62632 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

2004 (69 FR 44476), announced that a 

public hearing was scheduled for 

October 28, 2004 at 10 a.m., in the 

auditorium of the Internal Revenue 

Service building, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The 

subject of the public hearing is proposed 

regulations under section 2702 of the 

Internal Revenue Code. The public 

comment period for these proposed 

regulations expired on October 25, 2004. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

and notice of public hearing, instructed 

those interested in testifying at the 

public hearing to submit a request to 

speak and an outline of topics to be 

addressed by October 7, 2004. As of 

October 25, 2004, no one has requested 

to speak. Therefore, the public hearing 

scheduled for October 28, 2004 is 

cancelled.

Guy R. Traynor, 

Federal Register Liaison, Publications & 

Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 

Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedures 

& Administration).

[FR Doc. 04–24129 Filed 10–25–04; 2:01 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

REVIEW COMMISSION 

29 CFR Parts 2700, 2701, 2702, and 

2704 

Procedural Rules

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission.

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Review Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) is seeking suggestions 

regarding changes to improve its 

procedural rules (29 CFR part 2700), 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

regulations (29 CFR part 2701), 

regulations implementing the Freedom 

of Information Act (29 CFR part 2702), 

and regulations implementing the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (29 CFR part 

2704).

DATES: Written and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before January 

25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be mailed to Thomas Stock, General 

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, 

NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC 

20001. Persons submitting written 

comments shall provide an original and 

three copies of their comments. 

Electronic comments should state 

‘‘Comments on Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking’’ in the subject 

line and be sent to tstock@fmshrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Stock, General Counsel, Office 

of the General Counsel, 601 New Jersey 

Avenue, NW., Suite 9500, Washington, 

DC 20001, telephone 202–434–9935; 

FAX: 202–434–9944.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is reviewing its rules set 

forth in 29 CFR parts 2700, 2701, 2702, 

and 2704 to determine if revisions 

would aid the efficient adjudication of 

proceedings before the Commission and 

its judges. In particular, the Commission 

is considering revisions to its 

procedural rules set forth in part 2700. 

Since it last significantly revised its 

procedural rules in March 1993, the 

Commission has identified several rules 

that require further revision, 

clarification, or expansion. Revisions to 

part 2700 that the Commission is 

considering are described in the 

following text. The Commission will 

also examine its procedures for 

processing requests for relief from final 

judgment. The Commission requests 

comments from members of the 

interested public regarding the 

procedural rule revisions for 

consideration described in this notice. 

The Commission also invites 

submission of other revisions to the 

procedural rules (part 2700) not 

described in this notice that will lead to 

the more efficient adjudication of cases. 

While no specific revisions to the 

Commission’s regulations implementing 

the Government in Sunshine Act (part 

2701), the Freedom of Information Act 

(part 2702), and the Equal Access to 

Justice Act (part 2704) are set forth in 

this notice, the Commission encourages 

members of the interested public to 

comment on any revisions or additions 

to those regulations. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

29 CFR 2700.5(d) and 29 CFR 2700.7(c) 

Commission Procedural Rule 5(d) 

currently provides that a notice of 

contest of a citation or order; a petition 

for assessment of penalty; a complaint 

for compensation; a complaint of 

discharge, discrimination or 

interference; an application for 

temporary reinstatement; and an 

application for temporary relief shall be 

filed by personal delivery or by 

registered or certified mail, return 

receipt requested. 29 CFR 2700.5(d). 

Commission Procedural Rule 7(c) also 

requires that such documents, in 

addition to a proposed penalty 

assessment, shall be served by personal 

delivery or by registered or certified 

mail, return receipt requested. 29 CFR 

2700.7(c); see also 29 CFR 2700.45(a) 

(providing in part for service by 

certified mail of pleadings in a 

temporary reinstatement proceeding). 

Although not explicitly required by the 

Commission’s procedural rules in all 

circumstances (cf. 29 CFR 2700.66(a) 

(requiring show cause orders to be 

mailed by registered or certified mail, 

return receipt requested)), the 

Commission as a matter of practice 

generally mails by certified mail, return 

receipt requested, a judge’s decision 

after hearing, default orders, and orders 

that require timely action by a party. 

