62578 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

DISTRICT QUARTERLY REPORT—3RD QUARTER 2004—Continued

District docket Location Type Effective 

date 

St. Louis 04–004 .................................................... St. Louis, MO ......................................................... Security Zone ................. 7/2/2004 

St. Louis 04–005 .................................................... Davenport, IA ......................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/3/2004 

St. Louis 04–006 .................................................... Moline, IL ................................................................ Safety Zone ................... 7/25/2004 

St. Louis 04–007 .................................................... Davenport, IA ......................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/25/2004 

St. Louis 04–008 .................................................... Davenport, IA ......................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/26/2004 

St. Louis 04–009 .................................................... Kansas City, MO .................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/1/2004 

St. Louis 04–010 .................................................... LaGrange, MO ....................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/31/2004 

St. Louis 04–011 .................................................... Hannibal, MO ......................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/1/2004 

St. Louis 04–012 .................................................... Kansas City, MO .................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–013 .................................................... Missouri River, KS ................................................. Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–014 .................................................... Missouri River, KS ................................................. Safety Zone ................... 7/2/2004 

St. Louis 04–015 .................................................... Upper Mississippi River, MO ................................. Safety Zone ................... 7/15/2004 

St. Louis 04–016 .................................................... St. Paul, MN ........................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/3/2004 

St. Louis 04–017 .................................................... Bellevue, IA ............................................................ Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–018 .................................................... Clinton, IA ............................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–019 .................................................... Upper Mississippi River, IA .................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/3/2004 

St. Louis 04–020 .................................................... East Moline, IL ....................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–021 .................................................... Ft. Madison, IA ....................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–022 .................................................... Illinois River, IL ....................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–023 .................................................... Illinois River, IL ....................................................... Safety Zone ................... 7/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–025 .................................................... Missouri River, NE ................................................. Safety Zone ................... 7/17/2004 

St. Louis 04–026 .................................................... Missouri River, KS ................................................. Safety Zone ................... 7/24/2004 

St. Louis 04–027 .................................................... Leclaire, IA ............................................................. Safety Zone ................... 8/14/2004 

St. Louis 04–028 .................................................... Kaskaskia River, IL ................................................ Safety Zone ................... 8/15/2004 

St. Louis 04–029 .................................................... Upper Mississippi River, IL .................................... Safety Zone ................... 8/14/2004 

St. Louis 04–030 .................................................... Davenport, IA ......................................................... Security Zone ................. 8/4/2004 

St. Louis 04–034 .................................................... Lake of the Ozarks, MO ......................................... Safety Zone ................... 8/29/2004 

St. Louis 04–037 .................................................... Missouri River, MO ................................................ Safety Zone ................... 9/18/2004 

St. Louis 04–038 .................................................... Missouri River, ,MO ............................................... Safety Zone ................... 9/24/2004 

St. Louis 04–039 .................................................... Upper Mississippi River, IA .................................... Safety Zone ................... 9/18/2004 

St. Louis 04–040 .................................................... Upper Mississippi River, MN .................................. Security Zone ................. 9/16/2004 

Tampa 04–110 ....................................................... Tampa Bay, FL ...................................................... Safety Zone ................... 9/10/2004 

[FR Doc. 04–23965 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111 

Eligibility Requirements for Standard 

Mail

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this final rule the Postal 

Service adopts an amendment to 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 

standards concerning material eligible 

for mailing at Standard Mail postage 

rates. The revised standards clarify the 

circumstances in which mail containing 

‘‘personal’’ information may be eligible 

for Standard Mail, rather than FirstClass Mail, rates. The amendment also 

reorganizes and renumbers other 

standards for First-Class Mail and 

Standard Mail to better describe the 

service provided under each class.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sherry Freda, Manager, Mailing 

Standards, United States Postal Service, 

202–268–7261.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register on April 19, 2004 (69 FR 

20841), the Postal Service proposed an 

amendment to Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) standards governing material 

eligible for mailing at Standard Mail 

postage rates. The Postal Service adopts 

the proposal, with modifications, for the 

reasons explained below. 

Background and Summary 

As discussed in the proposal, Postal 

Service standards for First-Class Mail 

and Standard Mail are based, in part, on 

laws enacted by Congress and the 

specifications in the Domestic Mail 

Classification Schedule (DMCS). These 

DMCS standards specify that printed 

material weighing less than 16 ounces 

may be sent as Standard Mail if it is not 

required to be entered as First-Class 

Mail. Generally, mail wholly or partially 

in handwriting or typewriting, mail 

sealed against postal inspection, 

material having the character of actual 

and personal correspondence, and bills 

and statements of account must be 

mailed as First-Class Mail or Express 

Mail. 

