another amount permitted by
standard. If the exact amount is not affixed to each piece,
documentation meeting the basic standards in P012 and those applicable
to the rate claimed must be submitted with the mailing unless excepted
by P100 or P600. Refunds for overpayment must meet the standards in
P014.
* * * * *
P030 Postage Meters and Meter Stamps
1.0 BASIC INFORMATION
* * * * *
1.7 Amount of Postage
[Revise 1.7 to read as follows:]
The value of meter stamps affixed to each piece in a mailing must
be either the exact amount due or another amount permitted by standard.
If the exact amount is not affixed to each piece, documentation meeting
the basic standards in P012 and those applicable to the rate claimed
must be submitted with the mailing unless excepted by P100 and P600.
Refunds for overpayment must meet the standards in P014.
* * * * *
P100 First-Class Mail
1.0 BASIC INFORMATION
* * * * *
1.2 Postage Payment, Documentation
[Revise 1.2 to read as follows:]
A complete, signed postage statement, using the correct USPS form
or an approved facsimile, must accompany each mailing paid by permit
imprint or claimed at other than the single-piece First-Class or
Priority Mail rate. The postage statement must be supported by
documentation as required by P012 and the rate claimed unless the
correct rate is affixed to each piece or if each piece is of identical
weight and the pieces are separated by rate when presented for
acceptance.
2.0 SINGLE-PIECE RATES
* * * * *
2.5 Pieces Presented With Automation or Presort Rate Mailings
[Revise 2.5 to read as follows:]
Regardless of the method of postage payment, pieces of single-piece
rate First-Class Mail may be presented with and reported on the same
postage statement as pieces claimed at automation or presort rates if
the single-piece rate pieces are physically separated from the
automation or
[[Page 17204]]
presort rate pieces; bear no rate marking, are marked only ``First-
Class,'' or (if not affixed with full single-piece rate postage) are
marked ``Single-Piece'' or ``SNGLP'' under M012 in addition to any
other marking; and either have additional postage affixed to yield the
correct amount on each piece or (if prepared with a corrective rate
marking) all additional postage is paid at the time of mailing.
* * * * *
4.0 PRESORTED RATES
* * * * *
4.2 Postage Affixed, Generally
[Amend 4.2 by revising 4.2b and 4.2c to read as follows:]
Unless permitted by other standards or RCSC authorization, when
precanceled postage or meter stamps are used, all pieces in a single
mailing must bear postage under one of these conditions:
* * * * *
b. A precanceled stamp or the full correct postage at the lowest
First-Class first ounce rate applicable to the mailing job, and full
postage on metered pieces for any additional ounces(s) (or nonstandard
surcharge, if applicable); postage documentation may be required by
standard.
c. Postage in an amount not less than the lowest available First-
Class first ounce letter or card rate (as applicable) in the mailing
job if authorized by the RCSC, plus full postage on metered pieces for
any extra ounce(s); postage documentation may be required by standard.
* * * * *
5.0 AUTOMATION RATES
* * * * *
5.2 Postage Affixed, Generally
[Amend 5.2 by revising 5.2a and 5.2c to read as follows:]
Unless permitted by other standards or RCSC authorization, when
precanceled postage or meter stamps are used, only one payment method
may be used in a mailing and each piece must bear postage under one of
these conditions:
a. Each metered piece weighing more than 1 ounce must bear the
correct additional postage to pay for the additional ounce(s).
* * * * *
c. Each piece must bear a precanceled stamp or meter postage in the
exact amount or at the lowest rate applicable to pieces in the mailing
job. If exact postage is not affixed, all additional postage must be
paid at the time of mailing with an advance deposit account or with a
meter strip affixed to the required postage statement.
* * * * *
P600 Standard Mail
1.0 BASIC INFORMATION
* * * * *
1.2 Postage Payment, Documentation
[Revise 1.2 to read as follows:]
A complete, signed postage statement, using the correct USPS form
or an approved facsimile, must accompany each Standard Mail mailing
paid by permit imprint or claimed at any bulk rate. The postage
statement must be supported by documentation as required by P012 and
the rate claimed unless the correct rate is affixed to each piece or if
each piece is of identical weight and the pieces are separated by rate
when presented for acceptance.
1.3 Pieces Presented With Automation or Presort Rate Mailings
[Revise 1.3 to read as follows:]
Regardless of the method of postage payment, pieces of single-piece
rate Standard Mail (A) may be presented with and reported on the same
postage statement as pieces claimed at automation or presort rates if
the single-piece rate pieces are physically separated from the
automation or presort rate pieces; either are marked ``Standard'' or
``STD'' or (if not affixed with full single-piece rate postage) are
marked ``Single-Piece'' or ``SNGLP'' under M012 in addition to any
other marking; and either have additional postage affixed to yield the
correct amount on each piece or (if prepared with a corrective rate
marking) all additional postage is paid at the time of mailing.
* * * * *
3.0 AUTOMATION RATES
* * * * *
3.2 Meter or Precanceled Stamps
[Amend 3.2 by revising 3.2a to read as follows:]
In a metered or precanceled stamp mailing:
a. Each piece must bear a precanceled stamp or meter postage in the
exact postage or at the lowest rate applicable to pieces in the mailing
job. If exact postage is not affixed, all additional postage must be
paid at the time of mailing with an advance deposit account or with a
meter strip affixed to the required postage statement.
* * * * *
R RATES AND FEES
* * * * *
R600 Standard Mail
* * * * *
8.0 Special Standard Mail
[Amend 8.0 by replacing ``Level A Presort'' with ``5-Digit'' and
``Level B Presort'' with ``BMC.'']
* * * * *
An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR 111.3 will be published to
reflect these changes.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 96-9595 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9594 Experimental First-Class and Priority Mail Small Parcel Automation Rate Category; Implementation Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17206-17209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9594]
[[Page 17205]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Postal Service
_______________________________________________________________________
39 CFR Part 111
Experimental First-Class and Priority Mail Small Parcel Automation Rate
Category Implementation Standards; Changes in Domestic Mail
Classifications and Rates; Final Rule and Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 76 / Thursday, April 18, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17206]]
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Experimental First-Class and Priority Mail Small Parcel
Automation Rate Category; Implementation Standards
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)
standards adopted by the Postal Service to implement the Decision of
the Governors of the United States Postal Service on the Recommended
Decision of the Postal Rate Commission on the Experimental First-Class
and Priority Mail Small Parcel Automation Rate Category, Docket No.
