36744 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Notices

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–14625 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–U

POSTAL SERVICE

Quality Control Reviews for

Discounted Letters (Presorted/

Automation Rate Mail)

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This second notice provides

responses to comments submitted

concerning the notice published in the

Federal Register (65 FR 141–142) about

the Mail Quality Analysis (MQA)

program. MQA is an automated quality

control review tool for automation letter

mail preparation. It focuses on presort

and piece count accuracy. MQA uses

existing automation equipment,

software, and reports to compare actual

sortation to mailer documentation for

sampled mail.

DATES: Effective May 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Richards, (703) 329–3684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 3, 2000, the Postal Service

published a Notice and Request for

Comments concerning the MQA

program in the Federal Register.

Descriptions of the MQA program and

announcements to business mailers

about MQA were published in Postal

Bulletin 22012 (December 2, 1999) and

in the December issue of Mailers

Companion. Further details will appear

in Mailers Companion and will be

presented at Postal Customer Council

meetings.

MQA will begin on May 1, 2000, and

will phase in to full implementation on

October 15, 2000. From May 1 to

October 15, 2000, MQA reports will be

provided to mailers as diagnostic

information, enabling mailers to assure

that their design, preparation, and

production procedures result in

mailings that qualify for the postage

rates claimed. After October 15, 2000,

mailings showing more than a 5 percent

presort error rate will result in a postage

adjustment if the adjustment totals more

than $50. After October 15, a mailer’s

first-ever MQA analysis will serve as a

notice only. In all cases, MQA feedback

will help mailers to identify and fix the

root causes of any presort and/or piece

count errors.

The Postal Service and mailers have

worked together for many years to

improve the quality of mail, which

ultimately benefits all customers

through more stable postage rates. MQA

incorporates a quality control analysis

process, with feedback to the mailer on

the results of the review. Only mailers

with consistent quality control problems

will experience routine postage

adjustments. The MQA feedback

process, however, is designed to help

prevent consistent problems from

happening. MQA, as a process

management tool, is analogous to the inprocess quality/inventory/productivity

indicators used by other businesses and

industries in their quality control

efforts.

MQA uses existing equipment,

software, and reports to compare mail

sortation and piece counts with mail

qualification reports submitted by the

mailer. MQA provides an additional

return to the Postal Service and our

customers from ongoing investments in

technology and software. MQA is not a

developmental program, but a new

application of existing capabilities. The

Postal Service believes it is vital to

create an environment that leads to

high-quality mail and also bolsters the

integrity of the worksharing discount

program. MQA enhances an

environment where each mailer pays

postage commensurate with preparation

of their mail.

Summary of Comments Received

The Postal Service received five

comments in response to the January 3,

2000, Federal Register notice. The

commenters were two mailer

associations, one mailing logistics firm,

one mailing service, and one large mailorder firm.

Specific issues raised in the

comments are presented below. All

commenters supported the goal of

improving mail quality for the benefit of

all postal customers. Concerns were

primarily related to the postage

adjustment aspect of MQA. One

commenter limited his concern to say

that calculations for postage

adjustments need to be clearly stated,

and the MQA reports as described do so.

The following is a summary of the other

comments:

1. Implementation should not have

occurred before the comment period

expired. The mailing industry should

have been involved up front in the

development of MQA.

2. Mailers should be given advance

notice when their mail is to be reviewed

under MQA.

3. After initial verification and

acceptance, can the Postal Service

perform additional quality reviews?

4. Can the Postal Service legally

initiate a postage adjustment for mail

after acceptance? There is a limited

opportunity for ‘‘rework’’ of mail

preparation errors.

5. Mailers are not responsible for their

mail after it has been accepted by the

Postal Service.

6. Are MQA reports linked to the

sample and mailing (associated with the

mailing and custody of sample), and are

MQA samples dispatched in a timely

manner?

7. Do equipment issues (reading

accuracy and availability of machine

maintenance records) affect MQA?

8. It is not fair to calculate postage

adjustments against the entire mailing;

the sample size is small compared to the

potential postage adjustment.

9. Postage adjustments are difficult for

mailers to pay. Institute a delay for

collection of postage.

10. How will mailers know what to

fix?

11. Will mailers have appeal rights

and protection from arbitrary

determinations?

12. The MQA program should be

discontinued, and costs of presort errors

spread among all mailers.