Printed material, much of which is 

prepared by computer, often qualifies at 

Standard Mail rates, but not always. If 

it includes personal information, 

printed material may have the character 

of actual and personal correspondence 

and be subject to First-Class Mail rates. 

However, under certain limited 

conditions, printed material containing 

personal information may be eligible for 

Standard Mail rates. 

Over the last several years this 

provision has become more significant 

as advances in technology enabled 

mailers to increase the amount of 

‘‘personal information’’ in computergenerated mailings, including 

advertising material typically entered as 

Standard Mail. In turn, this change has 

led to questions whether these mailings, 

including tax mailings, warranty 

information, proxy materials, financial 

services mailings such as credit card 

and equity loan advertisements, and 

others, would qualify as Standard Mail. 

As a result, in response to requests from 

postal customers for greater clarity on 

Standard Mail eligibility, the Postal 

Service determined to undertake this 

rulemaking. 

The main focus of the proposal was 

the adoption of more explicit 

guidance—a ‘‘bright line’’—concerning 

the inclusion of personal information in 

Standard Mail. Other eligibility 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62579

standards are left substantively 

unchanged, although they were 

reorganized for clarity and to better 

describe postal services. 

Clarifying the circumstances in which 

personal information may be included 

in Standard Mail is important for both 

the Postal Service and its customers. All 

parties—the Postal Service, mailers, and 

mail recipients—benefit from the 

provision of services that are fairly 

priced and secure. Customers need 

certainty in the prices they will pay for 

their mail, for budgeting and planning. 

Customers also need assurance that they 

are charged the same prices as other 

customers are charged for similar mail. 

From a postal perspective, consistent 

administration of mail acceptance and 

classification is a vital concern, and it 

is critical that all customers pay the 

proper rate of postage on their mail. 

Nevertheless, the Postal Service 

recognizes that it does not have 

unlimited rulemaking discretion in this 

area. The Domestic Mail Manual 

standards must be consistent with the 

provisions in the DMCS. Those 

provisions are established under 

procedures set forth in the Postal 

Reorganization Act and require a 

recommendation from the independent 

Postal Rate Commission (PRC) following 

a Postal Service request to effect 

changes. Therefore, while some 

commenters suggested radical revisions 

to the standards in this area, these 

revisions in many cases would require 

DMCS changes not contemplated in this 

rulemaking. Other commenters raised 

issues that are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking and are not addressed here, 

such as comments concerning the 

procedures for issuing administrative 

decisions or disclaimers regarding 

solicitations in the guise of bills, 

invoices, or statements of account 

required by 39 U.S.C. 3001(d)(2)(A).

This rulemaking is the first on this 

subject since the Postal Service created 

standards in the early 1980s recognizing 

technological advancements that 

permitted the inclusion of personal 

information in advertising material 

historically sent as Standard Mail. 

Before that rulemaking, the inclusion of 

any personal information in a mailpiece 

caused its classification as First-Class 

Mail. The examples that motivated that 

rulemaking involved instances where 

the only reason for inclusion of the 

personal information in the mailpiece 

was to support advertising or a 

solicitation for funds to a charitable 

organization. As explained in the 

proposal, the Postal Service continues to 

stand by the principles underlying that 

rulemaking and the policy that these 

advertising or solicitation mailings 

should be entitled to entry at Standard 

Mail rates. 

The mailpieces that have prompted 

concerns among mailers and the Postal 

Service are those that contain personal 

information that is included for a reason 

other than the support of advertising or 

a charitable solicitation. In some cases, 

the personal information supports an 

advertisement or solicitation but is also 

included for other reasons. And, in 

other cases, the personal information is 

not included to support an 

advertisement or solicitation, but is 

included only for other purposes. As an 

example, a mailpiece might convey to 

an addressee the specific terms of an 

insurance policy to which the addressee 

recently subscribed, such as the 

premiums, coverage, and policy 

conditions. This is personal information 

and is conveyed to the addressee to 

confirm the coverage he or she 

purchased. Similar mailpieces also 

might include a request that the 

addressee consider purchasing 

additional coverage. 

Another example might involve a firm 

that sells radios, computers, and clocks. 

