Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29031

(d) Delegation of authority to

determine disclosure and establish

procedures. The appropriate ATF officer

is hereby authorized to determine

whether or not ATF officers and

employees will be permitted to disclose

ATF records or information in response

to:

(1) A request by any court,

administrative agency, or other

authority, or by any person, for the

disclosure of such records or

information; or

(2) A demand for the disclosure of

such records or information.

(3) The Director is also authorized to

establish such other procedures as he or

she may deem necessary with respect to

the disclosure of ATF records or

information by ATF officers and

employees. Any determination by the

appropriate ATF officer as to whether

ATF records or information will be

disclosed, or any procedure established

by the Director in connection therewith,

must be made in accordance with

applicable statutes, Executive orders,

regulations, and any instructions that

may be issued by the Secretary.

Notwithstanding the preceding

provisions of this paragraph, the

appropriate ATF officer shall, where

either the Secretary or such officer

deems it appropriate, refer the opposing

of a request or demand for disclosure of

ATF records or information to the

Secretary.

(e) Procedure in the event of a request

or demand for ATF records or

information—(1) Request procedure.

Any ATF officer or employee who

receives a request for ATF records or

information, the disposition of which is

not covered by a procedure established

by the Director, must promptly

communicate the contents of the request

to the appropriate ATF officer. The

officer or employee must await

instructions from the appropriate ATF

officer concerning the response to the

request. * * *

(2) Demand procedure. Any ATF

officer or employee who is served with

a demand for ATF records or

information, the disposition of which is

not covered by a procedure established

by the Director, must promptly, and

without awaiting appearance before the

court, administrative agency, or other

authority, communicate the contents of

the demand to the appropriate ATF

officer. The ATF officer or employee

must await instructions from the

appropriate ATF officer concerning the

response to the demand. If it is

determined by the appropriate ATF

officer that the demand should be

opposed, the U.S. attorney, his or her

assistant, or other appropriate legal

representative shall be requested to

respectfully inform the court,

administrative agency, or other

authority that the appropriate ATF

officer has instructed the ATF officer or

employee to refuse to disclose the ATF

records or information sought. If

instructions have not been received

from the appropriate ATF officer at the

time when the ATF officer or employee

is required to appear before the court,

administrative agency, or other

authority in response to the demand, the

U.S. attorney, his or her assistant, or

other appropriate legal representative

must be requested to appear with the

ATF officer or employee upon whom

the demand has been served and request

additional time in which to receive such

instructions. In the event the court,

administrative agency, or other

authority rules adversely with respect to

the refusal to disclose the records or

information pursuant to the instructions

of the appropriate ATF officer, or

declines to defer a ruling until

instructions from the appropriate ATF

officer have been received, the ATF

officer or employee upon whom the

demand has been served must, pursuant

to this section, respectfully decline to

disclose the ATF records or information

sought.

(3) Affidavit required for testimony.

* * * The appropriate ATF officer may,

upon request and for good cause shown,

waive the requirement of this paragraph.

(4) Time limit for serving request or

demand. The request or demand,

together with the affidavit or statement

(if required by paragraph (e)(3) of this

section), must be served at least 5

working days prior to the scheduled

date of testimony or disclosure of

records, in order to ensure that the

appropriate ATF officer has adequate

time to consider whether to grant the

request or demand. The appropriate

ATF officer may, upon request and for

good cause shown, waive the

requirement of this paragraph.

(5) Factors to be considered in

determining whether a request or

demand will be granted. The

appropriate ATF officer must consider

whether granting the request or demand

would be appropriate under the relevant

rules of procedure and substantive law

concerning privilege. Among the

requests or demands that will not be

granted are those that would, if granted,

result in—

(i) The violation of a statute, such as

26 U.S.C. 6103 or 7213, or a rule of

procedure, such as the grand jury

secrecy rule (F.R.Cr.P. Rule 6(e)), or a

specific regulation;

(ii) The disclosure of classified

information;

(iii) The disclosure of a confidential

source or informant, unless the ATF

officer or employee and the source or

informant, have no objection;

(iv) The disclosure of investigative

records compiled for law enforcement

purposes if enforcement proceedings

would thereby be impeded, or of

investigative techniques and procedures

whose effectiveness would thereby be

impaired, unless the appropriate ATF

officer determines that the

administration of justice requires

disclosure;

(v) The disclosure of trade secrets

without the owner’s consent; or

(vi) Testimony in a case in which ATF

has no interest, records or other official

information.

(f) State cases. The appropriate ATF

officer, may, in the interest of Federal

and State law enforcement, upon receipt

of demands or requests of State

authorities, and at the expense of the

State, authorize employees under their

supervision to attend trials and

administrative hearings in liquor,

tobacco, firearms, or explosives cases in

which the State is a party or on behalf

of the State in any criminal case, to

produce records, and to testify as to

facts coming to their knowledge in their

official capacities. However, in cases

where a defendant in a criminal case

requests or demands testimony or the

production of ATF records or

information, authorization from the

appropriate ATF officer is required.

***

* * * * *

Signed: April 5, 2001.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

Approved: April 12, 2001.

Timothy E. Skud,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary

(Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 01–12803 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Preparation Changes for Securing

Packages of Mail

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth

revised Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)

standards that will help ensure packages

of Periodicals and Standard Mail

maintain their integrity during

transportation and postal processing.

This final rule reorganizes DMM M020

29032 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

by prescribing basic standards for

preparing and securing all packages and

incorporating standards that pertain

individually to packages on pallets,

packages in sacks, and packages in

trays. The most significant changes, in

revised DMM M020.1.8, establish new

maximum weight and height limits for

packages of Periodicals and Standard

Mail prepared in sacks. The maximum

height (thickness) for Periodicals and

Standard Mail packages in sacks

depends on whether the cover or outer

surface of the piece is coated (glossy) or

uncoated stock. Packages of pieces with

coated cover stock must not exceed 3

inches in height if secured with string

or twine, rubber bands, or shrinkwrap

without an additional band. However, if

packages of coated pieces are secured

with a minimum of two plastic straps or

with shrinkwrap plus one or two bands,

they must not exceed 6 inches in height.

For pieces with uncoated cover stock,

packages in sacks must not exceed 8

inches in height, although it is

recommended that such packages not

exceed 6 inches in height. The

maximum weight for all packages of

Periodicals and Standard mail prepared

in sacks is 20 pounds. This limit is

consistent with the maximum weight

prescribed for such packages when

prepared on pallets and is the maximum

weight of packages or parcels that can

be processed on the small parcel and

bundle sorter (SPBS).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl Beller, 202–268–5166,

cbeller1@email.usps.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 20, 2001, the Postal Service

published for public comment in the

Federal Register (66 FR 10868–10872) a

proposal to require that for Periodicals

and Standard Mail prepared in sacks: [1]

packages must not weigh more than 20

pounds as provided in new DMM

M020.1.8a; [2] packages of pieces with

covers of coated stock that are not

individually enclosed in an envelope or

protective wrapper (e.g., polywrap or

uncoated paper wrapper) must not

exceed 3 inches in height if secured

with string or twine, rubber bands, or

only shrinkwrap, and must not exceed

6 inches in height if secured with two

plastic straps or shrinkwrap plus one or

two bands as provided in new DMM

M020.1.8d; and [3] packages of pieces

with outer surfaces of uncoated stock

must not exceed 8 inches in height,

although it is recommended that such

packages not exceed 6 inches in height,

as provided in new DMM M020.1.8e. It

was also proposed that the general

packaging standards in DMM M020 be

revised by: [1] Eliminating the required

banding sequence in DMM M020.2.3b

that the first strap be placed around the

length and the second around the girth

when double-banding packages over 1

inch (redesignated DMM M020.1.4); [2]

requiring, for packages of pieces of

nonuniform thickness, counter-stacking

for sacked and palletized mail to create

packages of more uniform thickness as

provided in revised DMM M020.1.2; [3]

reinforcing and clarifying the

requirement that packages over 1 inch

in height, whether placed in sacks or on

pallets, must be secured with at least

two bands, with shrinkwrap, or with

shrinkwrap plus one or two bands as

provided in DMM M020.1.4d. The

deadline for submitting comments on

the proposal was March 22, 2001.