MC96-1.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo F. Raymond, (202) 268-5199, or
Susan Duchek, (202) 268-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 19, 1995, pursuant to its
authority under 39 U.S.C. 3621, et seq., the Postal Service filed with
the Postal Rate Commission (PRC) a request for a recommended decision
on an experimental rate category for specific types of nonpresorted
barcoded First-Class and Priority Mail. The PRC designated the filing
as Docket No. MC96-1. The PRC published a notice of the filing, with a
description of the Postal Service's proposals, on December 27, 1995, in
the Federal Register (60 FR 66999-67000).
The Postal Service's Request to the PRC proposed that the Postal
Service be permitted to establish automation rate categories and 4-
cent-per-piece discounts for certain nonpresorted bulk barcoded First-
Class and Priority Mail small parcels entered for outgoing primary
distribution at three test sites on a 2-year experimental basis.
Eligible parcels would be processed on small parcel and bundle sorters
(SPBSs) equipped with barcode scanners. Currently, such SPBSs are
installed at only three postal facilities: the Southeastern, PA,
Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC); the Philadelphia, PA,
Airport Mail Center (AMC); and the St. Petersburg, FL, P&DC. These
facilities will be the test sites for the experiment.
A mailer wishing to prepare test mailings will be required to
submit a written application to the Manager, Customer Mail Preparation,
USPS Headquarters, at least 14 days before the earliest requested
mailing date. The application must describe the mailpieces to be
presented; preparation level and containerization mode (as applicable);
typical daily and annual volumes and a schedule of mailings; deposit
sites for mailings; postage payment method; sites of any corresponding
authorizations for precanceled stamps, postage meters, or permit
imprints. The mailer must also submit enough sample barcoded parcels to
the plant manager of the test site where pieces are to be processed so
that the accuracy and readability of the barcodes can be determined. If
the barcodes on the submitted parcels are found accurate, correctly
prepared, and readable, mailings may begin when approved by the
Manager, Customer Mail Preparation, subject to the conditions in the
authorization letter. The complete standards for participation are set
forth in the DMM revision that follows.
The goals of the Postal Service in requesting and conducting the
experiment are: (1) To determine whether it is feasible to offer an
automation discount for nonpresorted barcoded First-Class and Priority
Mail small parcels; (2) to gauge mailer interest and acceptance of this
type of discount; and (3) to confirm that the use of a barcode scanner
with an SPBS provides significant sortation quality and productivity
enhancements when comparing the automated processing of nonpresorted
barcoded small parcels with the manual keying of the same or similar
pieces. The 4-cent discount is based on the estimated cost difference
between keying a nonbarcoded parcel and scanning a barcoded parcel.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3624, the PRC on March 13, 1996, issued to
the Governors of the Postal Service its Recommended Decision on the
Postal Service's Request. The PRC recommendation substantially followed
the mail classification structure and rates requested by the Postal
Service. After reviewing the PRC's Recommended Decision and its
consequences for the Postal Service and postal customers, the
Governors, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3625, acted on the PRC's
recommendations on April 1, 1996. Decision of the Governors of the
United States Postal Service on the Recommended Decision of the Postal
Rate Commission on the Experimental First-Class and Priority Mail Small
Parcel Automation Rate Category, Docket No. MC96-1. The Governors
determined to approve the PRC's recommendations, and the Board of
Governors set an implementation date of April 28, 1996, for those rate
and classification changes to take effect. A notice announcing the
Governors' Decision and the final Domestic Mail Classification Schedule
and Rate Schedule changes is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
This final rule contains the DMM standards adopted by the Postal
Service to implement the Governors' decision. Those standards take
effect April 28, 1996. The final rule reflects the criteria presented
by the Postal Service in its pleadings before the PRC. As described
above, the Postal Service is limiting this experimental rate category
to those pieces of nonpresorted First-Class and Priority Mail that are
outside the parameters of existing automation (i.e., letter and flat
sorting machines equipped with barcode readers). Moreover, because this
experiment focuses on the value of the mailer's worksharing effort not
in presorting the mail but in barcoding the mail, the final rule
excludes pieces prepared for a presort discount from concurrent
eligibility for an automation discount.
The final rule also presents the technical standards for the
barcode formats readable by the automated equipment on which mail will
be processed during this experiment. Although these standards have not
previously been published in the DMM, they are based on existing
industry standards and have been used in nonpostal applications for
some time. Therefore, the Postal Service finds no need to solicit
comment on those standards or to delay implementation of this
experiment pending their evaluation.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
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, 3001-
3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
2. Add new G090 to the Domestic Mail Manual as follows:
G GENERAL INFORMATION
* * * * *
[[Page 17207]]
G090 Experimental Classifications and Rates
G091 Barcoded Small Parcels
1.0 BASIC ELIGIBILITY
1.1 Applicability
The standards in G091 apply to pieces claimed at the experimental
automation rates for First-Class and Priority Mail small parcels. All
pieces in an automation rate small parcel mailing under G091 must:
a. Meet the basic standards for First-Class Mail and Priority Mail
in E110 and E120, respectively, and the specific standards in 2.0
through 7.0.
b. Be part of a single mailing of at least 50 pieces of either
First-Class Mail or Priority Mail, eligible for and claimed at the
automation rate for small parcels. The same mailing may not contain
both First-Class and Priority Mail pieces.
c. Meet the applicable physical standards in 2.0.
d. Bear a delivery address that includes the correct ZIP Code or
ZIP+4 code.
e. Meet the address quality and coding standards in 4.0, A800, and
A950.
f. Bear an accurate barcode meeting the standards in 3.0.
g. Be marked and prepared as specified in 5.0.
h. Meet the documentation and postage payment standards in 6.0 and
P012.
i. Be deposited at a post office served by one of the test sites
designated in 1.4.
1.2 Rate Application
Each piece in an automation small parcel rate mailing qualifies for
the corresponding single-piece First-Class or single-piece Priority
Mail rate shown in 7.0.