13. MQA is a threat to customers and

will not encourage more mail.

14. MQA should be rolled out to all

mailers, not just to larger mailers.

Responses to Comments

Item 1: Full implementation of MQA

was scheduled for June 3, 2000 (well

after expiration of the comment period

on February 2), and has now been

deferred to October 15, 2000. Mailers

and their associations have been

engaged in dialogue with the Postal

Service for the past several months. It

also is significant that the diagnostic

and feedback provisions incorporated

within MQA have been requested by a

variety of mailers for some time. MQA

uses existing equipment, software, and

reports to compare mail sortation with

mailer presort documentation and

provides an additional return to the

Postal Service and our customers from

ongoing investments in technology and

software.

Item 2: To assure that MQA reviews

are a true picture of mail as routinely

submitted to the Postal Service, advance

notification of mailings selected for

review will not occur, either internally

or to mailers. Mailers with on-site

detached mail units (DMUs), however,

likely will notice that a particular

mailing has been selected for analysis,

because trays will be isolated for the

MQA review. Mailers whose mailings

are submitted to a business mail entry

unit (BMEU) may not know their mail

was analyzed until they receive an MQA

report. In recent industry discussion

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Notices 36745

groups, some mailers expressed the

strong desire to be present at the USPS

barcode sorting equipment when their

mail is being analyzed. The Postal

Service agreed to craft a procedure to

offer mailers the opportunity to observe

the analysis. This will be a

straightforward procedure that

maintains the integrity of the analysis

while giving mailers the opportunity for

first-hand observation of the MQA

analysis. Information about this

procedure will appear in an upcoming

issue of Mailers Companion.

Item 3: Authorization to mail at

discounted rates is granted with the

understanding that mail will be

prepared to qualify for the rates

claimed. Mail submitted with

preparation problems leads to

extraordinary processing costs as it is

rehandled. Domestic Mail Manual

(DMM) G020.2.1 states that all mailers

are required to comply with applicable

postal standards. DMM G020.2.2 and

the mailer certification on each postage

statement provide notice that when

proper postage is not claimed on the

postage statement, the Postal Service

expects to collect the proper amount.

The USPS will continue the verification

process at mail acceptance units.

However, to avoid ‘‘double jeopardy,’’ a

mailing assessed a postage adjustment

as the result of the presort verification

and presort errors disclosed at

acceptance will not be subject to MQA.

The failure to use existing assets to

provide an efficient method for feedback

on mail quality would be a great

disservice to all who have properly

prepared their mail. Therefore, the

Postal Service believes it is responsible

and proper to administer MQA as

defined. MQA will not impact mailers

whose systems and procedures produce

high-quality mailings, but will benefit

all mailers through more stable postage

rates.

Items 4 and 5: The Postal Service has

a statutory obligation to collect postage

owed under 39 U.S.C. 404(a). Moreover,

the Postal Service is prohibited from

discriminating between mailers, as

could occur if some do not pay the full

legal rate of postage. Postal standards

(such as DMM P011.4.0) provide the

necessary mechanism for determining

amounts owed to the Postal Service and

provide appeal procedures for mailers if

they dispute such postage adjustments.

DMM G022.2.1 requires mailers to

comply with all applicable postal

standards, and payment of correct

postage is an obvious and important

component of compliance. DMM

G022.2.2 states that the Postal Service is

not restricted from demanding proper

payment of postage after acceptance

when it becomes apparent that such

payment was not made. Further, mailers

have ample additional notice of these

standards and the requirement that each

mailer must pay postage commensurate

with their mail preparation through: (1)

The application and approval process

for authorization to mail at discounted

rates; (2) the mailer certification on each

postage statement that the mail qualifies

for the rates claimed; and, (3) the mailer

agreement in that same certification to

pay any postage deficiencies assessed

on the mailing. The MQA report is clear

documentation of presort and piece

count discrepancies, as compared to the

mail qualification report and rates

claimed on the postage statement.

Fairness has been applied through the

initial notification of presort errors

exceeding 5 percent without a postage

adjustment prior to October 15, 2000,

and not assessing postage adjustments

under $50 thereafter.

MQA analyzes mail as it is run on

delivery barcode sorters (DBCSs). It is

not feasible to reconstruct a mailing and

offer the mailer the opportunity to

rework mail when presort errors are first

disclosed during actual processing of

that mail. This fact is true today and

MQA does not change it.