The Commission is reviewing the use 

of certified mail for parties’ filings and 

documents issued by the Commission. 

On one hand, certified mail can be 

costly and time-consuming. On the 

other hand, the return receipt associated 

with certified mail provides reliable 

information regarding the service of 

documents. The Commission will 

balance these competing factors in 

considering whether mailing by 

certified mail is appropriate. The 

Commission is also reviewing forms of 

mailing and delivery that might be an 

acceptable substitute for certified mail. 

In addition, Commission Procedural 

Rule 5(d) provides that certain 

documents, including petitions for 

discretionary review, may be filed by 

facsimile transmission. 29 CFR 

2700.5(d). The Commission is reviewing 

whether notices designating a petition 

for discretionary review as an opening 

brief may also be filed by facsimile 

transmission.

29 CFR 2700.5(e) 

Commission Procedural Rule 5(e) 

currently sets forth the number of copies 

to be submitted in cases before a judge 

and the Commission. 29 CFR 2700.5(e). 

Experience has indicated that not all 

judges require the number of copies 

required by the rule but, rather, that one 

copy should suffice. The Commission is 

considering requiring fewer copies than 

are currently required by the rule. 

29 CFR 2700.8 

Commission Procedural Rule 8 

provides in part that the last day of a 

period computed shall be included 

unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday, 

or Federal holiday, in which event the 

period runs until the next business day. 

29 CFR 2700.8. The rule further 

provides that when a period of time 

prescribed in the rules is less than seven 

days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, 

and Federal holidays shall be excluded 

in the computation of time. Id. Rule 8 

also states that when the service of a 

document is by mail, 5 days shall be 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62633

added to the time allowed by the rules 

for the filing of a response or other 

documents. Id.

The Commission is considering 

whether to more closely conform its 

computation-of-time rule with the 

Federal rules. For instance, Federal 

rules provide that when a period of time 

prescribed is less than eleven days, 

intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and 

legal holidays are excluded in the 

computation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a); Fed. 

R. App. Proc. 26(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(e) further provides in part that three

days are added to any period whenever 

the party required to act is served by 

mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). In light of the 

Federal rules, the Commission is 

considering whether it should increase 

the period for which intervening 

Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays 

shall be excluded, and decrease the 

number of days added for filing a 

response if service is by mail. 

The Commission is also considering 

clarifying changes to Commission 

Procedural Rule 8 that would dispel 

confusion regarding the circumstances 

and the types of mail and delivery that 

qualify for the additional days for filing 

when service is by mail. In addition, the 

Commission is considering making 

explicit that if the 40th day following a 

judge’s decision falls on a Saturday, 

Sunday, or Federal holiday, the 

Commission may act on the petition for 

discretionary review of the judge’s 

decision until the close of the next 

business day. If the Commission does 

not grant that petition for discretionary 

review, the petition would be deemed 

denied and the judge’s decision would 

be deemed final at the close of that 

business day. 

29 CFR 2700.10(c) 

Commission Procedural Rule 10(c) 

currently provides that prior to filing a 

‘‘procedural motion,’’ the moving party 

shall make reasonable efforts to confer 

with other parties and state in the 

motion if the other parties oppose the 

motion. 29 CFR 2700.10(c). 

The Commission is considering 

whether the phrase ‘‘procedural 

motion’’ should be changed to clarify 

that it refers to a non-dispositive 

motion. 

Subpart B (Contests of Citations and 

Orders); Subpart C (Contests of 

Proposed Penalties); and Subpart D 

(Complaints for Compensation) 

Subparts B and C 

The Commission has dual filing 

requirements under subparts B and C 

that reflect the filing procedures set 

forth in sections 105(a) and (d) of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 

1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(a) and (d) (2000). 

Subpart B sets forth the manner in 

which a party may contest a citation or 

order before the Secretary has proposed 

a civil penalty for the alleged violation 

described in the citation or order. 