The firm mails a warranty to customers 

who purchased computers. The mailing 

includes personal information that 

specifies the computer by model 

number, serial number, price, 

manufacturer, and date of purchase, and 

also features specific warranty 

provisions applicable to the product. 

The mailpiece advises the addressee/

purchaser to retain the correspondence 

for his or her records. The specific 

information in the mailpiece associating 

the addressee to his or her computer 

purchase is considered personal 

information. Some of the firm’s mailings 

also include advertising for radios, 

clocks, and other products sold by the 

firm. 

Consistent with the principles 

underlying the rulemaking in the 1980s, 

the Postal Service believes it vital to 

consider the purposes for which 

personal information is included in a 

mailpiece. Where the personal 

information is included solely to 

support an advertisement or charitable 

solicitation, the mail will not be 

considered to have the character of 

actual and personal correspondence and 

may be eligible for Standard Mail rates 

(assuming it meets other applicable 

standards). In contrast, where the 

personal information is included for 

other purposes—rather than only to 

support a related advertisement or 

solicitation—the mailpiece will be 

considered to have the character of 

actual and personal correspondence and 

will not be eligible for Standard Mail 

rates. Accordingly, in the examples 

discussed above, the personal 

information is included to support 

purposes other than advertising, either 

in whole or in part, and the mailpieces 

are properly classified as First-Class 

Mail. 

Summary of Comments 

The Postal Service received 402 

written comments in response to its 

proposal, including several that were 

received late but were considered. The 

commenters were diverse, including 

approximately 350 nonprofit 

organizations and organizations 

representing such organizations; 

Congressional representatives; private 

individuals; advocacy and political 

campaign constituencies; financial 

industry representatives; Periodicals 

industry representatives; and 

commenters concerned about privacy 

issues. 

Nearly all comments agreed with the 

Postal Service’s goal to provide clearer 

guidance when mail containing 

personal information may be entered as 

Standard Mail. There were a variety of 

views on the effectiveness of the 

proposed changes, and many 

commenters suggested improvements. A 

small number suggested that the 

proposal be withdrawn and a new 

proposal considered, possibly following 

discussions with mailer groups. The 

Postal Service has carefully considered 

these comments and, in some respects, 

has modified the proposed rule. In other 

areas of concern, we are providing a 

more thorough explanation in this final 

rule or in other publicly available 

rulings, such as Customer Support 

Rulings (CSRs) on Postal Explorer 

(http://pe.usps.gov). Since we believe 

that these actions satisfy the concerns 

expressed by commenters, we find that 

it is not necessary to withdraw the 

proposal and initiate a further 

rulemaking process. 

Comments Analysis 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that application of the proposed 

‘‘exclusive purpose’’ test could cause 

mailings to be classified as First-Class 

Mail because of the inclusion of 

nonpersonal information in the 

mailpiece. This concern was most often 

expressed by nonprofit organizations 

and their representatives, who 

explained that many nonprofit mailings 

contain educational or other purely 

informational material in addition to 

solicitations for donations. These 

comments are well taken. Upon 

reviewing the proposal, the Postal 

Service agrees that a literal application 

of the proposed standard might result in 

62580 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

unintended consequences and has 

determined to revise the language. 

For example, assume a mailpiece 

entered by an authorized nonprofit 

organization included a cover letter 

seeking donations from members. The 

letter lists the member’s donation from 

the previous year, which is considered 

personal information, and urges the 

member to double the amount this year. 

The only purpose for the personal 

information (the amount of the previous 

donation) is to support the solicitation 

for donations. However, also included 

in the mailpiece is a preprinted flyer 

outlining the extent of famine 

conditions internationally and 

explaining the organization’s recent 

efforts concerning disaster relief. The 

purpose of this flyer is, at least in part, 

educational.

The Postal Service believes this 

mailpiece, as described, should be 

eligible for Standard Mail rates, since 

the inclusion of purely nonpersonal, 

informational printed material should 

not disqualify it from the use of 

Standard Mail rates. However, that 

conclusion would be open to question 

under a literal application of the 

proposed rule, particularly proposed 

E610.3.1c, which considers whether the 

exclusive purpose of the ‘‘mailpiece’’ is 

advertising or a solicitation of 

donations. 

Although the Postal Service agrees 

that the concerns raised by nonprofits 

have merit, it has determined to adopt 

a different remedy than suggested. The 

remedy proposed by these commenters 

would apply only to nonprofit 

organizations. The Postal Service 

believes that excluding other mailers is 

inappropriate, since the inclusion of 

purely nonpersonal, informational 

material should not disqualify other 

mailers from using Standard Mail rates. 