Part A below summarizes the

revisions to the proposal made in this

final rule. Part B sets forth the

evaluation of the comments received. It

should be noted that although the DMM

refers to individual pieces secured

together as a unit to a single presort

destination as a ‘‘package,’’ many in the

mailing industry refer to these units of

mail as ‘‘bundles,’’ and the terms are

used interchangeably in the discussion

of comments below.

A. Summary of Revisions to the

Proposed Rule

Based on comments received in

response to the proposed rule, the Postal

Service is adopting the standards set

forth in the proposed rule with the

following changes:

(1) DMM M020.1.2 in the proposed

rule has been revised to allow, rather

than require, mailers to counter-stack

pieces of nonuniform thickness to create

packages of more uniform thickness,

which are more likely to maintain their

integrity during transportation and

processing.

(2) DMM M020.1.5b has been revised

in the final rule to eliminate a required

sequence for applying shrinkwrap plus

a strap to packages on pallets. The

revised language is consistent with

DMM M020.1.4b, M020.1.8d, and

M020.1.8e(2) in this final rule.

(3) DMM M020.1.8f has been revised

in the final rule to clarify that ‘‘uncoated

stock’’ also refers to pieces with coated

covers that are individually enclosed in

a cover or mailing wrapper of uncoated

stock such as an envelope, sleeve,

protective cover, partial wrapper, or

polybag, and pieces with outer surfaces

composed of material other than paper

(e.g., plastic, cloth, fiberboard, or metal).

As such, packages of such pieces

prepared in sacks may be up to 8 inches

high (thick). This section is also revised

in the final rule to clarify that although

packages of pieces of uncoated stock

may be up to 8 inches high, it is

recommended that such packages not

exceed 6 inches in height.

DMM M020.1.8b in the proposed rule,

which repeated general language

already included in M020.1.4, has been

deleted from the final rule. DMM

M020.1.8d(3) and M020.8d(4) in the

proposed rule contained standards for

measuring packages of pieces with

coated cover stock. These standards

were repeated in DMM M020.1.8e(3)

and M020.8e(4) for pieces with

uncoated cover stock. Therefore, these

items are deleted and their content,

applying to all packages of Periodicals

and Standard Mail prepared in sacks, is

redesignated in the final rule as

M020.8c and M020.8d.

B. Evaluation of Comments Received

1. General

Twelve comments were received. All

commenters were generally supportive

of the efforts undertaken by the Postal

Service and mailing industry to improve

the processing, transporting, and

handling of the mail, and two

commenters indicated support for all of

the changes in the proposed rule.

One commenter stated that the

problem of broken bundles is not new.

The commenter noted that over the past

15 years, the Postal Service and outside

consultants identified ‘‘root causes’’ for

bundle breakage but took no serious

actions to resolve the problem prior to

the efforts of the Mailers Technical

Advisory Committee (MTAC) Package

Integrity Work Group to collect breakage

data for live mail and to conduct a

controlled test for sacked mail. The

proposed rule is intended to address

these concerns by updating and

clarifying DMM M020 standards.

One commenter representing

Periodicals mailers has worked with the

Postal Service to reduce the incidence

and costs of bundle breakage. As part of

the Periodicals Operations Review Team

and through MTAC, the commenter and

members observed an alarming rate of

bundle breakage for Periodicals and

Standard Mail flats and worked with the

Postal Service to understand root causes

and identify changes to improve

integrity.

One commenter expressed support for

the targeted approach to a cost-effective

solution to the bundle breakage problem

that will not overburden publishers and

printers and stated that the proposal

will help in the short term. The

commenter also believes that a longterm solution is needed.

One commenter favors cost-effective

solutions to the bundle breakage

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29033

problem and wants the Postal Service to

capture savings identified in

conjunction with the Periodicals

Operations Review Team in the recent

rate case, but believes the proposed

changes could potentially impose a

huge financial burden on customers.

One commenter representing smallervolume Periodicals publications, with

circulation generally under 100,000 and

mailings prepared primarily in sacks

rather than on pallets, recognizes

bundle breakage is a problem. This

commenter is concerned that the

proposed rule ‘‘is a costly (to mailers)

stopgap measure that may not be

effective in accomplishing its stated

purpose of reducing USPS handling

costs’’ but expects the proposal to be

implemented and members to adapt.

This commenter also believes that

additional steps the Postal Service is

taking, such as educating mailers,

improving induction methods, and

enabling customers to prepare flats in a

manner that supports processing on flat

sorting machines (FSMs), are more

likely than the proposed changes to

cause a meaningful change in

processing costs.

The Postal Service and mailing

industry have been working together on

several fronts to address the serious

issue of bundle breakage and its

associated costs, which are ultimately

reflected in postal rates. As noted, this

problem is not new and this final rule

is but one of several ongoing efforts to

make long-needed changes that will

have an overall positive effect on bundle

breakage and flats processing costs and

efficiencies in general. The MTAC

Package Integrity Work Group was

created to address the bundle breakage

problem identified by the Periodicals

Operations Review Team. This final rule

represents one step toward achieving

incremental improvements while longterm solutions are explored. Various

concerns raised by commenters about

specific provisions of DMM M020 that

are contained in the proposed rule are

described and responded to below.

2. Counter-Stacking

Two commenters questioned whether

the proposed requirement to counterstack pieces of nonuniform thickness to

create packages of more uniform

thickness will increase carrier and clerk

costs to re-orient the pieces before

sorting them by a greater amount than

the savings that might result from

reduced bundle breakage costs.

One commenter requested further

clarification of the situations that would

require counter-stacking to avoid

different interpretations by acceptance

personnel and mailers. It was suggested

that a clearer definition of ‘‘non-uniform

thickness’’ be provided, possibly

including a measurement, such as ‘‘if

there is more than .25′′ difference in

thickness from top to bottom (thinnest

to thickest).’’

Based on the comments and upon

further review of this issue, the Postal

Service has determined that re-orienting

counter-stacked pieces to prep flats for

delivery or to run on a flat sorting

machine (e.g., an AFSM 100) is time

consuming and, in many situations, may

add to processing costs. Because it is

difficult to describe objectively each

situation when it would be appropriate

to counter-stack pieces to maintain

package integrity, M020.1.2 in this final

rule has been revised to recommend,

rather than require, counter-stacking to

create more uniform packages. In

addition, language has been added to

clarify that mailers should limit the use

of counter-stacking to those situations

when it is expected to actually improve

the uniformity and stability of a

package. For example, some postal

processing facilities have reported that

they receive packages from mailers as

small as 1 inch high that contain three

or four counter-stacked groups. These

small counter-stacked groups have little,

if any, impact on the integrity of the

package and make it difficult for postal

personnel to re-orient the mail to run on

a flat sorting machine or for delivery.