1.3 Participation in Test
Participation in the test is subject to these conditions:
a. A mailer wishing to participate in preparing test mailings under
G091 must submit a written application to the Customer Mail Preparation
manager (for address, see G043) at least 14 days before the earliest
requested mailing date. The application must describe the mailpieces to
be presented; preparation level and containerization mode (as
applicable); typical daily and annual volumes and a schedule of
mailings; deposit sites for mailings; postage payment method; sites of
any corresponding authorizations for precanceled stamps, postage
meters, or permit imprints. The mailer must also submit sample barcoded
parcels to the plant manager of the test site where pieces are to be
processed so that the accuracy and readability of the barcodes can be
determined; the plant manager will specify the sample size. The mailer
is notified of any corrective action.
b. If the barcodes on the submitted parcels are found accurate,
correctly prepared, and readable, mailings may begin when approved by
the Customer Mail Preparation manager, subject to the conditions in the
authorization letter; no further notice is required except as specified
under 6.0.
c. An authorization is subject to amendment on 10 days' written
notice to the mailer and ends automatically at the end of the test
period (April 28, 1998). The mailer may end participation on 10 days'
written notice to the Customer Mail Preparation manager. The USPS may
terminate an authorization on 10 days' written notice to the mailer for
failing to meet the eligibility standards in G091 or in accordance with
a material change in the terms and conditions of the experimental
classification. The mailer may file a written appeal of a denied
application or revoked authorization, within 30 days of receipt of the
notice of denial or revocation, with the Marketing Systems vice
president (for address, see G043), who issues the final agency
decision.
1.4 Test Sites
As specified in the authorization letter, mail prepared under G091
must be entered at a post office for which outgoing primary
distribution is performed as follows:
a. For Priority Mail, at either the St. Petersburg, FL, Processing
and Distribution Center (P&DC) (3-digit ZIP Code area 337 and 5-digit
ZIP Codes 33504, 34634, 34635, 34640-34649, and 34664-34666) or the
Philadelphia, PA, Airport Mail Center (080-084, 189-194, and 197-199).
b. For First-Class Mail, at either the St. Petersburg, FL, P&DC (3-
digit ZIP Code area 337 and 5-digit ZIP Codes 33504, 34634, 34635,
34640-34649, and 34664-34666) or the Southeastern, PA, P&DC (3-digit
ZIP Code areas 189, 193, and 194).
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Automation Compatibility
Only pieces that do not meet the dimensional and other physical
standards in C810 or C820 may be claimed at the automation small parcel
rates, subject to 2.2 and 2.3. Pieces must not have loose string,
packaging material, or other protrusions that might snag or jam in
processing equipment or impede or damage the mail or mail processing
equipment. Pieces may not be prepared in envelopes or as unenclosed
bound or unbound pages. Pieces may be prepared in padded mailing
envelopes or in paper or plastic containers if the wrapper and dunnage
can protect the contents during automated processing.
2.2 Measurement
The dimensions of an irregularly shaped piece are based on the size
of the smallest cube that could contain the piece when placed in a
stable position for processing. The dimensions of other pieces are
those of the largest surface area of another surface area that faces up
when the piece is oriented for stable processing.
2.3 Dimensions and Weight
All pieces are subject to these size and weight limits:
a. The two horizontal dimensions (length and width) must be no less
than 3.5 by 5 inches but no more than 12 by 15.5 inches.
b. The vertical dimension (thickness) must be no more than 8 inches
but:
(1) More than 0.25 inch if the horizontal dimensions are 6.125 by
11.5 inches or less; or
(2) At least 0.01 inch if the horizontal dimensions are more than
6.125 by 11.5 inches.
c. The maximum weight of a piece must be no more than 20 pounds.
3.0 BARCODE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 Basic Standards
Every addressed piece mailed at the automation small parcel rates
must bear the correct 6-digit barcode (a 5-digit ZIP Code and a 1-digit
verifier character) in Interleaved 2 of 5, Code 39, or Code 128 format.
Technical specifications for these three barcode formats appear in
Uniform Symbology Specification (USS) documents USS-I2/5, USS-39, and
USS-128, respectively, available from Automatic Identification
Manufacturers (AIM), Material Handling Institute, Inc., 1326 Freeport
Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15238-3131. Only one 6-digit barcode ending in a
``9'' character may appear on the mailpiece. The barcode must be
located as specified in 4.1. No printing may appear in an area 0.125
inch above, below, and on either side of the barcode, regardless of
location.
3.2 Dimensions
Narrow bars and spaces must be at least 0.013 inch wide; wide bars
and spaces, at least 0.030 inch wide. All bars must be at least 0.75
inch high. The gap between characters must equal the narrow bar width
if Code 39 is used.
[[Page 17208]]
The ratio of wide to narrow bar width may be in one of two ranges:
a. If only one 6-digit barcode appears on the address side of the
mailpiece, the ratio must be between 1.9:1 and 3.2:1, inclusive, for
the Interleaved 2 of 5 and Code 39 formats.
b. If more than one 6-digit barcode appears on the address side of
the mailpiece, the ratio must be between 1.9:1 and 2.2:1, inclusive,
regardless of barcode format.
3.3 Verifier
The verifier character must be the last digit of the 6-digit
barcode. The correct verifier digit is always 9. The verifier appears
only as part of the barcode and is not printed as part of the human-
readable ZIP Code.
3.4 Reflectance
When measured in the red spectrum (633 nanometers 5%)
by a USPS or USPS-licensed reflectance meter, the minimum white bar
(space) reflectance (Rs) must be 25%, and the maximum black bar
reflectance (Rb) must be less than 30%. The minimum print reflectance
difference (Rs-Rb) is 35%.
4.0 ADDRESS INFORMATION
4.1 Address
The address and barcode must be on the mailpiece side with the
largest surface area, except that the address and barcode must be on
the top surface of the mailpiece when its shape requires specific
orientation for stability during automated processing. The delivery
address and/or the barcode may be printed on an attachment or on an
enclosure in a window envelope, subject to the reflectance standards in
3.4.
4.2 Numeric Barcode
In addition to the ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code included in the delivery
address, human-readable characters representing the numeric equivalent
of the barcode (but omitting the verifier character), preceded by the
word ``ZIP,'' must be printed near the barcode but outside the barcode
clear zone in a type size equal to or larger than that used in the
delivery address.