Additionally, some commenters 

suggest a test where advertising or 

solicitation must be the primary (rather 

than the exclusive) purpose of the 

mailing. We believe that this test would 

be difficult to administer. In the 

example of the nonprofit mailing above, 

how would we determine the primary 

purpose of the mailpiece? Additionally, 

we find that a primary purpose test is 

unnecessary, if not inappropriate, in 

this context, because the amount of 

purely nonpersonal, printed 

informational material should not 

disqualify a mailpiece from the use of 

Standard Mail rates. In short, we do not 

believe the classification of a mailpiece 

should hinge on whether the solicitation 

or provision of nonpersonal information 

is the primary purpose of the mailpiece, 

as long as all personal information is 

included only to support the advertising 

or solicitation content. 

This approach is consistent with the 

principle underlying the early 1980s 

rulemaking. Thus, in the nonprofit 

example described above, if the only 

purpose for including the personal 

information is to support a solicitation 

for donations, the inclusion of the 

personal information should not cause 

the piece to be classified as First-Class 

Mail. Further, the inclusion of purely 

nonpersonal educational or other 

informational content in the mailpiece 

should not disqualify the mailpiece 

from entry at Standard Mail rates, 

regardless of the amount of such 

information or its ratio to the amount of 

advertising content, subject to 

applicable weight limits for Standard 

Mail. Accordingly, we are deleting 

proposed E610.3.1c and substituting the 

following: ‘‘The exclusive reason for 

inclusion of all of the personal 

information is to support the advertising 

or solicitation in the mailpiece.’’

Many of the remaining comments on 

the proposed rule center on two themes: 

a concern that the proposed rule will be 

difficult to administer or result in 

inconsistent decisions, and proposals 

for ‘‘safe harbors’’ for the mail of 

specific industries. The financial 

industry, represented by seven 

commenters, requested a safe harbor for 

certain types of financial services mail, 

such as offers with terms or pricing that 

include pre-approved offers for credit 

and insurance. Another financial 

industry commenter requested a safe 

harbor for mailings required by 

regulations of other federal agencies. 

‘‘[C]hanges to the Title 12—Banks and 

Banking regulations that have resulted 

in written notification to customers. 

***’’ is cited as the example. 

Representatives of authorized Nonprofit 

Standard Mail mailers offered a similar 

suggestion, proposing to permit the 

inclusion of personal information in 

nonprofit mail if it ‘‘advances one or 

more qualifying purposes of the 

organization.’’

A small number of commenters 

representing an election campaign 

constituency claim that they are the 

subject of discrimination, on the basis 

that commercial mailings may be 

eligible for Standard Mail rates while 

sample ballots and other political 

campaign mail containing personal 

information is not. They support the 

intent of the proposed revisions as they 

affect commercial mailings but express 

the opinion that election campaign mail 

does not fit into the same category and 

any revisions ‘‘should specifically 

exempt political mail.’’

The Postal Service does not believe it 

proper, nor believe itself authorized, to 

create ‘‘safe harbors’’ for the mail of 

particular mailers, particular industries, 

or types of customers. The standards in 

the Domestic Mail Manual must be 

consistent with the DMCS and 

applicable statutes. The DMCS creates 

general standards and does not suggest 

that certain types of mail or mailers be 

excepted from standards. This principle 

also is consistent with the Postal 

Reorganization Act, which prohibits the 

Postal Service (except where statutorily 

authorized) from undue or unreasonable 

discrimination among mailers in the 

provision of services (see 39 U.S.C. 

403(c)). 

Moreover, even if the Postal Service 

had the authority to create ‘‘safe 

harbors,’’ their adoption could create 

the type of administrative concerns that 

motivated this rulemaking. We would 

need to define the safe harbors and then 

apply the standards to determine 

whether a mailing meets that category. 

For example, if we adopted a safe harbor 

for financial services mailings 

containing personal information, we 

must define ‘‘financial services’’ mail, 

and then determine whether specific 

mailings fell within that definition. We 

believe that this determination would 

cause significant administrative 

problems.