3. Twenty-Pound Maximum Weight for

Packages in Sacks

Two commenters expressed their

approval of the proposal to limit the

weight of Periodicals and Standard Mail

packages prepared in sacks to 20

pounds and noted that packages that

exceed this weight contribute to bundle

breakage and cannot be processed on

the SPBS. Furthermore, one commenter

stated that the 20-pound maximum for

packages in sacks is neither

unreasonable nor burdensome and is

consistent with the standard for

packages on pallets.

The 20-pound maximum package

weight is retained in this final rule.

4. Requirement to Shrinkwrap Packages

on Bulk Mail Center (BMC) Pallets

Two commenters indicated that

mailers could move more Standard Mail

out of sacks and onto pallets, and

thereby reduce package breakage rates

for this mail, if they were permitted to

use banding instead of shrinkwrap to

secure packages on BMC pallets. One

commenter noted that the processing of

bundles on BMC parcel sorting

machines (PSMs) is abusive and normal

packaging may not withstand this

processing and recommended that the

Postal Service identify the BMCs that do

not process bundles on their PSMs.

Mailers should then be permitted to use

banding instead of shrinkwrap for

bundles on BMC pallets sorted to those

facilities.

One commenter secures packages of

Standard Mail with bands around the

length and girth and reported receiving

few if any complaints about breakage.

This mailer must sack mail that remains

after 5-digit and SCF pallets are

prepared because of the requirement to

shrinkwrap packages on BMC pallets.

These sacks are often placed on BMC

pallets. This commenter indicated that

most letter shops do not have the ability

to shrinkwrap packages and could move

approximately 80 percent of packages

currently prepared in sacks onto pallets

if the Postal Service would allow

banded packages on BMC pallets.

In conjunction with other efforts

focused on moving mail out of sacks to

reduce the potential for package

breakage and the costs associated with

such breakage, the Postal Service will

explore potential opportunities to place

packages secured with material other

than shrinkwrap onto BMC pallets.

However, before any final decision is

made, the impact that such a change

could have on processing costs and

service must be fully evaluated. For

example, candidate packages may

currently be in carrier route-through

ADC-level sacks and some analysis

would be required to determine the

potential difference in container and

package handling costs if these packages

were to move out of more finely sorted

sacks and onto BMC pallets. The Postal

Service must also assess the potential

impact on package breakage rates

resulting from more package handlings

but fewer sack handlings, particularly

for carrier route, 5-digit, and 3-digit

packages, and how this could affect

service considering that the recovered

pieces must generally be transported to

the parent plant for appropriate piece

distribution (e.g., on a flat sorting

machine). Finally, the methods used by

BMCs to process packages on BMC

pallets must be reviewed to determine if

service would be negatively impacted

when compared to the service the mail

would receive if prepared in sacks.

Sacked mail is processed by BMCs to

plants or delivery units where the

contents of the sacks are distributed

(e.g., are packages at BMCs processed on

parcel sorting machines or SPBSs; what

sort schemes are used). If a decision is

made to expand the type(s) of package

securing methods that are acceptable for

mail on BMC pallets, it is possible that

the standards could be somewhat more

restrictive than the current standards for

29034 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

mail prepared on pallets. For example,

because data collected by the MTAC

Package Integrity Work Group during

live mail tests showed that mail secured

with rubber bands had the highest

breakage rates for palletized packages

(2.1 percent), restrictions could be

placed on this type of mail. In summary,

no changes to the standards for packages

on BMC pallets are included in this

final rule.

5. Clarification of ‘‘Uncoated Stock’’

Two commenters requested that

proposed DMM M020.1.8d be reworded

to clarify that ‘‘uncoated’’ pieces that

may be prepared in packages up to 8

inches high includes pieces with coated

covers that have been enclosed in a

protective cover or mailing wrapper as

described in DMM C200.1.7. One

commenter asked that the Postal Service

clarify that individually polywrapped

pieces fall into the category of

‘‘uncoated’’ pieces, whether or not the

pieces inside the wrapper have coated

covers.

This final rule clarifies in DMM

M020.1.8e that the term ‘‘uncoated

stock’’ includes pieces with coated

covers that are individually enclosed in

a cover or mailing wrapper of uncoated

stock such as an envelope, sleeve,

protective cover, partial wrapper, or

polywrap, and also includes pieces with

outer surfaces composed of material

other than paper (e.g., plastic, cloth,

fiberboard, or metal). The final rule also

specifies that packages of such pieces

must not exceed 8 inches in height.

6. Maximum Height of Packages of

Uncoated Pieces

One commenter prepares Periodicals

that have a low height-to-weight ratio in

firm bundles that are shrinkwrapped

and strapped. These bundles may

occasionally exceed the proposed

uncoated pieces maximum package

height of 8 inches, possibly reaching 10

inches in height. The mailer has not

received any feedback about broken

bundles and requests that the maximum

height for uncoated packages in sacks be

raised from 8 inches to 10 inches. If the

maximum height will not be raised,

clarification was requested as to

whether current DMM M020.1.6a

(redesignated as M020.1.7a in this final

rule) allows payment of one piece rate

if two firm bundles are created to avoid

exceeding the maximum height limit. In

addition, this commenter asked that the

final rule include a clarification of the

difference between the recommended

maximum height of 6 inches and the

required maximum height of 8 inches

for packages of uncoated pieces

prepared in sacks.

The Postal Service believes that

concerns about bundle integrity and

successful SPBS processing are

compelling reasons to limit the

maximum height of packages of

uncoated pieces in sacks to 8 inches.

The 20-pound maximum weight ensures

packages are compatible with SPBS

processing and it is likely that most

packages that exceed 8 inches, when

measured at the lowest point as

permitted by the new standards, would

also exceed 20 pounds. Exceptions are

likely to be pieces similar to the DVDs

in plastic containers that were included

in the controlled test that are less dense

than printed material, including

circulars, magazines, newspapers,

catalogs, and so forth. When such

lightweight but thick items are prepared

in tall packages (e.g., packages taller

than 8 inches), the packages are more

likely to break during transportation or

processing or to lean and tumble into

the wrong container as they are sorted

on the SPBS.

The maximum package height of 8

inches for packages of uncoated pieces

prepared in sacks is retained in this

final rule. DMM M020.1.8.f(1) has been

revised to consolidate the maximum

permitted height of 8 inches and the

recommended maximum height of 6

inches for packages of uncoated pieces

prepared in sacks. We believe that this

will clarify that such packages may be

up to 8 inches in height but the Postal

Service wants to encourage mailers to

limit these packages to a maximum

height of 6 inches. This

recommendation is intended to help

ensure that bundle integrity will be

maintained while recognizing that some

mailpieces can be prepared in taller

packages (e.g., up to 8 inches high and

weighing up to 20 pounds) that can be

successfully processed by the Postal

Service.

If a firm bundle must be split in two

to meet the new height restrictions, each

firm bundle is subject to a separate per

piece charge to reflect the handling of

two pieces by the Postal Service. For

purposes of rate eligibility, pieces

prepared as one firm bundle under

current standards that must be prepared

as two firm bundles due to the height

restrictions in this final rule would pay

two per piece charges, reflecting the fact

the Postal Service is processing and

delivering two pieces. Under DMM

M020.1.6a (redesignated M020.1.7a)

these would also count as two

addressed pieces in determining

whether there are six or more pieces to

a presort destination when determining

Periodicals rate eligibility.

