FR Doc E8-8621[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 25509-25516]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07my08-9]                         

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

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

 
New Address Requirements for Automation, Presorted, and Carrier 
Route Flat-Size Mail

AGENCY: Postal Service\TM\.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service adopts new address placement and formatting 
requirements for Periodicals, Standard Mail[supreg], Bound Printed 
Matter, Media Mail[supreg], and Library Mail flat-size pieces sent at 
automation, presorted, or carrier route prices. We also adopt related 
revisions for automation and presorted First-Class Mail[supreg] flats.

DATES: Effective Date: March 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Witt, 202-268-7279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service is implementing a new 
technology, the Flats Sequencing System (FSS), to automate delivery 
sequencing for flat-size mail. Currently, flat-size mail is sorted 
mechanically only to the 9-digit ZIP CodeTM or carrier 
level, and then manually sorted into delivery order by carriers. FSS 
can sort flat-size mailpieces into delivery sequence, increasing 
efficiency by reducing carriers' time sorting mail, and allowing 
carriers to begin delivering mail earlier in the day.
    Similar technology boosted postal efficiencies in processing and 
delivering letter mail in the 1990s. We can significantly increase 
efficiency and reduce delivery costs for flat-size mail with FSS 
technology. FSS can sequence flat mail at a rate of approximately 
16,500 pieces per hour. Scheduled to operate 17 hours per day, each 
machine will be capable of sequencing 280,500 mailpieces daily to more 
than 125,000 delivery addresses.
    As we move toward national deployment of FSS, we are working 
closely with the mailing industry to make the most of this investment 
and achieve the lowest combined costs for handling flat-size mail, 
including developing new standards for optimal addressing. Unlike 
letter mail, which is fairly uniform in size and address location, flat 
mail covers a broad range of sizes and has highly variable address 
placement. We need new mailing standards for this diverse mailstream to 
promote consistent addressing for all flat-size pieces and increase 
efficiency in flats processing and delivery operations.
    Toward this goal, we are adopting new standards to require the 
delivery address in the upper portion of all Periodicals, Standard 
Mail, Bound Printed Matter, Media Mail, and Library Mail flat-size 
pieces mailed at automation, presorted, or carrier route prices. 
Mailers may place the address parallel or perpendicular to the top 
edge, but not upside down as read in relation to the top edge. The new 
standards define ``upper portion'' as the top half of a mailpiece, but 
we encourage mailers to place the address as close to the top edge as 
possible (while still maintaining a \1/8\-inch clearance from the 
edge).
    Mailers must also address all presorted, carrier route, and 
automation flat-size mailpieces using a minimum of 8-point type or, if 
the mailpiece bears a POSTNETTM or Intelligent Mail[supreg] 
barcode with a delivery point routing code, a minimum of 6-point type 
in all capital letters. In addition, for all automation price pieces, 
the characters in the address must not overlap, the address lines must 
not touch or overlap, and each address element may be separated by no 
more than five blank character spaces.
    The new standards will enable FSS to process flat-size pieces in 
delivery sequence at high speeds and output the pieces in vertical 
bundles that are optimized for carrier delivery. The new placement 
criteria will take advantage of the vertical bundle output and 
significantly reduce the time carriers spend reorienting pieces to read 
the address--whether the mail is held, pulled from a mailbag, or 
removed from a tray. The new standards for type size and line spacing 
will ensure carriers can read the addresses and delineate delivery 
stops. With over a quarter million carriers delivering mail six days a 
week, there are substantial opportunities to gain efficiency.
    As we transition to the new addressing standards, mailers can take 
advantage of the Intelligent Mail barcode to save space within the 
address block. For example, the Intelligent Mail barcode can include 
tracking and routing information that currently requires human-readable 
ACSTM codes and keylines. We also reduced the amount of 
clear space required under the Intelligent Mail barcode to 0.028 inch 
(mailers can access the full technical specification for the 
Intelligent Mail barcode at http://ribbs.usps.gov/onecodesolution).
    The Intelligent Mail barcode will be required on all pieces 
claiming automation prices in the future. Mailers can find more 
information in the Federal Register notice, ``Implementation of 
Intelligent Mail Barcodes,'' published on January 7, 2008 (available on 
Postal Explorer[supreg] at http://pe.usps.com; click ``Federal Register 
Notices'' in the left frame). Because the new barcode requirements are 
laid out in a separate Federal Register proceeding, we removed them 
from this final rule.