For similar reasons, permitting 

personal information that supports the 

mission of a nonprofit mailer would be 

difficult to administer. Acceptance 

decisions as to the nature of the mission 

of a nonprofit organization and whether 

the use of personal information 

‘‘supports’’ that mission could become 

highly subjective and lead to 

inconsistencies and contested eligibility 

for nonprofit rates. We have also 

decided not to adopt the suggestion of 

mailers who, concerned with consistent 

application of the proposed standard, 

propose a definitive list of specific types 

of information or mailings required to 

be sent as First-Class Mail. We believe 

that such a list would decrease the 

amount of mail eligible for Standard 

Mail rates. Moreover, we believe that it 

would create, and not ease, 

administrative concerns. First, since the 

business of our customers continues to 

evolve, the Postal Service would have to 

continuously review and revise the list, 

eliminating the certainty the list was 

intended to create. Second, as explained 

above in a different context, the Postal 

Service would have to define each item 

and apply it to an individual mailing. 

Again, we believe that this effort would 

lead to significant administrative 

problems. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62581

A number of commenters also 

expressed concern with the proposed 

‘‘purpose’’ test, believing it might lead 

to inconsistent decisions. We disagree. 

An ‘‘exclusive purpose’’ test should be 

much more consistently applied than a 

‘‘primary purpose’’ test; there is no need 

to weigh various purposes against each 

other to determine which is 

predominant or ‘‘primary.’’ Instead, the 

only issue is whether there is a purpose 

for inclusion of the personal 

information other than the support of an 

advertisement or solicitation. 

Other commenters expressed concern 

about how postal employees will 

discern such a purpose, apparently 

believing that employees will attempt to 

do so based on their perception of the 

mailer’s intent, by ‘‘reading the mind’’

of the mailer. If we were asking this task 

of employees we would recognize that 

the commenters raised a valid concern. 

However, employees will not attempt to 

make a subjective determination of the 

mailer’s intent. As explained in the 

proposal, employees will be trained to 

‘‘make a determination of mailpiece 

eligibility based on the mailpiece itself’’

(see 69 FR 20843). Employees will not 

attempt to ‘‘read the mailer’s mind’’ or 

make decisions based on their personal 

knowledge or belief as to the mailer’s 

intention, but will make decisions based 

on the specific contents of the 

mailpiece. 

For example, a recent case involved 

summaries of expenditures over a 

specific time period (such as a year or 

quarter year). Where such pieces 

indicate that the information can be 

used to assist in tax preparation, for 

planning or budgeting purposes, or 

simply for the addressee’s records, that 

language indicates that the purpose of 

the personal information, at least in 

part, is not to support an advertisement. 

A second example concerns the 

nonprofit solicitation described above. If 

the mailpiece stated that the 

information about the addressee’s 

previous donation could serve as a 

receipt or be used for a tax record, that 

statement would indicate that there is a 

purpose for the information in addition 

to supporting the charitable solicitation.

In addition to these administrative 

concerns, a number of commenters 

requested more guidance as to what 

constitutes ‘‘personal information.’’

Some commenters suggest a list of 

information considered ‘‘personal.’’

Again, such suggestions raise 

administrative concerns. First, if the 

Postal Service were to publish such a 

list, it would be subject to continuous 

review and change as mailer practices 

evolve. Second, we suspect that we 

would be called upon to define each 

item and apply those definitions in the 

context of individual mailings. Again, 

we believe this application would lead 

to significant administrative problems. 

The proposal (69 FR 20843) did 

provide significant guidance about 

personal information. It explained that 

personal information includes ‘‘any 

information specific to the addressee’’

and need not be unique to the 

addressee. This policy is the same as 

exists today. Additionally, we again 

point out that employees are trained to 

determine whether information is 

personal on the basis of the mailpiece 

itself. Our Customer Support Ruling 

concerning proxy statements (CSR PS–

159) provides a good example. When a 

proxy card contains the number of 

shares without identifying the 

information, postal employees cannot 

determine what the number represents 

or whether it is personal to the 

addressee. Accordingly, it would not be 

considered personal information. In 

contrast, when the number is labeled 

‘‘shares,’’ it is clear what the number 

represents, and that it is personal 

information to the addressee. 

One of the comments by an 

organization representing the interests 

of nonprofit organizations took issue 

with the language in the proposed rule 

that requires the advertising or 

solicitation to be ‘‘explicit.’’ The 

commenter argued that mailers may 

sometimes prefer a subtle sell to one 

that ‘‘yells at the addressee.’’