7. Coated Stock and Breakage

Two commenters agreed that coated

stock does contribute to package

breakage. One stated that there is no

question that pieces with coated cover

stock contribute to bundle breakage and

that it makes sense to reduce the

maximum height to 6 inches for banded

or strapped bundles.

One commenter confirmed that the

highest breakage rate occurred for

sacked flats with glossy covers of coated

stock, and bundles 4 to 6 inches high

broke 42 to 100 percent of the time in

the MTAC Package Integrity Work

Group controlled test, before the

bundles were even handled

individually. This commenter stated

that these high breakage rates ‘‘cause

significant costs (in the form of

additional piece handlings and machine

slowdowns and stoppages) borne by all

mailers of flats.’’ In the controlled test,

adding a plastic strap to shrinkwrapped

packages reduced the breakage rate by

25 percent; packages with two plastic

straps had a breakage rate 15 percent

lower than the rate for shrinkwrapped

packages; and reducing the size of

packages by 1 inch reduced breakage by

approximately 14 percent.

The key focus of this final rule is to

reduce breakage rates for packages of

pieces with coated cover stock.

8. Impact of Limiting Package Height

Seven commenters stated that the

proposal to limit, for Periodicals and

Standard Mail in sacks, the size of

packages of pieces with coated stock

secured with rubber bands, string or

twine, or shrinkwrap without a band to

3 inches in height will increase the

number of packages that some mailers

will prepare.

One commenter stated that the

creation of more packages will add to

Postal Service mail processing costs,

which is not in the best interests of the

mailing industry or the Postal Service,

and another stated that the proposed

rule could increase by nearly 5 percent

the number of bundles that one of its

members produces.

One commenter suggested that the

proposal will cause mailers to prepare a

greater number of packages that are

more difficult to open, which will

change processing costs. The

commenter also stated they would be

more positive about the changes if the

Postal Service had attempted to quantify

added costs associated with the

additional packages, such as those

related to Postal Service-allied labor

costs for opening packages and prepping

mail for automated flat sorting

machines.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29035

One commenter noted that a Postal

Service representative had stated that

‘‘over 30 percent of the USPS handling

and processing costs for flats were

depackaging’’ and that the proposal

would be contrary to the objective of

creating fewer packages as well as fewer

sacks. This commenter also stated that

preparing smaller packages secured only

with shrinkwrap for sacked mail will

slow production and add to mailer

costs. The mailer will need to have list

processors provide bundle separation

marks for production lines that do not

have an ‘‘auto slow down’’ control to

maximize bundle size and machine

speed. For one customer, some packages

for sacked mailings may contain as few

as two pieces to meet the 3-inch height

limit.

One commenter questions whether

the Postal Service documented or

measured the cost of handling the

additional packages that will be

produced if the proposed changes are

adopted and asks if the Postal Service

has a metric to ensure that the cost

reductions for breakage materialize as a

result of the proposed rule.

Analysis of the MTAC Package

Integrity Work Group test data shows

that reducing the size of ‘‘high-risk’’

packages, specifically packages of pieces

with coated cover stock prepared in

sacks, will result in significant savings.

In the controlled package integrity test,

the workgroup found that 75 percent of

4-inch and 6-inch packages of coated

pieces entered at an origin facility broke

even before the packages were handled

individually out of the mailer-prepared

sacks. Based upon additional analysis of

test data for both the live mail and

controlled tests, the Postal Service

believes that cutting the size of a large

package of coated flats in half would

reduce bundle breakage for the affected

mail by approximately 50 percent.

Using the same methodology that the

Postal Rate Commission (PRC) used in

Docket No. R2000–1 to analyze this cost

trade-off, we found that cutting the

average package size for Periodicals and

Standard Mail high-risk flats in half

(e.g., from an average of 20 down to 10

pieces per package and from 15 down to

7.5 pieces per package) may reduce

average mail processing costs for these

flats by as much as 0.4 to 0.7 cents per

piece. Furthermore, the PRC’s

methodology does not take into account

reductions in allied labor costs that may

result from reduced package breakage.

The focus of this final rule is to

significantly reduce package breakage

using current packaging methods. It is

not expected that packages prepared by

mailers will be any more difficult to

open as a result of these changes. It is

expected, as noted previously, that the

Postal Service will have to process some

additional packages that are more likely

to maintain their integrity and that

packaging in general for mail prepared

both in sacks and on pallets will

improve as mailers use current methods

more effectively.

The Postal Service does not have a

metric to ensure that the projected cost

reductions materialize as a result of this

final rule. After this final rule has been

in effect for several months, in order to

quantify whether package breakage rates

have decreased, the Postal Service plans

to collect additional data for live mail in

the same manner as originally collected

by the MTAC Package Integrity Work

Group in 1999.

9. Clarification of Rate Eligibility

One commenter stated that because of

the 3-inch package height maximum for

some mail, packages of large Periodicals

publications could sometimes contain

fewer than six pieces. This commenter

requested that the final rule clarify that

rate eligibility standards for such

packages will be satisfied as long as

there are a minimum of six addressed

pieces for the presort level, even if they

are prepared in more than one physical

package due to the maximum height

limit.

Under the provisions of current DMM

M020.1.6a, an individual package may

be prepared with fewer than the

minimum number of pieces required by

the standards for the rate claimed

without loss of rate eligibility if a greater

number of pieces would exceed the

maximum physical size for a package

and the total number of pieces for that

presort destination meets the minimum

volume standard (e.g., 30 pieces are

available to meet a 10-piece minimum,

but a package of eight pieces is 6 inches

thick). In the proposed rule, this section

was redesignated as M020.1.7, but was

not printed. The complete contents of

redesignated M020.1.7 are published in

this final rule to clarify that rate

eligibility for smaller packages prepared

under the new height limits is based on

the total number of pieces for the

presort destination.

10. Strappers

Seven commenters indicated that

many printers use only shrinkwrap to

secure packages and have removed

strapping from most of their production

lines. Three commenters stated that this

allows lines to run faster, more

efficiently, and is less costly and that

adding strappers to their lines would be

expensive.

One commenter stated that most of its

mail is sacked due to volume and

densities of publications and most mail

is also of coated stock. This mailer

would choose the option of reducing

package size to a 3-inch maximum

height instead of adding strapping

equipment but is concerned that it will

add costs by slowing bindery mailing

equipment production speeds, adding

material, and increasing labor. Because

of the competitive market, the mailer

would have to absorb additional costs

and would like instead to test heavier

shrinkwrap that could be used without

an additional strap on packages over 3

inches that are prepared in sacks. This

would add some material costs but less

than those resulting from the proposed

changes. This commenter indicated that

the alternative of adding additional

strapping equipment that would permit

larger packages would require a capital

investment of over $500,000 for the

strappers and building expansions to

accommodate the additional equipment.

Currently, this mailer uses only banding

to secure packages of individually

polywrapped pieces. This commenter

also suggested that the Postal Service

allow a variety of packaging methods as

long as mailers first submit packages for

testing and approval.

One commenter stated that instead of

adding strappers, the maximum package

height would be reduced and the added

cost for changing the size of some

packages would be approximately

$250,000. The commenter prepares

sacks and pallets and could set the

parameters for only their sacked mail to

a maximum package height of 3 inches.

For some mail, this could double the

number of packages and impact their

costs and productivity. This commenter

suggests that the Postal Service, in

conjunction with the printing industry,

test and determine formulations and mil

strength of polyfilm that could be used

instead of an additional strap to secure

packages of coated pieces that are taller

then 3 inches.