Summary of Comments

    We published a proposal for comment in the Federal Register (72 FR 
57507) on October 10, 2007. We received comments from 24 mailers, seven 
associations, four presort bureaus, three

[[Page 25510]]

large printers, and two consultants. We appreciate the time these 
commenters took to detail their questions, concerns, and suggestions. 
We also appreciate the sample mailpieces that many mailers included to 
illustrate their feedback.

Comments on Address Placement

    Twenty-eight commenters objected to the proposed standards for 
address placement that would require the delivery address to be 3 
inches (for horizontal addresses) or 2.5 inches (for vertical 
addresses) from the top of a mailpiece. These commenters objected for 
creative reasons, financial reasons, or both.
    Twenty-five of these commenters cited a loss of design options, on 
a mailpiece cover or coverwrap, or on an insert showing through 
polywrap. These commenters said the new address placement would 
compromise their cover designs and result in mailpieces that look 
``tacky'' or ``cheap.''
    We did not intend to compromise mailpiece design. In response to 
these concerns, we revised our standards to allow mailers to place the 
delivery address within the top half of their mailpieces. While we 
strongly prefer the address as close to the top as possible, the top 
half provides additional design options for most mailpieces. For 
example, on a typical 8- by 11-inch magazine with an address positioned 
parallel to the top edge, our proposal would have required the address 
within the top 3 inches. The revised standards allow this address 
anywhere within the top half--5.5 inches in this example--providing an 
additional 2.5-inch band for the address.
    For pieces addressed vertically, we will allow the delivery address 
to run into the bottom half of the mailpiece if the address is placed 
within 1 inch of the top edge. This caveat will ensure that mailers can 
use vertical addresses on shorter pieces, where the delivery address 
might not fit entirely within the top half, and provides many design 
options overall for these types of flats.
    We note that many mailpieces already comply with the new address 
placement standards. We have also received publications from mailers 
who successfully moved their addresses into compliance with our 
proposal. These mailers did not indicate that the design of their 
mailpieces had been compromised as a result.
    Several commenters objected to the standards that prohibit a 
horizontal address from appearing upside-down as read in relation to 
the top edge. These commenters point out that the address would be 
upside down on an unenveloped piece when the spine is to the left, as a 
publication is normally held. They raise concerns about response cards 
that appear on the front of a publication (usually on a cover wrap) 
that include the delivery address and solicit a reply. These commenters 
foresee a loss of revenue from decreased subscriber renewal rates and 
decreased advertising response rates if they place the address upside 
down on their reply cards.
    We note that the new standards still provide mailers with the 
option to position a response card vertically on a mailpiece, with the 
address reading either to the left or to the right. A horizontal 
address, which would appear upside down when the spine is positioned on 
the left, is not required.
    A total of 21 commenters objected to the address placement 
standards for financial reasons, stating that the new requirements 
would adversely affect their costs or their ability to generate 
revenue. In addition to the concerns about response rates noted above, 
these commenters explained that the new requirements would add costs 
for spot-glue on inserts and onserts; new or reconfigured equipment and 
mailing software; and larger address labels or new window envelopes.
    The revised standards, which allow the delivery address within the 
top half of a mailpiece, provide additional options for many mailpieces 
and should lessen the impact of the change across the flats mailstream. 
We are providing a year-long implementation timeframe to allow mailers 
to prepare for the new standards, adjust mailpiece design if needed, 
and obtain any new mailing supplies and equipment. We are committed to 
working with mailers to reduce the total cost of the flats mailstream. 
Matching mail preparation requirements to processing and delivery needs 
will help the Postal Service and the mailing industry achieve a lowest-
combined-cost system.
    Flats mail volume exceeded 52 billion pieces in 2007 and 
represented about one-quarter of the total volume. The new address 
standards provide a significant opportunity to improve efficiency and 
save costs for both mailers and the Postal Service.
    Four commenters objected to placing delivery addresses over their 
magazine titles. Our standards do not require or encourage mailers to 
place the delivery address over their publication titles. To clarify, 
publications mailed in polybags have three options to avoid covering 
the title: at the foot of the front cover, the foot of the back cover, 
or at the head of the back cover. For publications that are not mailed 
in polybags, our standards specifically prevent mailers from placing an 
address in the traditional title area of a magazine or catalog (the 
head of the front cover). See illustration titled, ``Front of Flat-Size 
Mailpiece.'' Existing mailing standards for Periodicals publications 
specify that the publication title must be displayed prominently on the 
publication and any protective cover. Our new address standards do not 
change this practice.