This comment appears to be based on 

a misperception of the proposal. The 

Postal Service is not seeking to direct 

mailers’ advertisement copy. The rule 

does not require a sell that ‘‘yells at the 

addressee.’’ Rather, it requires that the 

mailpiece be clear what product or 

service is offered for sale or lease, no 

matter how hard or soft the advertiser’s 

copy. Moreover, if the product or 

service offered is not identified in the 

mailpiece, it is unlikely that the 

personal information could be directly 

related to it. 

Although we are not adopting the 

specific changes to the standards 

suggested by mailers concerned about 

the consistent application of our 

policies, we remain sensitive to the 

issues raised by these customers. We are 

taking a number of steps to alleviate 

these concerns and ensure the 

consistent application of the rules. We 

will undertake extensive training of 

postal personnel, including training 

emphasizing that these mail 

classification decisions must be based 

upon the content of the mailpiece, 

rather than the employee’s perception or 

personal belief concerning the purposes 

of the mailer or the mailpiece. Second, 

consistent with the recommendations of 

a number of commenters, we are 

reviewing our CSRs on these issues. 

CSRs are ‘‘case studies’’ publicly 

available on the Postal Service’s Postal 

Explorer Web site (http://pe.usps.gov) 

and provide specific guidance 

concerning the application of mailing 

standards. Current CSRs will be updated 

and re-issued in harmony with the 

effective date of the new standards. 

Moreover, both in advance of and 

following the effective date of the new 

standard, the Postal Service will 

consider and issue new CSRs 

concerning ‘‘cases’’ that have arisen, or 

that are expected to arise, under the new 

standards. 

Finally, the Postal Service is willing 

to provide mailers with advance rulings, 

during the planning or pre-production 

stages of their mailings, so that 

customers will have certainty regarding 

the prices they will be asked to pay at 

the acceptance dock. This guidance is 

generally already available to mailers on 

an informal, local basis, and some 

mailers routinely take advantage of this 

opportunity. The Postal Service plans to 

expand the availability of these types of 

rulings. 

Several of the remaining commenters, 

noting privacy and security issues, 

urged that certain types of mailings not 

be permitted to be entered as Standard 

Mail to protect highly personal 

information. One such commenter 

suggested that the Postal Service roll 

back the use of personal information in 

Standard Mail to the ‘‘permissible 

written additions’’ (e.g., name of the 

addressee and marks, numbers, names, 

or letters describing the contents) 

customarily allowed in Standard Mail 

prior to the precedent rulemaking of the 

1980s upon which this clarification is 

based.

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Postal Service will not classify mail 

based on the specific nature of the 

personal information provided in the 

mailpiece or provide a list of personal 

information required to be sent as FirstClass Mail. We note, nonetheless, that 

one effect of this rulemaking will be that 

more mail will be classified properly. 

That is, mail required by standard to be 

entered as First-Class Mail due to the 

inclusion of personal information will 

be identified and entered as First-Class 

Mail. Personal information can be 

included in Standard Mail only in 

limited circumstances, when the 

exclusive reason for inclusion of all of 

the personal information is to support 

the advertising or solicitation in the 

mailpiece. Thus, it is possible that an 

additional consequence of this 

rulemaking will be to reduce the 

62582 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

amount of personal information in 

Standard Mail. 

A small number of commenters were 

concerned that the proposed rule raises 

First Amendment issues. For one, on 

behalf of nonprofit organizations, it is 

argued that ‘‘[C]haritable appeals for 

funds * * * involve a variety of speech 

interests—communication of 

information, the dissemination and 

propagation of views and ideas, and the 

advocacy of causes—that are within the 

protection of the First Amendment.’’

This argument appears to acknowledge 

that the proposed standards are based 

on content of the mail and the assertion 

that the test may not be administered 

consistently. 

It is true that the proposed eligibility 

standards for First-Class Mail and 

Standard Mail, like those that exist 

today for all mail classes, are based on 

the content of the mailpiece. These 

standards are based on the DMCS (as 

well as current and former statutes), and 

the Postal Service is required to follow 

them in the Domestic Mail Manual. The 

Postal Service is not denying service 

based on content, but instead is 

classifying the mail. 

We also disagree, for the reasons 

explained above, that administration of 

the proposed rule, with the 

modifications adopted herein, will be 

difficult or will lead to inconsistency. 

On the contrary, we believe these 

changes will ease efforts to classify 

First-Class Mail and Standard Mail for 

both postal customers and postal 

employees. 

For these reasons, the Postal Service 

adopts the proposed rule with the 

changes stated above.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service.