One commenter stated it would have

to spend millions of dollars to purchase

and install new strappers and would

lose millions of dollars in maintenance,

downtime, and lower productivity. It

requested that mailers be given the

option of selecting the securing method

they prefer that makes the most sense

for their operation and their customers.

One commenter stated that additional

strapping requirements will add to

printers’ and publishers’ mail

preparation costs and the Postal Service

must capture savings from the proposed

standards or the change will have a net

negative impact on publishers and

printers.

One commenter suggested that, as a

next step, they would like to test heavier

29036 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

shrinkwrap (e.g., 2 to 3 mils) or highperformance formulations that may be

substituted for the addition of a strap to

shrinkwrapped packages or bundles of

glossy mail in sacks that exceed 3

inches. This commenter stated that most

of the mailing industry uses film that is

1.25 to 1.5 mils thick.

One commenter stated that

prohibiting packages of pieces with

coated stock that exceed 3 inches unless

they are double-strapped or strapped

with shrinkwrap is burdensome and

may be unreasonable because printers

have moved away from strapping to

shrinkwrap. The best solution may be to

require heavier shrinkwrap.

The Postal Service developed the

proposed rule in conjunction with a

joint Postal Service/industry effort to

reduce package breakage and lower

Postal Service operational costs by

improving mailer packaging and Postal

Service processing of such mail. Data

describing the current condition of

packages of Periodicals non-letters and

Standard Mail flats was collected and

analyzed by the workgroup to identify

changes that could be made to achieve

these results. MTAC workgroup

members generally agreed that an

analysis of test data clearly pointed to

a need to either improve the methods

for securing tall packages of pieces of

coated stock or reduce the size of such

packages if securing methods are not

improved. Workgroup members

included major mailers that have

eliminated banding from most of their

production lines and whose operations

will be impacted by these changes.

These participants indicated that they

did not expect their companies to

purchase new strapping equipment that

would allow them to create 6-inch

packages of coated pieces. Instead, they

were likely to use current packaging

materials, such as shrinkwrap, and to

limit the height of packages of coated

pieces to be placed in sacks. Several of

these participants indicated that many

major mailers use shrinkwrap material

that is from 0.75 to 1.25 mils thick to

secure palletized and sacked packages

and that, based on test data, this

polywrap is not effective without the

addition of a strap in maintaining the

integrity of tall packages of coated

pieces when they are prepared in sacks.

There was also general, although

reluctant, agreement that the test data

suggested that the proposed packaging

changes probably offered the best nearterm potential to achieve cost savings

from reduced package breakage for mail

in sacks. However, other efforts

currently under way to move more mail

out of sacks and onto pallets, to improve

Postal Service processing of packages,

and to find alternatives to current

preparation methods were seen as

offering the greatest long-term potential

to reduce the costs associated with

package breakage. While the Postal

Service will continue pursuing these

other efforts, we do not believe that we

can afford to delay steps that eliminate

from the sacked mail environment those

packages that have been clearly

identified as the most likely to break.

Some perspective on what might be

involved in establishing a certification

program for packaging materials and

methods can be gained by looking at the

development of the process that led to

the current standards for certifying

polywrap films for automation rate flats.

The Postal Service believes that a

program to certify packaging materials

and methods could be even more

complex and costly to implement

because of the many variables related to

package contents (mailpiece

characteristics) and size that would

have to be tested at many mailer

locations using a broad range of

packaging materials and securing

methods. At this time, the Postal Service

does not have resources to apply to such

an effort and believes that the

combination of efforts to reduce package

breakage currently under way, including

better feedback to customers when

package integrity problems are

identified during postal processing,

offer the most promise for

improvements.

The Postal Service is open to future

discussions regarding industry testing

and recommendations for some specific

polyfilm formulations that may be used

successfully for taller, heavier packages

of pieces of coated stock. In assessing

alternatives to the materials used today

by large printers who probably prepare

the majority of their mail on pallets, the

overall cost of applying this material to

packages on pallets as well as in sacks

must also be considered. If mailers were

to use a heavy polyfilm that maintains

the integrity of the worst mail they

produce (i.e., tall packages of coated

pieces in sacks) on all of their mail,

including mail on pallets, mailer

application costs and Postal Service

removal and disposal costs could also

increase.

To mitigate the impact of this final

rule on overall costs, mailers who

prepare both palletized and sacked mail

need to set different package height

maximums for each type of mail when

presorting their mailing lists. Several

major presort software vendors have

stated that their software provides users

with the ability to do this.

11. Sequence for Material Application

One commenter has strappers in some

processes that apply a single strap

around the girth of a package due to

package size or an off-balance bind on

the mailpiece. The strap is applied after

the shrinkwrap, and the commenter

therefore suggests that DMM M020.1.5b

read ‘‘Packages may be secured with

heavy gauge shrinkwrap AND plastic

banding, only shrink wrap, or only

banding material if they can stay

together during normal processing.’’ The

proposal in DMM M020.1.5b stated that

‘‘Packages may be secured with heavygauge shrinkwrap OVER plastic

* * *rdquo;.

To be consistent with DMM

M020.1.4b, M020.1.8d, and

M020.1.8e(2), the language in M020.1.5b

has been changed in this final rule to

eliminate a required sequence for

applying shrinkwrap plus a strap to

packages on pallets.

12. Flat Trays or Other Containers as an

Alternative to Sacks

Three commenters stated that the

Postal Service must identify a container

that can be used instead of sacks for

mail that cannot be placed on pallets.

One commenter noted that the Postal

Service must urgently pursue

alternatives to sacking for those shortrun publications that have insufficient

density or volume to be palletized.

These publications must be placed in

sacks, which creates added costs at

printers and results in damage from

handling by the Postal Service. This

commenter stated that some Periodicals

have moved from sacks to cartons on

pallets under local arrangements.

One commenter encourages the Postal

Service to develop a cost-effective

alternative to sacking that is compatible

with the flats automation strategy for

small volume mailers who may not be

able to palletize.

One commenter stated that mail

secured with straps and placed in sacks

often becomes damaged when entered

into the SPBS system by being crushed

by other mail. Crushing can create

broken bundles and also make the

pieces incompatible with Postal Service

automated flat-sorting machines. This

commenter also stated that removing

banding from bundles can be dangerous

to USPS employees and that for these

reasons mailers should be permitted to

place Periodicals and Standard Mail

flats in flat trays instead of sacks,

preferably unbundled in a tray-based

preparation like that currently offered

for First-Class Mail. This commenter

also suggested that placing flats in trays

that can be palletized and are

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29037

compatible with Postal Service tray

management systems (TMS) will save

costs by eliminating processing of

bundles on the SPBS and making flats

more compatible with processing on the

AFSM 100 or FSM 1000. The Postal

Service could limit transportation and

handling of these trays by permitting

them only for palletized mail drop

shipped by mailers to specified entry

levels.

The Postal Service must evaluate the

broad impact of a move from sacks to

flat trays or another type of alternate

container for Periodicals non-letters and

Standard Mail flats. The potential for

improved package integrity must be

weighed against many other factors. In

moving from sacks to flat trays, we

would expect to see a decline in cube

utilization. Compared to packages of

flats prepared on pallets or in sacks, flat

trays often contain a significant amount

of unused space within and between

trays for both mailers/consolidators and

the Postal Service. For example, a thin

Periodical with 24 pieces to a

destination placed in a flat tray might

result in a tray that is only one-quarter

full. For mail that must be transported

beyond the origin plant service area,

this reduced cube utilization is likely to

result in less volume per vehicle and

increased costs.