[[Page 25511]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY08.011

    Two commenters explained that their addresses may not comply on 
letter-size pieces that become flats if filled to more than \1/4\-inch 
thick. While some mailers may need to adjust their mailpieces if they 
are used for mailing at both the letter and the flats prices, major 
changes are not needed in many instances. The new standards allow the 
delivery address in all but the center of a letter-size piece, and many 
mailers might make an adjustment by moving the address area to the 
right or the left (the ``top'' is either of the shorter edges on an 
enveloped piece, meaning the right or left edge on a typical letter). 
The postage and return address areas are not affected by our new 
standards. For mailers who must make adjustments, we are providing a 
year to meet the new standards and exhaust existing mailpiece stock.

Comments on Address Characteristics

    Thirteen commenters objected to the 8-point type size requirement 
because it will require larger address labels than the labels they are 
currently using. In response to these concerns, we reduced the 
requirement to 6-point type (using all capital letters) on pieces that 
bear a POSTNET or an Intelligent Mail barcode that contains a delivery 
point routing code. In our models, we were able to place an Intelligent 
Mail barcode, the barcode clear zone, and at least six lines of text on 
a 1-inch label.
    We are also shortening optional endorsement lines and allowing 
mailers to place mailer-specified information (such as customer 
numbers) to the left of the optional endorsement line when OneCode 
ACSTM is used. We will publish more information about these 
initiatives in a separate DMM[supreg] revision. In addition, the 
Intelligent Mail barcode will give mailers new opportunities to save 
space in the address block.
    Six commenters objected to addressing automation pieces with 
individual characters and address lines that do not touch or overlap. 
These commenters said that the proposed standards would exclude 
handwriting and script fonts from automation pricing.
    We developed these standards on the basis of engineering tests of 
our optical character reader systems, which showed a significant drop 
in read rates for addresses with elements that touch or overlap. Some 
results showed as much as a 50 percent drop in read rates when the 
characters and lines are not clearly separated. Our processing systems 
must be able to read the recipient name in addition to the address (or 
barcode) to accurately route mailpieces.
    We do agree that many machine-printed script fonts will process 
adequately on our systems, even though these addresses will not achieve 
the highest read rates. To assist mailers who need these types of fonts 
to personalize or stylize their mailpieces, we changed the standard to 
specify that the individual characters in the address can touch, but 
cannot overlap. This standard will allow machine-printed script 
addresses. While we strongly prefer a sans-serif type of font, two 
script fonts that we have observed with adequate read rates are 
Monotype Corsiva and Bradley Hand ITC.
    Our revised standards still exclude most handwritten addresses, 
because we cannot process pieces with overlapping