4.3 Address Quality
Effective January 1, 1997, addresses appearing on all pieces
claimed at automation rates must be updated within 6 months before the
mailing date by a USPS-approved address update tool (e.g., the
``Address Correction Endorsement,'' ACS, or NCOA). Mailers must certify
that this standard has been met when the corresponding mail is
presented to the USPS. This standard applies to each address
individually, not to a specific list or mailing. If a USPS-approved
address update tool is used, a valid update is obtained regardless of
the class of mail on which the address is placed. An address meeting
this standard may be used in mailings at any other rate to which the
standard applies throughout the 6-month period following its most
recent update.
5.0 MAIL PREPARATION
The standards in 5.0 apply exclusively to pieces claimed at the
experimental automation rates for First-Class and Priority Mail small
parcels. Pieces are subject to the basic eligibility standards in E100
applicable to First-Class or Priority Mail and the general standards in
M010, M020, and M030. Mail may be deposited at an eligible entry post
office, regardless of destination. No packaging is required or
permitted. No sortation or package labeling is required. First-Class
pieces must be marked ``EX-AUTO'' and either ``First-Class'' or
``Priority Mail,'' as appropriate. Pieces must be prepared in sacks or
other containers labeled as directed by the test site plant manager.
Use the city/state/ZIP for that facility on Line 1. For Line 2, use FCM
PP BC WKG; if required by the plant manager, the applicable processing
code must be right-justified on Line 2 under the ZIP Code on Line 1.
6.0 POSTAGE PAYMENT AND DOCUMENTATION
Full postage must be affixed to each piece by meter or precanceled
stamps, or paid by permit imprint, under an authorization issued by the
entry post office (which must be an eligible facility listed in 1.4);
plant-verified and other forms of drop shipment may not be used to
deposit mail at an authorized entry post office. A complete, signed
postage statement, using the correct USPS form or an approved
facsimile, must accompany each mailing. No other documentation is
required.
7.0 RATES AND FEES
7.1 First-Class Mail
First-Class Mail weighing 1 ounce or less may be subject to a
nonstandard surcharge under E100. Pieces weighing 11 ounces or less not
mailed as Priority Mail:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Increment Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First ounce or fraction of an ounce............................ $0.28
Each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce.................. 0.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.2 Priority Mail
Single-piece Priority Mail rates for barcoded small parcels:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone \1\
Weight Not Over (pounds) \2\ \3\ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
L, 1, 2 & 3 4 5 6 7 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96
2................................. 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96
3................................. 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96
4................................. 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96
5................................. 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96 5.96
6................................. 6.31 6.86 7.06 7.16 7.76 7.96
7................................. 6.61 7.46 8.06 8.36 9.16 9.76
8................................. 6.91 7.96 8.96 9.46 10.36 11.56
9................................. 7.36 8.56 9.76 10.56 11.26 12.96
10................................ 7.76 9.26 10.51 11.36 12.11 14.01
11................................ 8.21 9.86 11.31 12.16 12.96 15.06
12................................ 8.66 10.51 12.06 12.96 13.86 16.11
13................................ 9.06 11.16 12.76 13.76 14.71 17.16
14................................ 9.51 11.81 13.56 14.51 15.56 18.21
15................................ 9.96 12.41 14.31 15.31 16.46 19.26
16................................ 10.36 13.11 15.01 16.11 17.31 20.31
17................................ 10.81 13.71 15.76 16.91 18.16 21.36
18................................ 11.26 14.31 16.46 17.71 19.01 22.41
[[Page 17209]]
19................................ 11.66 15.01 17.21 18.51 19.91 23.46
20................................ 12.11 15.61 17.91 19.26 20.76 24.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Add $4.95 for each pickup stop.
\2\ The 2-pound rate is charged for matter sent in a ``flat rate'' envelope provided by the USPS.
\3\ Parcels weighing less than 15 pounds but measuring more than 84 inches in length and girth combined are
charged a minimum rate equal to that for a 15-pound parcel for the zone to which addressed.
A transmittal letter making these changes in the pages of the
Domestic Mail Manual will be published and will be transmitted to
subscribers automatically. Notice of issuance will be published in the
Federal Register as provided by 39 CFR 111.3.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 96-9594 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9592 American Lobster Fishery; Technical Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16882-16883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9592]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 649
[Docket No. 960409108-6108-01; I.D. 040596A]
RIN 0648-XX61
American Lobster Fishery; Technical Amendment
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to clarify enforcement of the
regulations governing the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). This rule clarifies that a prohibition on the removal of eggs
from a lobster encompasses a ban on the landing or possession of
lobsters that have come in contact with any substance capable of
removing lobster eggs. This clarification of the regulations is
necessary to ensure that the ban on removing lobster eggs can be
effectively enforced.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst,
508-281-9273.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations governing the American
lobster fishery prohibit the retention or landing of berried lobsters
(a lobster bearing eggs), removal of eggs from a
[[Page 16883]]
lobster, and possession of lobster from which eggs have been removed.
NMFS has evidence of widespread use of chemical solutions to remove
eggs from berried lobsters. Laboratory tests have shown that eggs can
be effectively removed chemically and tests now exist that can reveal
the presence of various chemicals on lobsters. Standard industry
practice does not include placing lobsters in contact with chemical
solutions. While it is not possible to prove that a lobster had eggs
attached prior to being immersed in a chemical solution, there is no
legitimate reason for the practice that has become known as ``chemical
scrubbing.'' This technical amendment clarifies that any chemical
scrubbing that results in the removal of eggs from a lobster is
contrary to the objectives of the FMP.
Classification
Because this rule only clarifies enforcement of an existing
regulation for which prior notice and opportunity for comment have been
provided, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), it is unnecessary to provide such
procedures for this rule.
Because this rule states specifically an action that is currently
subject to an existing prohibition, there is no need to delay its
effective date. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good
reason to waive the requirements for a 30-day delay in effective date.
As such, this rule is made effective immediately.
This rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 649
Fisheries.
Dated: April 12, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 649 is amended
as follows:
PART 649--AMERICAN LOBSTER FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 649 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 649.8, paragraph (a)(4) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 649.8 Prohibitions.