Another consideration is the

processing of containers sorted to

destinations outside of the service area

of the origin plant. Currently, sacked

mail is processed efficiently through the

BMCs on the sack sorter machines

(SSMs), and sufficient SSM capacity

exists. Flat trays, however, are sorted

manually in the BMCs, and if sacks

converted to trays this processing

operation could quickly become a

bottleneck due to lower productivity,

less depth of sort, and greater space

requirements, again increasing costs.

For some Periodicals and Standard

Mail there would not be a one-to-one

trade-off of sacks for trays. For example,

mail for one presort destination that

today fills a sack may have to be placed

in two trays. This change would

increase the number of container

handlings and associated costs.

There is also the issue of lack of flat

tray availability given the increased

demand for flat trays to accommodate

incoming secondary processing on the

AFSM 100s. The Postal Service does not

have money in its budget to purchase

additional large quantities of flat trays

for mailers to use instead of sacks.

Finally, offering a tray-based

preparation option for Periodicals and

Standard Mail with an optional 5-digit

sort (mirroring the current option for

First-Class flats) would significantly

increase the volume requiring incoming

primary piece processing to sort mail to

the 5-digit level on the AFSM 100s and

FSM 1000s. This volume was not

anticipated in the equipment

deployment and additional flat sorting

machines would need to be purchased

and deployed to handle the additional

incoming primary volume.

The Postal Service recognizes that

there may be some future opportunities

to explore alternatives to sacks in some

situations; however, this final rule does

not contain any changes to current

sacking requirements.

13. Alternate Flats Preparation Test

Six commenters indicated that they

are aware that the Postal Service is

exploring alternate mail preparation for

flats to reduce or eliminate packaging of

palletized mail to reduce Postal Service

costs.

One commenter suggests that

alternate preparation could reduce the

bundle breakage problem in addition to

reducing allied labor costs associated

with opening packages.

One commenter who is participating

in the test stated that mailers do not

want to make capital investments to

improve packaging now when

investments may be required in the near

future for different preparation methods.

Another test participant does not think

it would be prudent to make major

capital investments in bindery

packaging and material handling

equipment until the Postal Service flats

automation strategy is finalized.

One commenter stated that the Postal

Service should examine whether a

‘‘bundle-less’’ preparation, such as that

being tested for pallets, could be

extended to sacked mailings.

The Postal Service is partnering with

the mailing industry to test methods for

preparing flat-sized mail in a manner

that best supports current and future

flats processing and is examining the

potential cost savings opportunities of

eliminating or reducing packages on

pallets. The test parameters were

announced in the February 22, 2001,

issue of the Postal Bulletin. It is because

of the many other efforts, such as the

alternate flats preparation test, currently

under way to improve flats processing

that the Postal Service is implementing

this final rule. Because new or modified

manufacturing processes may prove to

be justified in the future, the revised

standards were designed to reduce

overall costs now without requiring

mailers to change their manufacturing

methods, and all current methods of

securing packages will continue to be

acceptable.

14. Maximum Package Weight as Proxy

for Maximum Height

One mailer indicated that presort

software currently controls package size

by weight, not height, and the Postal

Service should develop a standard

weight-height conversion table that

allows mailers to comply with the

proposed rule by using weight as a

proxy for height. This flexibility would

facilitate compliance in the shortest

time frame with less disruption to the

industry.

The data collected relating to bundle

breakage in the live mail test and the

resulting proposed standards do not

include information to correlate height

to weight. Although some data is

available from the controlled test to

develop a height-to-weight relationship,

it would apply only to the test pieces.

It is difficult to develop a standard

conversion chart that would

consistently result in packages meeting

the proposed height standards due to

the variations in size, composition,

method of binding, paper stock, inserts,

and so forth for flat-size mail. For

example, packages of a dense perfectbound publication printed on

heavyweight coated paper are likely to

have a very different weight-to-height

relationship than packages of an

enveloped piece containing a

lightweight bulky insert. It would be

more feasible and useful for mailers to

use actual sample mailpieces

representing their regular mix of mail to

create their own weight-to-height

conversion tables. Presort software does

have the ability to control package

height using the thickness of an average

piece. This final rule contains only

maximum height standards for packages

of Periodicals and Standard Mail

prepared in sacks.

15. Clarification of ‘‘Football-Shaped’’

Packages

One commenter questioned whether

the 9 inch by 12 inch envelopes in the

controlled test were considered to

represent the norm for enveloped flats.

This mail experienced an approximate

58 percent breakage rate due to an insert

in the center that caused the larger

packages to become shaped like a

football.

No conclusions were drawn regarding

how representative the test piece might

be of the general flats mailstream. The

only conclusion that was drawn was

that counter-stacking is unlikely to

create stable tall packages of pieces that

are thicker in the center than they are

on the edges and mailers may instead

need to limit the package size of such

29038 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

pieces or add additional banding to the

packages.

16. Pallets

Three commenters discussed

potential opportunities for moving more

mail from sacks to pallets.

One commenter indicated that

preparing lighter-weight pallets, (e.g.,

150 pounds) would help move mail out

of sacks, while another had mixed

feelings about preparing lighter-weight

pallets as a solution for eliminating

sacks. Although 250-pound pallets may

result in deeper penetration and better

delivery for some mail, they may cause

staging problems in plants and extra

material handling.

One commenter suggested a 5-digit

pallet discount to encourage mail on

direct 5-digit pallets that are low cost for

the Postal Service. These direct pallets

would also substantially reduce the

likelihood of bundle breakage. The

commenter noted that Postal Service

rate case witnesses considered the

proposal premature but ‘‘did indicate a

general interest . . . in encouraging

palletization and a specific interest in

having additional direct pallets.’’

Because the MTAC Package Integrity

Work Group, during its live mail test,

found packages in sacks broke more

than 10 times as frequently as packages

on pallets, the commenter suggested

that the Postal Service investigate ways

to modify postage rates and mail

preparation standards to encourage

mailers to increase palletization.

Furthermore, standards should be

considered to allow residual mail,

currently in sacks, to be merged onto

pallets. Bundle breakage is strongly

related to the number of handlings a

bundle receives. Bundles on more finely

presorted pallets will receive fewer

handlings and mailers should be

encouraged to palletize and drop ship

pallets.

As noted above, there is a difference

of opinion within the mailing industry

as to whether the pallet minimum

should be lowered. The DMM currently

contains provisions that allow mailers

to prepare pallets that weigh less than

250 pounds when those pallets are drop

shipped to the destination sectional

center facility (DSCF) or destination

delivery unit (DDU). Mailers need to

obtain written authorization from the

processing and distribution manager of

the entry facility for DSCF entry of

lightweight pallets. There are no data

showing that lowering the minimum

pallet weight for mail that is not drop

shipped to these destinations would

provide the Postal Service with savings

that offset the additional costs resulting

from increased pallet handlings and

decreased cube utilization on postal

transportation. There are no plans at

this time to lower minimum pallet

weights.

The pursuit of a discount for mail on

5-digit pallets is beyond the scope of

this rule. Any request for domestic rate

changes must be submitted by the Postal

Service to the Postal Rate Commission.

Mailers should note that several

options currently available have been

shown to increase palletization levels.

For example, mailers may choose not to

prepare optional 3-digit pallets or, if

they do prepare such pallets, they may

use package reallocation to protect the

SCF pallet level if their software is

PAVE-certified to support this option. In

addition, mailers might consider

lowering the minimum pallet weight,

possibly to as low as 250 pounds, for

only their last pallet level (e.g., ADC for

Periodicals or ASF/BMC for Standard

Mail) to keep mail from falling to sacks.