[[Page 25512]]

characters and undelineated address lines with acceptable read rates. 
In addition, our carriers rely on legible addresses to accurately sort 
their mail and delineate delivery stops on their routes. Handwriting is 
often difficult to read and impacts delivery efficiency.
    Five commenters objected to the requirement that each address 
element be separated by no more than three blank character spaces. 
These commenters stated that this standard is too limiting for software 
systems that use fixed field lengths. We revised the standard to allow 
mailers to separate address elements by a maximum of five blank spaces. 
The new standard will ensure readability and routing accuracy by 
keeping all address elements associated to the core address block, and 
not mistaken for extraneous information.
    Five commenters asked us to clarify our measurements for type size. 
We revised the standards to specify that each character in the delivery 
address must be at least 0.080 inch tall (0.065 inch for pieces bearing 
a POSTNET or an Intelligent Mail barcode that contains a delivery point 
routing code). These minimums apply to the height of the actual printed 
letter or figure (sometimes referred to as the ``figure set'' or ``font 
set''). Four commenters asked us to clarify our definition of ``blank 
character spaces.'' We specify that a ``blank'' character space can 
equal the width of the widest character in the address.
    Two commenters objected to our preferred Arial font. We agree that 
many sans-serif fonts are similar to Arial and will process with 
acceptable read rates. We expanded our preference to ``a sans-serif 
font.'' We also added a preference for all capital letters to further 
define best addressing practices.
    Two commenters asked us to clarify indicia placement, and one 
commenter asked us to allow additional options. The new address 
standards do not change the existing four options for indicia placement 
listed in DMM 604.5.3.4, and we are not considering new options at this 
time. We will continue to evaluate indicia placement and modify the 
standards as needed.

Comments Related to Implementation

    Ten commenters objected to the implementation date, stating that 
FSS volumes will be minimal next year and the new rules should coincide 
with fuller deployment. We disagree with these commenters. We need the 
new address standards as FSS is deployed across the country, not after, 
and we need new standards for carrier readability today. We can capture 
these efficiencies as soon as these changes are implemented, and we 
will continually evaluate the requirements and work with mailers to 
ensure that mail processing and mail preparation are aligned in the 
future.
    Nine commenters asked for information about acceptance procedures, 
tolerances, and penalties. We are still developing the policies that 
will apply to mailpieces that do not comply. We clarified the standards 
to specify a minimum measurement for type size, simplified the address 
placement standards, and broadened the spacing requirements. These 
changes eliminate uncertainty about these issues at acceptance and give 
mailers as much latitude as possible as they design and print their 
mailpieces.
    Five commenters asked for a second proposal to clarify the 
requirements, extend the implementation timeframe, and specify 
acceptance procedures and penalties. We do not agree that a second 
proposal is needed. Our final rule gives more options for most 
mailpieces, clarifies the new standards, and provides a full year for 
mailers to prepare for the changes. We will continue to work with 
mailers during this time to ensure a smooth transition to the new 
standards. We will also re-evaluate the new address criteria as the 
mailstream changes, and strengthen or lessen the requirements if 
needed, as we do with all of our mailing standards.