Item 6: Initial MQA reviews will be

conducted at the origin postal facility.

MQA samples (including DMU/

destination entry trays) will be isolated

and their integrity secured through

special placarding, handling, and tray

label recording procedures. The direct

relationship between the MQA sampled

mail and the MQA report is shown by

recording information directly from the

tray labels onto the MQA

documentation. Scheduling of MQA

reviews and processing of samples will

be coordinated with Mail Processing.

Dispatch of sampled mail will not

normally be affected by MQA reviews,

although in some cases alternative

means of routing may be used. In cases

where presort errors exceeding 5

percent are found, mailers will receive

copies of all documentation involved as

a final quality control check of the

process.

Item 7: DBCS equipment is used every

day by the Postal Service to process live

mail. Preventive maintenance is

performed regularly and documented. It

is important to note that MQA does not

measure barcode readability but rather

records mailer-applied barcodes to

measure presort and piece count

accuracy, as compared to mailer

documentation for the sample. Because

of the mathematical check digit

incorporated in a barcode, DBCS

equipment does not misinterpret

barcodes. Only when the barcode and

its check digit formula add up correctly

is a barcode ‘‘read.’’ Barcodes that are

not read are rejected, and rejected pieces

are not counted as errors under MQA.

Rejected pieces will be analyzed and

information reported to the mailer, as

this may also assist mailers in

improving quality. Moreover, for

computer list sorted mailings, MQA will

run thousands of similar pieces through

the DBCS at the same time, optimizing

the capabilities of the equipment to read

barcodes on sampled mail.

Item 8: Postage adjustments are

applied only to the actual pieces

sampled or to the sort level sampled (5-

digit, 3-digit, AADC, Mixed AADC).

Sample sizes for MQA reviews are larger

than any possible to date.

Items 9 and 10: Mailers with effective

quality controls, who prepare mailings

to qualify for the rates claimed, will not

have difficulties. Difficulty in paying

appropriate postage for a mailing is not

used to establish the postage a particular

mailer should pay and should not mean

that one mailer is not required to meet

the same preparation standards as

others. If a postage adjustment is

initiated, mailers also can discuss terms

and conditions, or other alternatives

that might be considered, with the USPS

District Manager, Finance. Even mailers

who have consistent quality control and

qualification problems will not

experience continuing postage

adjustments if they make necessary

corrections to their mail preparation

procedures. Diagnostic feedback from

the MQA report will be in sufficient

detail to assist mailers in determining

where in their operations a problem

originated, but MQA also is designed to

encourage mailers to perform ongoing

self-assessments of their quality

controls. Until October 15, 2000, mailers

will have ample opportunity to both

review internal quality control

procedures and use MQA feedback to

improve their operations.

Item 11: MQA postage adjustments

will be based on objective data received

from detailed machine reports of the

presort and piece counts found in the

mail sample. Mailers have appeal rights

to the Rates and Classification Service

Center for MQA determinations made at

local or district offices.

Item 12: Measuring and documenting

the quality of mail at points where it is

most efficient to do so will lead to

improved operations, efficiencies, and

lower costs for both the Postal Service

and mailers. In preliminary testing of

MQA, several mailers already have

made significant improvements in

quality and in some cases also increased

their efficiency and reduced their

internal costs. MQA is a benefit, not a

36746 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Notices

burden, to mailers. The many highquality mailers should not bear the

burden of paying additional costs

associated with poor-quality mail

submitted by a small number of mailers.

Item 13: Improving quality throughout

all mailing processes is a long-term need

to which all members of the mailing

industry should subscribe. As quality is

improved and corresponding increases

in efficiencies and stabilization of rates

are achieved, more, not less, mail will

result.

Item 14: MQA will focus initially on

the largest volume mailers, then move

down the chain to smaller volume

mailers. The USPS will monitor this

process and has built an objective

approach to selecting which mail will

be analyzed.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–14681 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–U

PRESIDIO TRUST

Presidio Theatre Building 99, The

Presidio of San Francisco, CA; Notice

of Intent to Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for the rehabilitation and expansion of

the Presidio Theatre (Building 99)

within The Presidio of San Francisco,

San Francisco, California (Presidio).