The Postal Service is aware that many

mailers do not take advantage of these

opportunities.

17. Improvements to SPBS Feed Systems

Two commenters commended the

Postal Service for its efforts to reduce

stress on bundles through equipment

modifications. One commenter

encouraged a continued search for

gentler handling processes, such as

those associated with the SPBS feed

systems, while the other supported

Postal Service efforts to improve

package sorting related to SPBS feed

systems as a means to avoid rehandling

costs.

In addition to changes to the SPBS

feed systems to mitigate bundle

breakage, the Postal Service has

modified broken bundle recovery

methods to reduce costs. A new

Automatic Package Processing System

(APPS), the next generation SPBS, is

also being developed. This new

machine is designed to take bulk-loaded

parcels or bundles and separate them

into an evenly spaced singulated stream

for scanning and sorting. This process

should be more gentle to flats bundles.

However, regardless of changes to Postal

Service processing, mailers must take

necessary steps to ensure that bundles

retain their integrity to the point where

they are unloaded on postal processing

equipment and opened for distribution

of the contents.

18. Feedback

One commenter stated that the Postal

Service has not done a good job of

notifying mailers when packages were

improperly prepared and fell apart

during processing. If mailers had been

informed regularly of problems, they

could have incorporated packaging

alternatives or fine-tuned methods over

time that would not be as costly as the

proposed changes.

The MTAC Mail Irregularity Feedback

Work Group was formed in response to

comments that the MTAC Package

Integrity Work Group received from

customers indicating that they were not

receiving feedback about broken

bundles and therefore were unaware of

problems or any need to change their

packaging methods. In order to improve

the quality of business mailings, the

Postal Service is revising the irregularity

reporting and correction process. More

information about these changes,

including the revised PS Form 3749,

Mail Irregularity Report, can be found in

Postal Bulletin 22043 (2–8–01) and in

the February 2001 Memo to Mailers.

This process will be used to report

serious quality issues such as broken

bundles, unreadable barcodes,

mislabeled trays, and so on, to mailers

and mail preparers and also includes a

mechanism to address disposition of

reported problems.

19. Implementation Date

One commenter indicated that some

changes in the proposed rule require

software programming changes. This

mailer requires 45 to 60 days to program

and test new enhancements that allow

different package sizes for sacked and

palletized mail and proposed an

effective date some time between July

15 and September 1, 2001.

Based on the comments received and

discussions with other mailers and

presort software vendors regarding

implementation of software and

manufacturing changes to accommodate

the final rule, the Postal Service has

determined to place all provisions of

this final rule into effect on July 1, 2001.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

Administrative practice and

procedure, Postal Service.

For the reasons discussed above, the

Postal Service hereby adopts the

following amendments to the Domestic

Mail Manual, which is incorporated by

reference in the Code of Federal

Regulations (see 39 CFR Part 111).

PART 111—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

part 111 continues to read as follows:

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

401, 403, 404, 414, 3001–3011, 3201–3219,

3403–3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

2. Revise the following sections of the

Domestic Mail Manual as set forth

below:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29039

M Mail Preparation and Sortation

* * * * *

M020 Packages

1.0 BASIC STANDARDS

[Amend 1.1 by replacing the reference

to 1.6 with 1.2 to read as follows:]

1.1 Facing

Except as noted in 1.2, all pieces in

a package must be ‘‘faced’’ (i.e.,

arranged with the addresses in the same

read direction), with an address visible

on the top piece.

[Amend the heading of 1.2 and revise

the text to clarify when counter-stacking

of pieces of irregular thickness is

appropriate to read as follows:]

1.2 Counter-Stacking—Sacked and

Palletized Mail

Packages of flats and other pieces of

nonuniform thickness may be prepared

by counter-stacking under these

conditions:

a. Counter-stacking should be used

only to create packages of more uniform

thickness that are more likely to

maintain their integrity during

transportation and processing.

b. Counter-stacking is appropriate for

saddle-stitched mailpieces and pieces

where one edge is thicker than other

edges or one corner is thicker than other

corners.

c. When counter-stacking, pieces must

all have addresses facing up and be

divided into no more than four

approximately equal groups, with each

group rotated 180 degrees from the

preceding and succeeding group(s);

prepare as few groups as possible to

create a bundle of uniform thickness.

d. Counter-stacked groups within a

package should be as thick as possible,

generally at least 1 inch thick.

e. When pieces are nonuniform in

thickness because they are thicker in the

center instead of along an edge or

corner, counter-stacking will generally

not result in a package of uniform

thickness (i.e., a football-shaped

package would be created). Instead of

counter-stacking such pieces, limit the

height (thickness) of the package to 3 to

6 inches to ensure the package will stay

together during normal transit and

handling.

* * * * *

[Redesignate 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 as 1.5,

1.6, and 1.7, respectively, and add new

1.4 to read as follows:]

1.4 Securing Packages—General

Package preparation is subject to the

following requirements:

a. Packages must be able to withstand

normal transit and handling without

breakage or injury to USPS employees.

b. Packages must be secured with

banding, shrinkwrap, or shrinkwrap

plus one or more bands. Banding

includes plastic bands, rubber bands,

twine/string, and similar material. Use

of wire or metal banding is not

permitted.

c. When one band is used, it must be

placed tightly around the girth (narrow

dimension).

d. Except under 1.5 and 2.1f, packages

over 1 inch high (thick) must be secured

with at least two bands or with

shrinkwrap. When double banding is

used to secure packages, it must encircle

the length and girth of the package at

least once. Additional bands may be

used if none lies within 1 inch of any

package edge.

e. Banding tension must be sufficient

to tighten and depress the edges of the

package so pieces will not slip out of the

banding during transit and processing.

Loose banding is not allowed.

f. When twine/string is used to band

packages, the knot(s) must be secure so

the banding does not come loose during

transit and processing.

[Amend the heading of redesignated

1.5, add new 1.5a, and redesignate the

current content as 1.5b to read as

follows:]

1.5 Packages on Pallets

In addition to 1.1 through 1.4,

packages on pallets must meet the

following standards:

a. Except as noted in 1.5b, packages

up to 1 inch in height (thickness) must

be secured with appropriate banding,

placed at least once around the girth, or

with shrinkwrap. Packages over 1 inch

in height must be secured with at least

two bands (plastic bands, rubber bands,

twine/string, or similar material), one

around the length and one around the

girth, with shrinkwrap, or with

shrinkwrap plus one or two bands.

b. Packages may be secured with

heavy-gauge shrinkwrap plus plastic

banding, only shrinkwrap, or only

banding material if they can stay

together during normal processing.

Except for packages of individually

polywrapped pieces, packages on BMC

pallets must be shrinkwrapped and

machinable on BMC parcel sorters.

Packages and bundles of individually

polywrapped pieces may be secured

with banding material only.

Machinability is determined by the

USPS. If used, banding material must be

applied at least once around the length

and once around the girth; wire and

metal strapping are prohibited.

[Revise the first sentence of

redesignated 1.6 to indicate that

packages of Bound Printed Matter must

also meet the applicable maximum

package size standards in M045 and

M722 to read as follows. No other

changes to text.]