Presort Bureau Comments

    Four commenters sent similar letters on behalf of presort bureaus 
that use multi-line optical character reader (MLOCR) technology, 
explaining that they consolidate mailpieces from many mailers into 
large mailings that may be mailed at discounted prices. These 
mailpieces are addressed before they reach the presort bureau, and 
commenters stated that they cannot ensure that all pieces are addressed 
correctly. We note that presort bureaus consolidate mailings that must 
meet many standards for the postage prices claimed.
    These commenters also stated that, if their MLOCR technology can 
read an address and spray a barcode, postal technology should also be 
able to read the address and the resulting barcode. We agree that 
pieces bearing an accurate POSTNET or Intelligent Mail barcode with a 
delivery point routing code can use a smaller address type size. We 
lessened the requirement to 6-point type (using all capital letters) 
for these pieces. We cannot eliminate the other address requirements. 
For acceptable read rates, our tests indicate that we need delivery 
addresses in 8-point type, with distinguishable characters and address 
lines, and with each element associated to the core address block.
    These commenters also raised concerns about how we will verify 
address format and the penalties for noncompliance in a combined 
mailing. They explained that sampling a consolidated mailing might 
reveal a disproportionate number of noncompliant addresses, since a 
given customer's mailpieces may not be randomly distributed throughout 
a mailing. We plan to verify addressing the same way we verify other 
standards in a combined mailing today. When an error is discovered, we 
attempt to trace the error back to an individual mailing and assess any 
additional postage on that portion only.
    Five commenters assert that the new address placement and 
formatting requirements should not apply to mail entered by presort 
bureaus and other mailers with similar business models. The new 
standards will apply to all flats mailed at automation, presorted, or 
carrier route prices.

Summary of Changes From Proposed to Final Rule

    We specified in DMM 302.1.2 and 2.4 that each character in the 
address must be at least 0.080 inch high. We changed our font 
preference to ``sans-serif'' and added another preference for using all 
capital letters.
    We revised the standards for automation pieces in DMM 302.2.4 to 
allow the individual characters in the address to touch but not 
overlap, to allow up to five blank character spaces between each 
address element, and to allow addresses in 6-point type (using all 
capital letters) when a POSTNET or an Intelligent Mail barcode with a 
delivery point routing code is used. We also defined a ``blank'' space 
as equal to the width of the widest character in the address.
    We changed the terminology in DMM 302.2.0 from ``address block'' to 
``delivery address'' for clarity. We revised the address placement 
standards in DMM 302.2.2 and 2.3 to require the entire delivery address 
within the top half of the mailpiece. We made related changes to the 
illustrations. We added a caveat that vertical addresses may cross the 
midline of a mailpiece if they are placed within 1 inch of the top 
edge.
    We revised DMM 302.2.2 to specify that when the delivery address is 
placed on an insert and polywrapped with the host piece, the address 
``must meet the placement standards throughout processing and 
delivery.'' We removed the word ``secured'' because some inserts may 
meet this standard without

[[Page 25513]]

being affixed. We revised DMM 707.3.2.3 and 3.3.10 for clarity.
    We removed the proposed barcode standards for automation pieces, 
because those standards are now handled in a separate Federal Register 
proceeding.
    We adopt the following amendments to Mailing Standards of the 
United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated 
by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

0
Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 111 is amended as follows:

PART 111--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR Part 111 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 
416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, 
and 5001.

0
2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United 
States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows:
* * * * *

300 Discount Mail: Flats

* * * * *

302 Elements on the Face of a Mailpiece

1.0 All Mailpieces

* * * * *
    [Revise 1.2 as follows:]

1.2 Delivery Address

    The delivery address specifies the location to which the USPS is to 
deliver a mailpiece. Except for mail prepared with detached address 
labels under 602.4.0, the mailpiece must have the address of the 
intended recipient, visible and legible, only on the side of the piece 
bearing postage (periodicals do not display postage and the address may 
appear on either side). Use at least 8-point type (each character must 
be at least 0.080 inch high). A sans-serif font is preferred. Addresses 
printed in all capital letters are also preferred. Additional standards 
apply to presorted, automation-compatible, and carrier route flats 
mailed at First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, Bound Printed 
Matter, Media Mail, and Library Mail prices (see 2.0).
* * * * *
    [Renumber 2.0 through 4.0 as 3.0 through 5.0. Insert new 2.0 as 
follows:]

2.0 Address Placement

2.1 Basic Standards

    On all Periodicals, Standard Mail, Bound Printed Matter, Media 
Mail, and Library Mail flats mailed at presorted, automation, or 
carrier route prices, mailers must place the delivery address at least 
\1/8\ inch from any edge of the mailpiece. For the purposes of these 
standards, the ``delivery address'' is defined as the recipient's name 
or other identification; the company information line; the street and 
number, and any necessary secondary information; and the city, state, 
and ZIP Code. The delivery address may appear on the front or the back 
of the mailpiece (but must be on the side bearing postage, except for 
Periodicals), parallel or perpendicular to the top edge, but it cannot 
be upside down as read in relation to the top edge. See 2.2 for 
additional standards for enveloped or polywrapped pieces, and 2.3 for 
bound or folded pieces not in envelopes or polywrap.