(a) * * *
(4) Remove eggs from any berried female American lobster, land, or
possess any such lobster from which eggs have been removed. No such
person may land or possess any lobster that has come in contact with
any substance capable of removing lobster eggs.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9592 Filed 4-15-96; 3:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9510 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Atka Mackerel in the Central Aleutian District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16883-16884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 041296B]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Atka
Mackerel in the Central Aleutian District
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for Atka mackerel in the
Central Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding
the specification for Atka mackerel in this area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 14, 1996,
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
In accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(ii), the Final 1996 Harvest
Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4311, February 5, 1996) for the
BSAI established 28,560 metric tons (mt) as the initial total allowable
catch of Atka mackerel for the Central Aleutian District.
[[Page 16884]]
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has
determined, in accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(8), that the Atka
mackerel initial total allowable catch in the Central Aleutian District
will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Director has established
a directed fishing allowance of 28,160 mt after determining that 400 mt
will be taken as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species
in the Central Aleutian District. NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing
for Atka mackerel in the Central Aleutian District to prevent exceeding
the directed fishing allowance.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).
Classification
This action is taken under Sec. 675.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 12, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9510 Filed 4-12-96; 4:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9509 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Rock Sole/Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish'' Fishery
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9509]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 041296A]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Rock
Sole/Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish'' Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for species in the rock
sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels using
trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area
(BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the second
seasonal bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to the trawl
rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category in the
BSAI.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 13, 1996,
until 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
The second seasonal bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut for the
BSAI trawl rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category,
which is defined at Sec. 675.21(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2), was established by
the Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4311,
February 5, 1996) as 139 metric tons.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance
with Sec. 675.21(c)(1)(iii), that the second seasonal bycatch allowance
of Pacific halibut apportioned to the trawl rock sole/flathead sole/
``other flatfish'' fishery in the BSAI has been caught. Therefore, NMFS
is prohibiting directed fishing for species in the rock sole/flathead
sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels using trawl gear in
the BSAI.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 675.21 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 12, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9509 Filed 4-12-96; 4:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9488 Mass Media: AM Expanded Band Allotment Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9488]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[FCC 96-113]
Mass Media: AM Expanded Band Allotment Plan
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; comments in response to reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In Comments in Response to Reconsideration of Implementation
of the AM Expanded Band and Allotment Plan, FCC 96-113, the Federal
Communications Commission denied requests raised in response to
Reconsideration of Implementation of the AM Expanded Band Allotment
Plan (Reconsideration Order) and closed to further changes the official
AM database (the June 30, 1993-A AM Engineering Database) which is used
for expanded band allotments. The Reconsideration Order had rescinded
the initial AM Expanded Band Allotment Plan and provided a period for
comments to correct the AM database and comments on the procedures
which would be used to generate a new plan based on recalculated
ranking factors.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Burtle, Audio Services Division,
Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2670.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of this Commission decision
Comments in Response to Reconsideration of Implementation of the AM
Expanded Band and Allotment Plan, FCC 96-113, adopted March 15, 1996,
and released March 22, 1996 (Comments Order), is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets
Branch (Room 230), 1919 M St., N.W. Washington D.C. (See MM Docket 87-
267). The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, Downtown Copy Center, 1990 M St., N.W.,
Suite 640, Washington, D.C. 30036.
By the Reconsideration Order, 60 FR 48426 (September 19, 1995), the
Commission rescinded the interference improvement factor rankings and
the resulting Allotment Plan for AM stations seeking to migrate to the
AM expanded band. The Allotment Plan identified those AM stations that
were eligible to apply for authorizations for specific allotments for
AM expanded band frequencies (1605 kHz-1705 kHz). The Commission
provided the public a thirty-day period to submit comments on the
procedures and technical standards which were set forth in the
Reconsideration Order and which would be used to generate corrected
improvement factors and a new allotment plan. Comments were received
from four licensees. The FCC rejected the requests raised in the
comments.
Concurrent with the release of the Comments Order, the Commission's
Mass Media Bureau announced revised expanded AM broadcast band
improvement factors and a revised Allotment Plan. See Public Notice DA
96-408, released March 22, 1996. After the Allotment Plan becomes a
final Commission action, the FCC will issue a further public notice
announcing that each licensee that was allotted a frequency, and thus
selected for migration to the expanded band, will be afforded a sixty
(60) day period in which to file an application for construction permit
authority on the allotted channel. Such licensees will also be notified
individually by letter. Applications will be subject to petitions to
deny but not to competing applications. Applications are also subject
to the provisions of three international agreements (Region 2,
Canadian, and Mexican). See Section 73.28 (a) of the Commission's
Rules. Application procedures will be set forth in the further public
notice.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This action is authorized under Sections 4 (i) and 303 (r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 303 (r), and Section 553
(b) (3) (A) of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Ordering Clause
Accordingly, it is ordered that the requests raised in the comments
filed in this proceeding are denied, as set forth above. It is further
ordered that the June 30, 1993-A database is now closed to further
changes and the June 30, 1993-A AM Engineering Database which was
placed in the public record and associated with MM Docket 87-267, the
Expanded Band rulemaking proceeding, will be used as the official
database for further use in the expanded band proceeding.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-9488 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9450 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Restructuring Costs Under Defense Contracts
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16880-16882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9450]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16881]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 231 and 242
[DFARS Case 94-D316]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Restructuring
Costs Under Defense Contracts
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement has amended the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section
818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Pub. L. 103-337) concerning the reimbursement of external
restructuring costs associated with business combinations.
DATES: Effective date: April 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Sandra Haberlin, (703) 602-0131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This final rule implements Section 818 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Pub. L. 103-337). Section 818
restricts DoD from reimbursing external restructuring costs associated
with a business combination undertaken by a defense contractor unless
certain conditions are met.
An interim rule with request for comments was published at 60 FR
1747 on January 5, 1995. All comments received in response to the
interim rule were considered in the development of the final rule. The
final rule differs from the interim rule in that it (1) revises certain
definitions at 231.205-70(b); (2) deletes the list of examples at
321.205-70(c)(3) and the requirement of a Memorandum of Understanding
at 231.205-70(d)(3) and 242.1204(e); (3) amends 242.1204(e) to state
that certain external restructuring costs are allowable under
flexibily-priced novated contracts, provided restructuring will reduce
overall costs to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), in addition to DoD, where there is a mix of DoD and NASA
contracts; and (4) makes editorial changes for clarification.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of Defense certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., because most contracts awarded to small entities are
awarded on a competitive fixed-price basis and cost principles,
therefore, do not apply.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because this final rule
does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements which
require Office of Management and Budget approval under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 231 and 242
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 231 and 242 are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 231 and 242 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
PART 231--CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES
2. Section 231.205-70 is revised to read as follows:
231.205-70 External restructuring costs.