1.6 Package Size—Bound Printed

Matter

Each ‘‘logical’’ package (the total

group of pieces for a package

destination) of Bound Printed Matter

must meet the applicable minimum and

maximum package size standards

prescribed in M045 or M722. * * *

1.7 Package Size—Other Mail Classes

Except for Bound Printed Matter, an

individual package may be prepared

with fewer than the minimum number

of pieces required by the standards for

the rate claimed without loss of rate

eligibility under either of these

conditions:

a. A greater number of pieces would

exceed the maximum physical size for

a package and the total number of pieces

for that presort destination meets the

minimum volume standard (e.g., 30

pieces are available to meet a 10-piece

minimum, but a package of eight pieces

is 6 inches thick).

b. The pieces constitute the ‘‘last

package’’ for a presort destination and

previously prepared packages met the

applicable minimum volume standard

(e.g., 505 pieces prepared in 10 50-piece

packages and one five-piece package)

[Redesignate former 1.7 as 1.9 and

add new 1.8 to read as follows:]

1.8 Packages in Sacks—Periodicals

and Standard Mail

Periodicals and Standard Mail

prepared in sacks must be secured in

packages as follows:

a. The maximum weight for all

packages is 20 pounds.

b. Packages up to 1 inch in height

(thickness) must be secured with

appropriate banding, placed at least

once around the girth (narrow

dimension), or with shrinkwrap.

Packages over 1 inch in height must be

secured with at least two bands (plastic

bands, rubber bands, or twine/string),

one around the length and one around

the girth, with shrinkwrap, or with

shrinkwrap plus one or two bands.

c. Packages should be measured at the

lowest (thinnest) point to determine the

package height.

d. A package that exceeds the

maximum prescribed height by less than

the thickness of a single piece meets the

standard (e.g., if a glossy piece is 0.625

(5⁄8) of an inch thick, five pieces may be

secured in a package 3.125 inches high;

if a piece with uncoated cover stock is

0.75 (3⁄4) of an inch thick, 11 pieces may

be secured in a package 8.25 inches

high).

29040 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1Public Law 106–554, 114 Stat. 4577 (December

21, 2000), Consolidated Appropriations—FY 2001,

section 143, amending section 336 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47

U.S.C. 336, to add new paragraph (h). 2 47 U.S.C. 336(h)(7).

3According to new section 336(h)(3), 47 U.S.C.

336(h)(3):

Notwithstanding any requirement of section 553

of title 5, United States Code, the Commission shall

promulgate regulations establishing the procedures,

consistent with the requirements of paragraphs (4)

and (5), governing the pilot projects for the

provision of digital data services by certain low

power television licensees within 120 days after the

date of enactment of LPTV Digital Data Services

Act. The regulations shall set forth—

(A) requirements as to the form, manner, and

information required for submitting requests to the

Commission to provide digital data service as a

pilot project;

(B) procedures for testing interference to digital

television receivers caused by any pilot project

station or remote transmitter;

e. Packages of pieces with covers of

coated stock that are not individually

enclosed in a mailing wrapper (e.g.,

magazines or catalogs with glossy covers

not individually enclosed in an

envelope, uncoated paper wrapper, or

plastic wrapper (polybag)) are subject to

these conditions:

(1) Except as noted in e(2), packages

must not exceed 3 inches in height

(thickness).

(2) Packages of such pieces secured

with shrinkwrap plus one or two plastic

straps, or with at least two plastic

straps, one around the length and one

around the girth, must not exceed 6

inches in height (thickness).

f. Packages containing pieces with

outer surfaces of uncoated stock are

subject to these conditions:

(1) ‘‘Uncoated stock’’ also refers to

pieces with coated covers that are

individually enclosed in a cover or

mailing wrapper of uncoated stock such

as an envelope, sleeve, protective cover,

partial wrapper, or polybag and pieces

with outer surfaces composed of

material other than paper (e.g., plastic,

cloth, fiberboard, or metal).

(2) Packages must not exceed 8 inches

in height (thickness); however, it is

recommended that such packages not

exceed 6 inches in height (thickness).

[Amend the heading of redesignated

1.9 to read as follows. No other changes

to text.]

1.9 Exception to Package

Preparation—Mail in Trays

* * * * *

2.0 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS—

FIRST-CLASS MAIL, PERIODICALS,

AND STANDARD MAIL, AND FLATSIZE BOUND PRINTED MATTER

[Amend 2.1 by copying the content of

2.3b to new 2.1f and revising the

content to read as follows:]

2.1 Cards and Letter-Size Pieces

Cards and letter-size pieces are

subject to these packaging standards:

* * * * *

f. Packages up to 1 inch thick must be

secured with appropriate banding

placed once around the girth (narrow

dimension). Packages over 1 inch thick

must be secured with at least two bands,

one around the length and one around

the girth.

[Amend 2.2 by revising the content to

read as follows:]

2.2 Flat-Size Pieces

Packages of flat-size pieces must be

secure and stable subject to specific

weight limits in M045 if placed on

pallets, specific weight and height limits

in 1.8 for Periodicals and Standard Mail

placed in sacks, and, for Bound Printed

Matter in sacks, specific weight limits in

M720. Flat-size pieces must be prepared

in packages except under 1.9 and, for

First-Class Mail, under M820.3.0.

[Amend the heading of 2.3 and amend

the content by copying and amending

2.3a and deleting current 2.3b to read as

follows:]

2.3 Pieces With Simplified Address

For mail prepared with a simplified

address, all pieces for the same post

office must be prepared in packages of

50 when possible. If packages of other

quantities are prepared, the actual

number of pieces must be shown on the

facing slip attached to show distribution

desired (e.g., rural route, city route, post

office boxholder). Packages must be

secure and stable subject to specific

weight limits in M045 if placed on

pallets, specific weight and height limits

in 1.8 for Periodicals and Standard Mail

placed in sacks, specific thickness limits

in 2.1 for cards and letter-size pieces,

and, for Bound Printed Matter in sacks,

specific weight limits in M720.

* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 01–13397 Filed 5–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 74

[FCC 01–137]

Implementation of LPTV Digital Data

Services Pilot Project

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document is intended to

implement provisions of the LPTV Pilot

Project Digital Data Services Act, which

requires the Commission to implement

regulations establishing a pilot project

pursuant to which specified Low Power

Television (LPTV) licensees or

permittees can provide digital data

services to demonstrate the feasibility of

using LPTV stations to provide highspeed digital data service, including

internet access, to unserved areas.

DATES: Effective April 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gordon Godfrey, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2120 or Keith Larson, Mass Media

Bureau at (202) 418–2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the ‘‘Order’’, FCC 01–137,

adopted April 19, 2001, and released

April 27, 2001. The text of this Order is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257,

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC

and may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service

(202) 857–3800, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Room CY-B402, Washington, DC. The

Order is also available on the Internet at

the Commission’s website: http://

www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Order

I. Introduction

1. With this Order, we implement the

provisions of the LPTV Pilot Project

Digital Data Services Act (‘‘DDSA’’). The

DDSA mandates that the Commission

issue regulations establishing a pilot

project pursuant to which specified Low

Power Television (‘‘LPTV’’) licensees or

permittees can provide digital data

services to demonstrate the feasibility of

using low-power television stations to

provide high-speed wireless digital data

service, including Internet access, to

unserved areas.1 As defined by the new

law, digital data service includes: (1)

Digitally-based interactive broadcast

service; and (2) wireless Internet

access.2 The DDSA identifies twelve

specific LPTV stations that are eligible

to participate in this pilot project, and

directs the Commission to select a

station and repeaters to be determined

by the FCC to provide service to

specified areas in Alaska.

2. The DDSA requires that the

Commission promulgate regulations

with respect to this pilot project by

April 20, 2001,3 and specifies