Subpart C sets forth the manner in 

which a party may contest a civil 

penalty after a proposed penalty 

assessment has been issued. If a party 

chooses not to file a contest of a citation 

or order under subpart B, it may 

nonetheless contest the proposed 

penalty assessment under subpart C. In 

such circumstances, in addition to 

contesting the proposed penalty 

assessment, the party may challenge the 

fact of violation and any special 

findings alleged in the citation or order. 

See 29 CFR 2700.21 (‘‘An operator’s 

failure to file a notice of contest of a 

citation or order * * * shall not 

preclude the operator from challenging, 

in a penalty proceeding, the fact of 

violation or any special findings 

***’’); Quinland Coals Inc., 9 

FMSHRC 1614, 1621 (Sept. 1987) 

(holding that fact of violation and 

special findings may be placed in issue 

by the operator in a civil penalty 

proceeding regardless of whether the 

operator has availed itself of the 

opportunity to file a contest 

proceeding). However, if a party files a 

contest of a citation or order under 

subpart B, it must also file additional 

pleadings under subpart C in order to 

challenge the proposed penalty 

assessment related to the citation or 

order. 

The dual filing requirements are not 

consistent, leading to confusion. 

Experience has shown that a party may 

fail to contest a proposed penalty 

assessment or to answer the Secretary’s 

petition for assessment of penalty under 

subpart C based on the mistaken belief 

that it is relieved of those obligations by 

filing a notice of a contest of a citation 

or order under subpart B. 

The Commission is considering 

whether the filing requirements relating 

to contesting citations, orders, and 

proposed penalties may be streamlined 

while remaining consistent with the 

procedures set forth in sections 105(a) 

and (d) of the Mine Act. For instance, 

the Commission is considering adding a 

provision that would state that, by filing 

a notice of contest of a citation or order, 

the party would be deemed to also 

contest any subsequent proposed 

penalty assessment. Alternatively, the 

Commission could simply clarify in its 

rules that the filing of a notice of contest 

of a citation or order under subpart B 

does not relieve the party of the 

obligation to contest a proposed penalty 

assessment or answer the Secretary’s 

petition for assessment of penalty under 

subpart C. 

29 CFR 2700.44(a) and 29 CFR 

2700.28(b) 

Commission Procedural Rule 44(a), 

which pertains to a petition for the 

assessment of a penalty for an alleged 

violation of section 105(c) of the Mine 

Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c), currently provides 

that ‘‘[t]he petition for assessment of 

penalty shall include a short and plain 

statement of supporting reasons based 

on the criteria for penalty assessment set 

forth in section 110(i) of the Act.’’ 29 

CFR 2700.44(a), citing 30 U.S.C. 820(i). 

Commission Procedural Rule 44(a) was 

promulgated to codify the Commission’s 

holding in Secretary of Labor on behalf 

of Bailey v. Arkansas-Carbona Co., 5 

FMSHRC 2042, 2044–48 (Dec. 1983), 

that the Secretary is required to set forth 

in a discrimination complaint the 

amount of the penalty supported by 

information on the six criteria set forth 

in section 110(i) of the Mine Act.

Procedural Rule 28, which sets forth 

the procedure for the Secretary to file a 

petition for assessment of penalty when 

an operator has contested a proposed 

penalty in other (non-discrimination) 

cases, does not include the ‘‘short and 

plain statement’’ requirement of Rule 

44(a). Rather, Rule 28 provides merely 

that the petition for assessment of 

penalty shall state whether the citation 

or order has been contested and the 

docket number of any contest, and that 

the party against whom a penalty is 

filed has 30 days to answer the petition. 

29 CFR 2700.28(b). 

The Commission is considering 

whether the provisions of Commission 

Procedural Rules 44(a) and 28(b) should 

be made consistent by adding to Rule 

28(b) the short and plain statement 

requirement of Rule 44(a) so as to 

provide notice of the basis for a penalty 

to the party against whom the penalty 

is filed. 