2.2 Address Placement on Enveloped or Polywrapped Pieces

    The following standards apply to enveloped or polywrapped 
Periodicals, Standard Mail, Bound Printed Matter, Media Mail, and 
Library Mail flats mailed at presorted, automation, or carrier route 
prices:

0
a. The ``top'' of the mailpiece is either of the shorter edges.
0
b. The entire delivery address must be within the top half of the 
mailpiece (see Exhibit 2.2). Optimal placement is at the top edge 
(while maintaining the \1/8\-inch clearance requirement). If a vertical 
address will not fit entirely within the top half, the address may 
cross the midpoint if it is placed within 1 inch of the top edge.
0
c. When the delivery address is placed on an insert polywrapped with 
the host piece, the address must meet the placement standards 
throughout processing and delivery.

[[Page 25514]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY08.012

2.3 Address Placement on Bound or Folded Pieces

    The following standards apply to bound or folded Periodicals, 
Standard Mail, Bound Printed Matter, Media Mail, and Library Mail flats 
mailed at presorted, automation, or carrier route prices not in 
envelopes or polywrap:

0
a. The ``top'' is the upper edge of the mailpiece when the bound or 
final folded edge is vertical and on the right side of the piece. 
Exception: For Carrier Route (or Enhanced Carrier Route) saturation 
pieces, the ``top'' of the mailpiece is either of the shorter edges.
0
b. The entire delivery address must be within the top half of the 
mailpiece (see Exhibit 2.3). Optimal placement is at the top edge 
(while maintaining the \1/8\-inch clearance requirement). If a vertical 
address will not fit entirely within the top half, the address may 
cross the midpoint if it is placed within 1 inch of the top edge.

[[Page 25515]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MY08.013

2.4 Type Size and Line Spacing

    On all First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, Bound Printed 
Matter, Media Mail, and Library Mail flats mailed at presorted, 
automation, or carrier route prices, mailers must print the delivery 
address using at least 8-point type (each character must be at least 
0.080 inch high). A sans serif font is preferred. Addresses printed in 
all capital letters are also preferred. These additional standards 
apply to automation price pieces:

0
a. The individual characters in the address cannot overlap. The 
individual lines in the address cannot touch or overlap. A minimum 
0.028-inch clear space between lines is preferred.
0
b. Each element on each line of the address may be separated by no more 
than five blank character spaces. One or two blank spaces is preferred. 
For example, ``ANYTOWN US 12345,'' not ``ANYTOWN US 12345.'' A 
``blank'' character space can equal the width of the widest character 
in the address.
0
c. For pieces that bear a POSTNET barcode with a delivery point routing 
code under 708.4.2 or an Intelligent Mail barcode with a delivery point 
routing code under 708.4.3, mailers may print the delivery address in a 
minimum of 6-point type (each character must be at least 0.065 inch 
high) when all capital letters are used.
* * * * *

330 First-Class Mail

333 Prices and Eligibility

* * * * *

3.0 Eligibility Standards for First-Class Mail Flats

* * * * *

3.3 Additional Basic Standards for First-Class Mail

    All presorted First-Class Mail must:
* * * * *
    [Revise introductory text in item f to reference the new address 
standards as follows (no change to items 1, 2, or 3):]

0
f. Bear a delivery address formatted according to 302.2.4 that includes 
the correct ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code and that meets these address quality 
standards:
* * * * *