PART 111—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

■ 2. Revise the following sections of the 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as set 

forth below: 

E Eligibility

* * * * *

E100 First-Class Mail 

E110 Basic Standards 

[Renumber current 2.0 through 5.0 as 

4.0 through 7.0. Replace current 1.0 

with new 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, as follows:] 

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE 

1.1 Service Objectives 

First-Class Mail receives expeditious 

handling and transportation. Service 

objectives for delivery are 1 to 3 days; 

however, delivery time is not 

guaranteed. 

1.2 Rate Options 

First-Class Mail offers the flexibility 

of single-piece rates, and discounted 

rates for mailings of 500 or more pieces 

that weigh 13 ounces or less. 

1.3 Mailable Items 

First-Class Mail may be used for any 

mailable item, including postcards, 

letters, flats, and small packages. 

Customized MarketMail under E660 and 

other restricted material as described in 

C020 may not be mailed as First-Class 

Mail. 

2.0 DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS 

2.1 Inspection of Contents 

First-Class Mail is closed against 

postal inspection. Federal law and 

Postal Service regulations restrict both 

opening and reviewing the contents of 

First-Class Mail by anyone other than 

the addressee. 

2.2 Forwarding Service 

The price of First-Class Mail includes 

forwarding service to a new address for 

up to 12 months.

2.3 Return Service 

The price of First-Class Mail includes 

return service if the mailpiece is 

undeliverable. 

2.4 Extra Services Exclusive to FirstClass Mail 

First-Class Mail is the only class of 

mail eligible to receive the following 

extra services: registered mail service 

and certified mail service. 

2.5 Additional Extra Services 

Additional extra services available 

with First-Class Mail are certificate of 

mailing service, COD service, Delivery 

Confirmation service (parcels only), 

insured mail service (merchandise 

only), return receipt service, restricted 

delivery service, Signature Confirmation 

service (parcels only), and special 

handling. See S900. 

3.0 CONTENT STANDARDS 

3.1 Bills and Statements of Account 

Bills and statements of account must 

be mailed as First-Class Mail (or Express 

Mail) as follows: 

a. Bills and statements of account 

assert a debt in a definite amount owed 

by the addressee to the sender or a third 

party. In addition, bills include a 

demand for payment; statements of 

account do not include a demand for 

payment. The debt does not have to be 

due immediately but may become due at 

a later time or on demand. The debt 

asserted need not be legally collectible 

or owed. 

b. Bills and statements of account do 

not need to state the precise amount due 

if they contain information that would 

enable the debtor to determine that 

amount. 

3.2 Personal Information 

Mail containing personal information 

must be mailed as First-Class Mail (or 

Express Mail). Personal information is 

any information specific to the 

addressee. 

3.3 Handwritten and Typewritten 

Material 

Mail containing handwritten or 

typewritten material must be mailed as 

First-Class Mail (or Express Mail). 

3.4 Material Not Required to be 

Mailed as First-Class Mail 

Mail eligible for Standard Mail or 

Package Services rates under E610 or 

E700 is not required to be mailed as 

First-Class Mail or Express Mail.

* * * * *

E600 Standard Mail 

E610 Basic Standards 

[Renumber current 3.0 through 9.0 as 

4.0 through 10.0. Replace current 1.0 

and 2.0 with new 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, as 

follows:] 

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE 

1.1 Service Objectives 

Standard Mail may receive deferred 

handling. Service objectives for delivery 

are 2 to 9 days; however, delivery time 

is not guaranteed.

1.2 Quantity 

Standard Mail provides economical 

rates for mailings of 200 or more pieces 

or at least 50 pounds of mail. 

2.0 DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS 

2.1 Mailpiece Weight Limit 

All Standard Mail pieces—letters, 

flats, and small packages—must weigh 

less than 16 ounces. 

2.2 Preparation Requirements 

Standard Mail is subject to specific 

volume, marking, and preparation 

requirements. 

2.3 Inspection of Contents 

Standard Mail is not sealed against 

postal inspection. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62583

2.4 Forwarding Service 

The price of Standard Mail does not 

include forwarding service. Forwarding 

is available under F010.5.3. 

2.5 Return Service 

The price of Standard Mail does not 

include return service. Return service is 

available under F010.5.3 for an 

additional fee. 

2.6 Extra Services 

Extra services available with Standard 

Mail are insured mail service (bulk 

insurance only), certificate of mailing 

service (bulk certificate of mailing only), 

return receipt for merchandise service, 

and Delivery Confirmation service 

(parcels only). See S900. 