Subpart E—Complaints of Discharge, 

Discrimination or Interference 

29 CFR 2700.45 

Commission Procedural Rule 45 sets 

forth the procedure for proceedings 

involving the temporary reinstatement 

of a miner alleging discrimination under 

section 105(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 

815(c). Currently, as to a judge’s 

jurisdiction, Commission Procedural 

Rule 45 states only that a judge shall 

dissolve an order of temporary 

reinstatement if the Secretary of Labor’s 

investigation reveals that the provisions 

of section 105(c)(1) of the Mine Act have 

not been violated. 29 CFR 2700.45(g). 

62634 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

The Commission is considering 

whether to revise Rule 45 to set forth the 

Commission’s holding in Secretary of 

Labor on behalf of York v. BR&D 

Enterprises, Inc., 23 FMSHRC 386, 388–

89 (Apr. 2001), that a Commission 

administrative law judge retains 

jurisdiction over a temporary 

reinstatement proceeding pending 

issuance of a final Commission order on 

the underlying complaint of 

discrimination. 

Subpart G—Hearings 

29 CFR 2700.54 

Commission Procedural Rule 54 

currently provides in part that written 

notice of the time, place, and nature of 

a hearing shall be given to all parties at 

least 20 days before the date set for 

hearing. 29 CFR 2700.54. The 

Commission is considering whether the 

rule should be revised to require an 

administrative law judge to consult with 

all parties before setting a date for 

hearing. 

29 CFR 2700.56(d) and (e) 

Commission Procedural Rule 56(d) 

sets forth a time for initiating discovery, 

providing in part that ‘‘[d]iscovery shall 

be initiated within 20 days after an 

answer to a notice of contest, an answer 

to a petition for assessment of penalty, 

or an answer to a complaint under 

section[s] 105(c) or 111 of the Act has 

been filed.’’ 29 CFR 2700.56(d), citing 30 

U.S.C. 815(c) and 821. Commission 

Procedural Rule 56(e) sets forth a time 

for completing discovery, providing that 

‘‘[d]iscovery shall be completed within 

40 days after its initiation.’’ 29 CFR 

2700.56(e). 

Experience under the rule has 

indicated that the time-frames given in 

the Commission’s procedural rules for 

initiating and completing discovery may 

be too restrictive. Particularly, the 

Commission is considering whether 

there should be no specific time-frame 

for initiating discovery, and whether 40 

days is too short a period of time for the 

completion of discovery. The 

Commission is considering whether it 

should replace those time-frames with a 

provision that discovery should not 

delay or otherwise impede disposition 

of the case and that, in any event, 

discovery should be completed at least 

30 days prior to the date of the 

scheduled hearing. 

29 CFR 2700.67 

Commission Procedural Rule 67(a) 

currently provides that ‘‘[a]t any time 

after commencement of a proceeding 

and no later than 10 days before the date 

fixed for the hearing on the merits, a 

party may move the Judge to render 

summary decision disposing of all or 

part of the proceeding.’’ 29 CFR 

2700.67(a). 

The Commission is considering 

whether the filing deadline for a 

summary decision motion should be 

changed from ten days to 20 or 30 days 

before the hearing, allowing the judge a 

greater period of time to rule on the 

motion. 

29 CFR 2700.69 

Commission Procedural Rule 69(c) 

sets forth the procedure for the 

correction of clerical errors in a judge’s 

decision. 29 CFR 2700.69(c). It provides 

that, at any time before the Commission 

has directed review of a judge’s 

decision, a judge may correct clerical 

errors on his/her own motion, or on the 

motion of a party. Id. After the 

Commission has directed review of the 

judge’s decision or after the judge’s 

decision has become the final order of 

the Commission, the judge may correct 

clerical errors with the leave of the 

Commission. Id.

The Commission is considering 

inserting a provision which would make 

explicit that clerical corrections made 

subsequent to the issuance of a judge’s 

decision do not toll the period for filing 

a petition for discretionary review of the 

judge’s decision on the merits. See 

Begley, employed by Manalapan Mining 

Co., 22 FMSHRC 943, 944 (Aug. 2000). 