SUMMARY: The Presidio Trust (Trust) has

received a proposal from one of its

tenants, the San Francisco Film Centre,

for rehabilitation and expansion of the

Presidio Theatre (Theatre) within the

Presidio. Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–90 as amended)

(NEPA), and the regulations

promulgated by the Council on

Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2),

the Trust has determined that an EIS

rather than an Environmental

Assessment, as previously noticed in

the Federal Register (65 FR 20218), will

better serve the agency to comply with

the NEPA. Therefore, the Trust will

prepare an EIS for rehabilitating the

existing 15,140-square-foot Theatre and

adding up to 45,000 square feet of new

construction for theater uses, a

restaurant, retail museum and library

store (proposed action). The EIS will

include a discussion of the significant

environmental impacts, and will inform

decisionmakers and the public of

reasonable alternatives which would

minimize adverse impacts or enhance

the quality of the environment,

including ‘‘no action’’ and reuse of

existing buildings to avoid new

construction. Based on a preliminary

review of the proposed action and input

received during scoping to date, issues

and impact topics to be analyzed

include: traffic and transportation

systems; cultural resources (effect on

national historic landmark district and

archeological resources); hydrology and

water quality; visual resources and

scenic viewing; air quality; and noise.

Public Comment

The Trust will hold a second public

workshop/open house on June 19, 2000

to solicit comment regarding the range

of alternatives to be evaluated in the

EIS. A tour of the Theatre will be

conducted from 5:30 to 6 p.m.; those

interested in the tour will meet at 5:30

p.m. on June 19, 2000 in front of the

Theatre, which is located at the corner

of Moraga Avenue and Montgomery

Street on the Main Post in the Presidio.

The workshop will run from 6 to 8 p.m.

at the San Francisco Film Centre

(Building 39), which is located opposite

the flagpole at the top of Graham Street

on the Main Post in the Presidio. The

Trust has chosen to extend the public

scoping period to July 28, 2000 to

provide additional time for the public to

comment on the project. Comments

regarding the scope of alternatives and

impacts that the Trust received before

its decision to proceed with an EIS will

still be considered. The Trust will

provide other informal information

updates and notices concerning this

project through postings on its website

at www.presidiotrust.gov or through its

monthly publication, the Presidio Post.

The Trust will announce the release of

the EIS by notice in the Federal Register

and the Presidio Post, and through a

direct mailing to the affected public.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

concerning this notice must be sent by

July 28, 2000 to John Pelka, NEPA

Compliance Coordinator, The Presidio

Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box

29052, San Francisco, CA 94129–0052.

Fax: 415–561–5315. E-mail:

jpelka@presidiotrust.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Pelka, NEPA Compliance Coordinator,

The Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street,

P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA

94129–0052. Telephone: 415–561–5300.

Dated: June 5, 2000.

Karen A. Cook,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–14585 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–4R–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A)

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

which provides opportunity for public

comment on new or revised data

collections, the Railroad Retirement

Board (RRB) will publish periodic

summaries of proposed data collections.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed information collection is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information has practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s

estimate of the burden of the collection

of the information; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden related to

the collection of information on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title and purpose of information

collection: Student Beneficiary

Monitoring; OMB 3220–0123.

Under provisions of the Railroad

Retirement Act (RRA), there are two

types of benefits whose payment is

based upon the status of a child being

a full-time student, a survivor benefit

under Section 2 and an increased

retirement benefit under Section 3(f)(3).

A survivor benefit is paid directly to the

student unless there is a representative

payee. The benefit for a student in a life

case is paid by increasing the retired

parent’s annuity rate under the overall

minimum guaranty. The requirements

for obtaining benefits based on full-time

student status are prescribed in 20 CFR

219.54 and 219.55.

The RRB requires evidence of fulltime school attendance in order to

determine that a child is entitled to

student benefits. The RRB utilizes the

following forms to conduct its student

monitoring program. Form G–315,

Student Questionnaire, obtains

certification of a student’s full-time

school attendance. It also obtains

information on a student’s marital

status, Social Security benefits, and

employment which are needed to

determine entitlement or continued

entitlement to benefits under the RRA.

Form G–315a, Statement by School

Official of Student’s Full-time

Attendance, is used to obtain

verification from a school that a student

attends school full-time and provides

their expected graduation date. Form G–

315a.1, Notice of Cessation of Full-Time

Attendance, is used by a school to notify