(a) Scope. This subsection prescribes policies and procedures for
allowing contractor external restructuring costs when net savings would
result for DoD. This subsection also implements Section 818 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Pub. L. 103-
337).
(b) Definitions. As used in this subsection:
(1) Business combination means a transaction whereby assets or
operations of two or more companies not previously under common
ownership or control are combined, whether by merger, acquisition, or
sale/purchase of assets.
(2) External restructuring activities means restructuring
activities occurring after a business combination that affect the
operations of companies not previously under common ownership or
control. They do not include restructuring activities occurring after a
business combination that affect the operations of only one of the
companies not previously under common ownership or control, or, when
there has been no business combination, restructuring activities
undertaken within one company. External restructuring activities are a
direct outgrowth of a business combination. They normally will be
initiated within 3 years of the business combination.
(3) Restructuring activities means nonroutine, nonrecurring, or
extraordinary activities to combine facilities, operations, or
workforce, in order to eliminate redundant capabilities, improve future
operations, and reduce overall costs. Restructuring activities do not
include routine or ongoing repositionings and redeployments of a
contractor's productive facilities or workforce (e.g., normal plant
rearrangement of employee relocation), nor do they include other
routine or ordinary activities charged as indirect costs that would
otherwise have been incurred (e.g., planning and analysis, contract
administration and oversight, or recurring financial and administrative
support).
(4) Restructuring costs means the costs, including both direct and
indirect, of restructuring activities. Restructuring costs that may be
allowed include, but are not limited to, severance pay for employees,
early retirement incentive payments for employees, employee retraining
costs, relocation expense for retained employees, and relocation and
rearrangement of plant and equipment. For purposes of this definition,
if restructuring costs associated with external restructuring
activities allocated to DoD contracts are less than $2.5 million, the
costs shall not be subject to the audit, review, and certification
requirements of 231.205-70(c)(1); instead, the normal rules for
determining cost allowability in accordance with FAR Part 31 shall
apply.
(5) Restructuring savings means cost reductions, including both
direct and indirect cost reductions, that result from restructuring
activities. Reassignments of cost to future periods are not
restructuring savings.
(c) Limitations on cost allowability. (1) Restructuring costs
associated with external restructuring activities shall not be allowed
unless--
(i) Such costs are allowable in accordance with FAR Part 31 and
DFARS Part 231;
(ii) An audit of projected restructuring costs and restructuring
savings is performed;
(iii) The cognizant administrative contracting officer (ACO)
reviews the audit report and the projected costs and projected savings,
determines that overall reduced costs should result for DoD, and
negotiates an advance agreement in accordance with 231.205-70(d)(8);
and
(iv) A certification is made by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition & Technology), his Principal Deputy or designee (in all
cases, an individual appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate), that
[[Page 16882]]
projections of future restructuring savings resulting for DoD from the
business combination are based on audited cost data and should result
in overall reduced costs for DoD.
(2) The audit, review, and certification required by 231.205-
70(c)(1) shall not apply to any business combination for which payments
for restructuring costs were made before August 15, 1994, or for which
the cognizant ACO executed an advance agreement establishing cost
ceilings based on audit/negotiation of detailed cost proposals for
individual restructuring projects before August 15, 1994.
(d) Procedures and ACO responsibilities. As soon as it is known
that the contractor will incur restructuring costs for external
restructuring activities, the cognizant ACO shall:
(1) Promptly execute a novation agreement, if one is required, in
accordance with FAR subpart 42.12 and DFARS subpart 242.12 and include
the provision at DFARS 242.1204(e).
(2) Direct the contractor to segregate restructuring costs and to
suspend these amounts from any billings, final contract price
settlements, and overhead settlements until the certification in
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this subsection is obtained.
(3) Require the contractor to submit an overall plan of
restructuring activities and an adequately supported proposal for
planned restructuring projects. The proposal must include a breakout by
year by cost element, showing the projected restructuring costs and
projected restructuring savings.
(4) Notify major buying activities of contractor restructuring
actions and inform them about any potential monetary impacts on major
weapons programs, when known.
(5) Upon receipt of the contractor's proposal, as soon as
practicable, adjust forward pricing rates to reflect the impact of
projected restructuring savings. If restructuring costs are included in
forward pricing rates prior to execution of an advance agreement in
accordance with 231.205-70(d)(8), the contracting officer shall include
a repricing clause in each fixed-price action that is priced based on
the rates. The repricing clause must provide for a downward price
adjustment to remove restructuring costs if the certification required
by 231.205-70(c)(1)(iv) is not obtained.
(6) Upon receipt of the contractor's proposal, immediately request
an audit review of the contractor's proposal.
(7) Upon receipt of the audit report, determine if restructuring
savings will exceed restructuring costs on a present value basis.
(8) Negotiate an advance agreement with the contractor setting
forth, at a minimum, a cumulative cost ceiling for restructuring
projects and, when necessary, a cost amortization schedule. The cost
may not exceed the amount of projected restructuring savings on a
present value basis. The advance agreement shall not be executed until
the certification required by 231.205-70(c)(1)(iv) is obtained.
(9) Submit to the Director of Defense Procurement, Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology), ATTN:
OUSD(A&T)DP/CPF, a recommendation for certification of net benefit.
Include the information described in 231.205-70(e).
(e) Information needed to obtain certification of net benefit. (1)
The novation agreement (if one is required).
(2) The contractor's restructuring proposal.
(3) The proposed advance agreement.
(4) The audit report.
(5) Any other pertinent information.
(6) The cognizant ACO's recommendation for certification. This
recommendation must clearly indicate that contractor projections of
future cost savings resulting for DoD from the business combination are
based on audited cost data and should result in overall reduced costs
for the Department.
PART 242--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
3. Section 242.1204 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
242.1204 Agreement to recognize a successor in interest (novation
agreement).