Subpart H—Review by the Commission 

29 CFR 2700.70(h) 

Commission Procedural Rule 70(h) 

currently provides that a petition for 

discretionary review that is not granted 

within 40 days after the issuance of an 

administrative law judge’s decision is 

deemed denied. 29 CFR 2700.70(h). 

The Commission is considering 

making explicit its present practice 

under the rule that, if the 40th day after 

a judge’s decision falls on a Saturday, 

Sunday, or Federal holiday, the 

Commission may act on a petition for 

discretionary review of the judge’s 

decision until the close of the next 

business day following the 40th day. If 

the Commission does not grant the 

petition for discretionary review, the 

petition would be deemed denied, and 

the judge’s decision would be deemed 

final at the close of that business day. 

29 CFR 2700.72

Commission Procedural Rule 72 

currently provides that an unreviewed 

decision of a judge is not a precedent 

binding upon the Commission. 29 CFR 

2700.72. 

The Commission believes that any 

citation in a pleading to an unreviewed 

decision of a judge should be designated 

parenthetically as such. Such a revision 

would provide the reader with 

information regarding whether the 

citation is binding precedent on the 

proposition for which it is cited. 

29 CFR 2700.76

Commission Procedural Rule 76 

currently sets forth the procedure for 

interlocutory review by the 

Commission. 29 CFR 2700.76. While the 

rule specifies that the Commission’s 

review is confined to the issues raised 

in the judge’s certification or to the 

issues raised in the petition for 

interlocutory review (29 CFR 2700.76 

(d)), there is no description of what 

constitutes the record on interlocutory 

review. 

The Commission is considering 

whether it should revise Commission 

Procedural Rule 76 to state what 

constitutes the record on interlocutory 

review. 

29 CFR 2700.78

Commission Procedural Rule 78(b) 

currently provides in part that, unless 

the Commission orders otherwise, the 

filing of a petition for reconsideration 

does not stay the effect of a Commission 

decision and does not affect the finality 

of a decision for purposes of review in 

the courts. 29 CFR 2700.78(b). 

The Commission is considering 

whether it should revise Commission 

Procedural Rule 78 to state that the 

filing of a petition for reconsideration 

tolls the time period for filing an appeal 

for judicial review until the Commission 

has issued an order disposing of the 

petition for reconsideration. 

29 CFR 2700.80

The Commission is considering 

revising Rule 80(a) to clarify that certain 

ethical conduct is required of 

individuals practicing before the 

Commission or its judges. 

Miscellaneous 

Electronic Filing 

The Commission is considering the 

feasibility of electronic filing and may 

consider initiating a program that would 

permit the electronic filing of limited 

categories of documents in proceedings 

on a voluntary basis. 

Public Review of Comments 

All comments responding to this 

notice will be a matter of public record 

and available for public inspection and 

copying by appointment with Ella 

Waymer, between the hours of 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. on business days at the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 

Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62635

NW., 9th Floor, Room 9536, Washington 

DC 20001; telephone 202-434–9935.

Michael F. Duffy, 

Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Review Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24023 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6735–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111 

Use of Ancillary Service Endorsement 

for Mailing Certain Types of Checks

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) to require an endorsement 

requesting forwarding or return on 

certain mailpieces containing checks 

sent at Standard Mail postage rates, 

including ‘‘convenience’’ and ‘‘balance 

transfer’’ checks.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 26, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be mailed or delivered to the Manager, 

Mailing Standards, United States Postal 

Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Rm 

3436, Washington DC 20260–3436. 