340 Standard Mail

343 Prices and Eligibility

* * * * *

3.0 Basic Standards for Standard Mail Flats

* * * * *

3.3 Additional Basic Standards for Standard Mail

    Each Standard Mail mailing is subject to these general standards:
* * * * *
    [Revise item e to reference the new address standards as follows:]

0
e. Each mailpiece must bear the addressee's name and delivery address, 
including the correct ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code, except as allowed when 
using alternative addressing formats under 602.3.0 or detached address 
labels under 602.4.0. Format and position the delivery address 
according to 302.2.0.
* * * * *

360 Bound Printed Matter

363 Prices and Eligibility

* * * * *

[[Page 25516]]

2.0 Basic Eligibility Standards for Bound Printed Matter

* * * * *

2.3 Delivery and Return Addresses

    [Revise 2.3 to reference the new address standards as follows:] 
    All BPM mail must bear a delivery address formatted and positioned 
according to 302.2.0. The delivery address must include the correct ZIP 
Code or ZIP+4 code. Alternative addressing formats under 602.3.0 may be 
used. Except for unendorsed BPM, each mailpiece must bear the sender's 
return address.
* * * * *

370 Media Mail

373 Prices and Eligibility

* * * * *

3.0 Price Eligibility for Media Mail Flats

* * * * *

3.3 Delivery and Return Addresses

    [Revise 3.3 to reference the new address standards as follows:] 
    All Media Mail must bear a delivery address formatted and 
positioned according to 302.2.0. The delivery address must include the 
correct ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code. Alternative addressing formats under 
602.3.0 or detached address labels under 602.4.0 may be used. Each 
mailpiece must bear the sender's return address.
* * * * *

380 Library Mail

383 Prices and Eligibility

* * * * *

3.0 Price Eligibility for Library Mail Flats

* * * * *

3.3 Delivery and Return Addresses

    [Revise 3.3 to reference the new address standards as follows:] 
    All Library Mail must bear a delivery address formatted and 
positioned according to 302.2.0. The delivery address must include the 
correct ZIP Code or ZIP+4 code. Alternative addressing formats under 
602.3.0 or detached address labels under 602.4.0 may be used. Each 
mailpiece must bear the sender's return address.
* * * * *

700 Special Standards

* * * * *

707 Periodicals

* * * * *

3.0 Physical Characteristics and Content Eligibility

* * * * *

3.2 Addressing

* * * * *

3.2.3 Address Placement

    [Revise 3.2.3 to reference the new address standards as follows:] 
    The delivery address must be clearly visible on or through the 
outside of the mailpiece, whether placed on a label or directly on the 
host publication, a component, or the mailing wrapper. The following 
standards apply:

0
a. For flat-size pieces, mailers must follow the additional address 
placement and formatting standards in 302.2.0.
0
b. If the address is placed on the mailing wrapper, the address must be 
on a flat side, not on a fold.
0
c. If a polybag is used:
0
1. The address must not appear on a component that rotates within the 
bag.
0
2. The address must remain visible throughout the addressed component's 
range of motion.
0
3. The address must maintain placement according to 302.2.0 throughout 
processing and delivery. The address must not shift into a noncompliant 
position.
* * * * *
    [Delete Exhibit 3.2.4, Address Placement for Periodicals.]
* * * * *

3.3 Permissible Mailpiece Components

* * * * *

3.3.10 Label Carrier

    A label carrier may be used to carry the delivery address for the 
mailpiece and must consist of a single unfolded, uncreased sheet of 
card or paper stock, securely affixed to the cover of the publication 
or large enough so that it does not rotate inside the wrapper, subject 
to these conditions:
* * * * *
    [Insert new item e as follows:]

0
e. For flat-size pieces, the label carrier must maintain address 
placement according to 302.2.0 throughout processing and delivery. The 
address on the label carrier must not shift into a noncompliant 
position.
* * * * *

Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
 [FR Doc. E8-8621 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P