(e) When a novation agreement is required and the transferee
intends to incur restructuring costs as defined at 213.205-70, the
cognizant contracting officer shall include the following provisions as
paragraph (b)(7) of the novation agreement instead of the paragraph
(b)(7) provided in the sample format at FAR 42.1204(e):
``(7)(i) Except as set forth in subparagraph (7)(ii) below, the
Transferor and the Transferee agree that the Government is not
obligated to pay or reimburse either of them, for, or otherwise give
effect to, any costs, taxes, or other expenses, or any related
increases, directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from
the transfer or this Agreement, other than those that the Government
in the absence of this transfer or Agreement would have been
obligated to pay or reimburse under the terms of the contracts.
(ii) The Government recognizes that restructuring by the
Transferee incidental to the acquisition/merger may be in the best
interests of the Government. Restructuring costs that are allowable
under Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or Part
231 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
may be reimbursed under flexibily-priced novated contracts, provided
the Transferee demonstrates that the restructuring will reduce
overall costs to the Department of Defense (DoD) (and to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), where there is
a mix of DoD and NASA contracts), and the requirements included in
DFARS 231.205-70 are met. Restructuring costs shall not be allowed
on novated contracts unless there is an audit of the restructuring
proposal; a determination by the contracting officer of overall
reduced costs to DoD/NASA; and an Advance Agreement setting forth a
cumulative cost ceiling for restructuring projects and the period to
which such costs shall be assigned.''
[FR Doc. 96-9450 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9449 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Leasing of Commercial Vehicles and Equipment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16879-16880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9449]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Part 207
[DFARS Case 96-D302]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Leasing of
Commercial Vehicles and Equipment
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to permit the use of leasing
in the acquisition of commercial vehicles and equipment.
DATES: Effective date: April 18, 1996.
Comment date: Comments on the interim rule should be submitted in
writing to the address shown below on or before June 17, 1996, to be
considered in the formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Mr. Michael Mutty,
PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301-3062. Telefax number (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 96-
D302 in all correspondence related to this issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Mutty, (703) 602-0131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This interim rule implements Section 807 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Pub. L. 104-106). Section 807
amends 10 U.S.C. 2401a to permit the use of leasing in the acquisition
of commercial vehicles and equipment when it is determined that leasing
of such vehicles is practicable and efficient.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The interim rule is not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because the rule
primarily pertains to internal Government considerations regarding the
leasing of commercial vehicles and equipment. However, comments from
small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart will be considered
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted
separately and cite DFARS 96-D302 in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this interim
rule does not impose any new recordkeeping, information collection
requirements, or collections of information from offerors, contractors,
or members of the public which require the approval of OMB under 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
D. Determination To Issue an Interim Rule
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary
of Defense to issue this rule as an interim rule. Compelling reasons
exist to promulgate this rule without prior opportunity for public
comment. This rule implements Section 807 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Pub. L. 104-106), which was
effective upon enactment on February 10, 1996. However, comments
received in response to the publication of this rule will be considered
in formulating the final rule.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 207
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, 48 CFR Part 207 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 207 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
PART 207--ACQUISITION PLANNING
2. Section 207.470 is revised to read as follow:
Sec. 207.470 Statutory requirements.
(a) Limitation on contracts with terms of 18 months or more. As
required by 10 U.S.C. 2401a, the contracting officer shall not enter
into any contract for any vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, through a
lease, charter, or similar agreement with a term of 18 months or more,
or extend or renew any such contract for a term of 18 months or more,
unless the head of the contracting activity has--
(1) Considered all costs of such a contract (including estimated
termination liability); and
(2) Determined in writing that the contract is in the best interest
of the Government.
(b) Leasing of commercial vehicles and equipment. Except as
provided in
[[Page 16880]]
paragraph (a) of this section, the contracting officer may use leasing
in the acquisition of commercial vehicles and equipment whenever the
contracting officer determines that leasing of such vehicles is
practicable and efficient (10 U.S.C. 2401a).
[FR Doc. 96-9449 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9448 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Designation of Singapore
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9448]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
[DFARS Case 96-D308]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Designation of
Singapore
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement is amending the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add Singapore as a
designated country under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as directed
by the United States Trade Representative.
DATES: Effective date: April 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Amy Williams, PDUSD (A&D) DP (DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0131. Telefax
(703) 602-0350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This final rule amends the DFARS to add Singapore as a Designated
country under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as directed by the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) (61 FR 11233, March 19,
1996). This designation does not apply to procurements by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, in accordance with the USTR's direction. The USTR
may revoke this designation if Singapore has not completed negotiations
on its accession to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement
Agreement by July 31, 1996.
The Director of Defense Procurement has authorized a class
deviation from the clause at FAR 52.225-15, Buy American Act--
Construction Materials under Trade Agreements Act and North American
Free Trade Agreement, to add Singapore to the list of designated
countries. This DFARS rule likewise amends the clause at DFARS 252.225-
7007, Trade Agreement, which the Department of Defense uses instead of
the clause at FAR 52.225-9, Buy American Act--Trade Agreements--Balance
of Payments Program, and adds an Alternate I to the DFARS clause for
use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision
within the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98-577 and publication
for public comment is not required. Therefore, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act does not apply. However, comments from small entities
concerning the affected DFARS subparts will be considered in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 96-D308 in
correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. This final rule does
not impose any new information collection requirements which require
the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
PART 225--FOREIGN ACQUISITION
2. Section 225.408 is amended by revising the title and paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:
225.408 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
(a) * * *
(2) Use the clause at 252.225-7007, Trade Agreements, instead of
the clause at FAR 52.225-9, Buy American Act--Trade Agreements--Balance
of Payments Program. The clause need not be used where purchase from
foreign sources is restricted (see 225.403(d)(1)(B)). The clause may be
used where the contracting officer anticipates a waiver of the
restriction. For procurements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, use
the clause with its Alternate I.
* * * * *
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
3. Section 252.225-7007 is amended by revising the clause title,
clause date, and paragraph (a)(3), and by adding Alternate I to read as
follows:
252.225-7007 Trade Agreements.
* * * * *
Trade Agreements (Apr 1996)
(a) Definitions. * * *
(3) Designated country means:
Aruba
Austria
Bangladesh
Belgium
Benin
Bhutan
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Denmark
Finland
France
Gambia
Germany
Greece
Guinea
Haiti
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Lesotho
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malawi
Maldives
Mali
Nepal
Netherlands
Niger
Norway
Portugal
Republic of Korea
Rwanda
Singapore
Somalia
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania U.R.