Copies of all written comments will be 

available for inspection and 

photocopying at USPS Headquarters 

Library, 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 11th 

Floor N, Washington DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

Comments may not be submitted via fax 

or e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Chatfield, Mailing Standards, 

United States Postal Service, 202–268–

7278.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal 

Service has observed an increased 

amount of mail containing checks, 

including ‘‘convenience’’ and ‘‘balance 

transfer’’ checks. For instance, a 

common marketing tool is to include 

convenience checks with credit cardrelated mailings to encourage 

addressees to complete a check for cash, 

with the amount added to the credit 

card balance. Financial institutions also 

are using balance transfer checks to 

encourage addressees to transfer 

balances from competitor credit cards to 

the mailer’s credit card. In many cases, 

these mailpieces are not requested by 

the addressee. In addition, other checks 

are sent through the mail. For example, 

check vendors and producers mail new 

books of blank checks to fulfill orders 

from their customers. 

The secure carriage of our customers’

correspondence is a paramount 

consideration for the Postal Service. 

This consideration is particularly 

important when we are entrusted with 

mailings containing checks. The 

security of mailpieces containing checks 

is enhanced by ensuring that they are, 

if undeliverable as addressed, either 

forwarded to the addressee’s new 

address or returned to the sender. 

Mail entered as First-Class Mail 

receives forwarding and return service if 

undeliverable as originally addressed. 

Many mailings that contain checks are 

required, due to the nature of their 

contents, to be entered as First-Class 

Mail. Other mailings that contain 

checks, even though eligible for 

Standard Mail rates, are entered as FirstClass Mail, which expedites handling 

and ensures the forwarding or return of 

undeliverable pieces. However, some 

mailings that contain checks eligible for 

Standard Mail rates are mailed at those 

rates. 

Under the proposal, certain checks 

not required to be entered as First-Class 

Mail may be sent as Standard Mail only 

if the mailpiece bears an ancillary 

service endorsement resulting in the 

forwarding or return of undeliverable 

mailpieces. The use of such 

endorsements is a low-cost solution for 

mailers, particularly those who 

maintain updated address lists, since 

these endorsements require the payment 

of fees or additional postage only for 

mail that is undeliverable as addressed. 

Endorsements satisfying the proposed 

standard would include ‘‘Return Service 

Requested,’’ ‘‘Address Service 

Requested,’’ and ‘‘Forwarding Service 

Requested’’ or, for authorized users of 

bulk parcel return service, ‘‘Return 

Service Requested—BPRS’’ or ‘‘Address 

Service Requested—BPRS.’’ Mailpieces 

required to bear one of these 

endorsements would be those with 

checks drawn on an account of a party 

other than the mailer or mailer’s agent, 

whether or not the checks are blank. An 

endorsement would not be required on 

mailpieces containing rebate, refund, 

and similar checks that are drawn on 

the mailer’s account, whether or not 

they are mailed as Standard Mail. 

Implementation Schedule 

If the proposal is adopted, the Postal 

Service intends to defer implementation 

until June 1, 2005. This delayed 

implementation date would give 

customers adequate time to budget and 

plan for future mailings. 

Although exempt from the notice and 

comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553(b),(c)) regarding proposed 

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the 

Postal Service invites comments on the 

following proposed revisions to the 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), which is 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR). See 39 CFR 

part 111.

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, 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

* * * * *

E600 Standard Mail 

E610 Basic Standards

* * * * *

2.0 CONTENT

* * * * *

[Add new 2.4 to read as follows:] 

2.4 Checks 

Checks that are drawn (or intended to 

be drawn) on an account of a party other 

than the mailer or mailer’s agent and 

that are not required to be entered as 

First-Class Mail may be sent as Standard 

Mail only when the envelope or 

container bears one of the following 

ancillary service endorsements: ‘‘Return 

Service Requested,’’ ‘‘Address Service 

Requested,’’ or ‘‘Forwarding Service 

Requested.’’ Mailers authorized to use 

bulk parcel return service to mail 

Standard Mail machinable parcels must 

use the endorsement ‘‘Return Service 

Requested—BPRS’’ or ‘‘Address Service 

Requested—BPRS.’’ These provisions 

apply to all mailpieces containing such 

checks, whether blank or with some or 

all of the fields completed.

* * * * *

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 if the 

proposal is adopted.

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 04–23647 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P