2.7 Periodicals 

Authorized Periodicals may not be 

entered as Standard Mail unless 

permitted by standard. 

2.8 Identical Pieces 

The contents of printed matter in a 

Standard Mail mailing must be identical 

to a piece sent to at least one other 

addressee. Standard Mail may include 

the addressee’s name and address but 

may not transmit personal information 

except as permitted under 3.0. 

3.0 CONTENT STANDARDS 

3.1 Personal Information 

Personal information may not be 

included in a Standard Mail mailpiece 

unless all of the following conditions 

are met: 

a. The mailpiece contains explicit 

advertising for a product or service for 

sale or lease or an explicit solicitation 

for a donation. 

b. All of the personal information is 

directly related to the advertising or 

solicitation. 

c. The exclusive reason for inclusion 

of all of the personal information is to 

support the advertising or solicitation in 

the mailpiece. 

3.2 Bills and Statements of Account 

Mail containing bills or statements of 

account as defined in E110.3.0 may not 

be entered as Standard Mail except 

under the conditions described in 5.2. 

3.3 Handwritten and Typewritten 

Matter 

Mail containing handwritten or 

typewritten matter may not be entered 

as Standard Mail except under the 

conditions described in 4.0. 

An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR 

part 111 will be published to reflect 

these changes.

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 04–23646 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[PA208–4231; FRL–7822–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania VOC and NOX RACT 

Determinations for National Fuel Gas 

Supply Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. The revision was 

submitted by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) to establish and require 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for the National Fuel Gas 

Supply Corporation located in 

Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these 

revisions to establish RACT 

requirements in the SIP in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 

effective on November 26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, 

DC 20460; Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betty Harris, (215) 814–2168, or by email at harris.betty@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

On July 2, 2003, the Pennsylvania 

DEP submitted formal SIP revisions to 

establish RACT for two sources of VOC 

and NOX located in Pennsylvania. On 

May 24, 2004 (69 FR 29444), EPA 

published a direct final rule (DFR) 

approving revisions to DEP-issued 

operating permits which establish and 

require RACT for the National Fuel Gas 

Supply Corporation’s Roystone 

Compressor Station located in Sheffield, 

Warren County, Pennsylvania (OP 62–

141F) and the Crompton Corporation’s 

facility located in Fairview Township, 

Butler County, Pennsylvania (OP 10–

037). A description of the RACT 

determinations and EPA’s rationale for 

approving them were provided in the 

May 24, 2004 DFR and will not be 

restated herein. In accordance with 

direct final rulemaking procedures, on 

May 24, 2004 (69 FR 29480), EPA also 

published a companion notice of 

proposed rulemaking on these SIP 

revisions inviting interested parties to 

comment on the DFR. On May 26, 2004, 

EPA received adverse comment on its 

approval of the RACT determination for 

National Fuel Gas and Supply 

Corporation’s Roystone Compressor 

Station (National). EPA received no 

adverse comments on its approval of the 

RACT determination for the Crompton 

Corporation’s facility, and, therefore, 

EPA’s May 24, 2004 DFR approving 

DEP’s RACT determination for the 

Crompton facility became effective on 

July 23, 2004. On July 2, 2004 (69 FR 

40324), due to receipt of the adverse 

comment on its approval of the DEP’s 

RACT determination for National, EPA 

published a partial withdrawal of the 

DFR, specifically withdrawing its final 

rule approving DEP’s RACT 

determination for National. A summary 

of the adverse comment and EPA’s 

responses to the comment are provided 

in Section II of this document. 

II. Public Comment and EPA Responses 

Comment: On May 26, 2004, a citizen 

submitted adverse comment on EPA’s 

approval of the DEP’s RACT 

determination for National. The 

commenter states that the allowable 

NOX limitation imposed by the DEP on 

National’s Units 1, 2 and 3 should be 

decreased from 5.3 lbs per hour to 1.3 

lbs per hour and that all the other NOX

rates set in the DEP’s permit should be 

cut in half. The commenter contends 

that rather than simply re-stating state 

law which is too low, Federal officials 

should impose higher standards. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. The EPA has no authority 

to modify the submitted RACT rules as 

requested by the commenter. The CAA 

requires that a state determine and 

impose RACT for existing major sources 

of NOX and VOCs located in ozone 

nonattainment areas and the Ozone 

Transport Region. Those RACT 

requirements are then to be submitted to