Uganda
United Kingdom
Western Samoa
Yemen
* * * * *
Alternate I (Apr. 1996). As prescribed in 225.408(a)(2), delete
Singapore from the list of designated countries in paragraph (a)(3)
of the basic clause.
[FR Doc. 96-9448 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9337 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16873-16874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9337]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 76 / Thursday, April 18, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 16873]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-137-AD; Amendment 39-9573; AD 96-08-07]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to all Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 series
airplanes, that currently requires a revision to the FAA-approved
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) that warns the flight crew about certain
consequences associated with overriding the autopilot while it is in
the COMMAND mode or in the pitch axis. That AD also requires
modification of certain flight control computers (FCC). This amendment
requires replacement of the currently required revision to the AFM with
a newly worded revision that explains the effect the modification of
the FCC's has on the operation and performance of the autopilot and
that clarifies the limitation for unmodified airplanes. This amendment
is prompted by the results of an FAA review of the requirements of the
existing AD. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
an out-of-trim condition between the trimmable horizontal stabilizer
and the elevator, which could severely reduce controllability of the
airplane.
DATES: Effective May 23, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations was approved previously by the Director of the Federal
Register as of November 2, 1994 (59 FR 52414, October 18, 1994).
ADDRESSES: This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,
DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 94-21-07,
amendment 39-9049 (59 FR 52414, October 18, 1994), which is applicable
to all Airbus Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes, was published
in the Federal Register on October 11, 1995 (60 FR 52872). The action
proposed to require modification of certain flight control computers
(FCC). The action also proposed to require replacement of the currently
required revision to the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) with a newly worded revision that explains
the effect the modification of the FCC's has on the operation and
performance of the autopilot and that clarifies the limitation for
unmodified airplanes.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the three comments received.
All of the commenters support the proposed rule.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
There are approximately 15 Model A310 series airplanes and 36 Model
A300-600 series airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by
this AD.
The modification that is currently required by AD 94-21-07 and
retained in this AD takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required
parts will be supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operator.
Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of the
actions currently required by AD 94-21-07 is estimated to be $3,060, or
$60 per airplane.
The newly revised AFM limitation that is required by this AD action
will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be nominal
in cost. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of
the new requirements of this AD is estimated to be $3,060, or $60 per
airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
[[Page 16874]]
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9049 (59 FR
52414, October 18, 1994), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), amendment 39-9573, to read as follows:
96-08-07 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9573. Docket 95-NM-137-AD.
Supersedes AD 94-21-07, Amendment 39-9049.
Applicability: All Model A310 and A300-600 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent an out-of-trim condition between the trimmable
horizontal stabilizer and the elevator, which may severely reduce
controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) to include the information contained in paragraph (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this AD, as applicable. This may be accomplished by
inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. The AFM limitation required
by AD 94-21-07, amendment 39-9049, may be removed following
accomplishment of the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) For airplanes on which the flight control computers (FCC)
have not been modified in accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this AD:
``Overriding the autopilot (AP) in pitch axis does not cancel
the AP autotrim when LAND TRACK mode [green LAND on both Flight Mode
Annunciators (FMA)] or GO-AROUND mode is engaged. In these modes, if
the pilot counteracts the AP, the autotrim will trim against pilot
input. This could lead to a severe out-of-trim situation in a
critical phase of flight.''
(2) For airplanes on which the FCC's have been modified in
accordance with requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.
``Overriding the autopilot (AP) in pitch axis does not cancel
the AP autotrim when LAND TRACK mode (green LAND on both FMA's) is
engaged, or GO-AROUND mode is engaged below 400 feet radio altitude
(RA). In these modes, if the pilot counteracts the AP, the autotrim
will trim against pilot input. This could lead to a severe out-of-
trim situation in a critical phase of flight.''
(b) For airplanes equipped with FCC's having either part number
(P/N) B470ABM1 (for Model A310 series airplanes) or B470AAM1 (for
Model A300-600 series airplanes): Within 60 days after November 2,
1994 (the effective date of AD 94-21-07, amendment 39-9049), modify
the FCC's in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-22-2036,
dated December 14, 1993 (for Model A310 series airplanes), or Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-22-6021, Revision 1, dated December 24, 1993
(for Model A300-600 series airplanes), as applicable.
Note 2: Paragraph (b) of this AD merely restates the
requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 94-21-07, amendment 39-9049. As
allowed by the phrase, ``unless accomplished previously,'' specified
in the compliance statement of this AD, if those requirements of AD
94-21-07 have already been accomplished, this AD does not require
that those actions be repeated.
(c) As of November 2, 1994 (the effective date of AD 94-21-07,
amendment 39-9049), no person shall install an FCC having either P/N
B470ABM1 or B470AAM1 on any airplane.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The modification shall be done in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-22-2036, dated December 14, 1993, or Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-22-6021, Revision 1, dated December 24, 1993,
as applicable. The incorporation by reference of these documents was
approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of November 2,
1994 (59 FR 52414, October 18, 1994). Copies may be inspected at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on May 23, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9337 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8120 Radio Broadcasting Services; Coolidge and Gilbert, AZ
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 76 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16878-16879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8120]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16879]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-109, RM-8665]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Coolidge and Gilbert, AZ
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Rainbow Broadcasting, Inc.,
substitutes Channel 280C2 for Channel 280C3 and reallots Channel 280C2
from Coolidge, Arizona to Gilbert, Arizona and modifies Station
KBZR(FM)'s license accordingly. Channel 280C2 can be reallotted to
Gilbert in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements with a site restriction of 28.8 kilometers (17.9 miles)
east of the community. The coordinates for Channel 280C2 at Gilbert are
North Latitude 33-22-37 and West Longitude 111-28-55. With this action,
this proceeding is terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur D. Scrutchins, Mass Media
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-109, adopted March 13, 1996, and
released March 29, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 246, or 2100, M Street,
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 contiues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 303,48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C.
154, as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is
amended by removing Coolidge, Arizona, Channel 280C3 and adding
Gilbert, Arizona, Channel 280C2.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-8120 Filed 4-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.