10868 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the State submittal which is the subject

of this rule is based on counterpart

Federal regulations for which an

analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the Federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: January 12, 2001.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 01–4113 Filed 2–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Preparation Changes for Securing

Packages of Mail

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is

proposing to amend the packaging

standards in Domestic Mail Manual

(DMM) M020 to help ensure that

packages maintain their integrity during

transportation and postal processing.

DMM M020 will prescribe general

standards for preparing and securing all

packages and will incorporate standards

that pertain individually to packages on

pallets, packages in sacks, and packages

in trays.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 22, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written

comments to the Manager, Operational

Requirements, United States Postal

Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Room

7301, Washington, DC 20260–7031.

Copies of all written comments

(available for $0.15 per copy per page)

will be available for inspection and

photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

following address: Library, United

States Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza

SW, Room 11800, Washington, DC

20260–1540. Copies of comments may

also be requested via fax or e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cheryl Beller, 202–268–5166,

cbeller1@e-mail.usps.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Many

packages of Periodicals and Standard

Mail tendered to the Postal Service on

pallets or in sacks do not maintain their

integrity during transportation to postal

facilities and during postal processing.

The Postal Service must redirect the

resulting loose packages or broken

packages (individual pieces) to highercost operations. If packages lose their

integrity while being processed on small

parcel and bundle sorters (SPBSs), the

result can be machine slowdowns and

stoppages as well as postal employees

manually processing these packages.

The increased costs of labor to process

loose or broken packages is reflected in

higher rates paid by mailers. In addition

to rate implications, package breakage

also damages mailpieces and has a

negative impact on service, results that

the mailing industry and the Postal

Service would like to avoid.

Data collected by the Mailers’

Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC)

Package Integrity Work Group,

comprising Postal Service and mailing

industry representatives, revealed that,

during the first handling, packages of

Periodicals and Standard Mail in sacks

break at a much greater rate than

packages on pallets. This data also

disclosed that packages of pieces with

glossy (coated) cover stock break at

higher rates than packages of pieces

with covers of uncoated stock. An

analysis of the data indicates that

additional standards are necessary to

improve the integrity of Periodicals and

Standard Mail packages prepared in

sacks and that some current standards

for packages in sacks and on pallets also

require clarification to improve

packaging in general. Currently, with

the exception of Standard Mail and

Package Services Mail placed on bulk

mail center (BMC) pallets, DMM M020

does not differentiate between

packaging standards for mail placed on

pallets and mail placed in sacks. Unlike

palletized packages, which have

maximum weight limits prescribed in

DMM M045, there are no existing

standards for Periodicals and Standard

Mail that limit the size or weight of

packages in sacks. Consequently,

mailers of Periodicals and Standard

Mail may prepare packages that weigh

more than 20 pounds and are, as a

result, incompatible with processing on

SPBSs. Heavier packages are also

subject to more breakage if not properly

secured. This is particularly true of

sacked mail due to the additional

handling it receives compared with

palletized mail. Under the proposed

rules, DMM M020 prescribes general

standards for preparing and securing

packages of all classes of mail and

revises and incorporates standards that

pertain individually to packages on

pallets and packages in sacks.

Proposed new standards limit the

weight of sacked packages of Periodicals

and Standard Mail to a maximum of 20

pounds and the height of these packages

to a maximum of 8 inches for pieces of

uncoated stock and to maximums

ranging from 3 inches to 6 inches,

depending on the securing method, for

pieces with coated cover stock. As

information, new mail preparation

standards for Bound Printed Matter flats

implemented January 7, 2001, limit the

weight of packages in sacks and on

pallets to 20 pounds, except that

packages placed in 5-digit sacks or on 5-

digit/scheme pallets may weigh up to 40

pounds. It is also proposed that the

standards for all classes be amended to

clarify when pieces should be counterstacked to create packages of uniform

thickness and to provide more emphasis

on the standard that requires packages

over 1 inch high to be secured with at

least two bands or shrinkwrap.

It is also proposed that the current

requirement to secure double-banded

packages of all classes of mail first

around the length and then around the

girth be revised to eliminate a required

banding sequence. Automated

production lines in large printing plants

are not designed to secure packages

around the length first, and exceptions

to the current standard must continually

be granted to address this issue.

Magazines and flyers are typically

bound with stitches or glue and then

stacked for packaging in accordance

with the applicable presort, generally in

groups ranging from 6 to 100 pieces.

The stack is ejected and travels directly

into a bander that secures the girth first,

and then the length if a second band is

required. If the first band was placed

around the length of the stack, the stack

would not be held securely enough to

allow the second band to go around the

girth because the backbone or spine is

thicker than the face or side cut (length).

This thickness variation would cause

the bundle to fall apart, also affecting

transport into another securing

operation such as shrinkwrapping.

Data Collection To Determine Package

Breakage Rates for Live Mail

The Postal Service and the mailing

industry have been working together to

better understand the implications of

package breakage and to identify

opportunities to quantify and improve

the current situation. In October and

November 1999, the MTAC Package

Integrity Work Group collected and

analyzed data regarding the condition of

packages of nonletter-size Periodicals

and Standard Mail flats at the locations

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10869

within processing facilities (e.g., SPBS

feed belts) where they were initially

unloaded by the Postal Service from

mailer-prepared sacks and pallets. This

data was collected at four Postal Service

processing and distribution centers

(P&DCs) and two BMCs.

Data collected for this live mail shows

that of a total of 78,511 packages on

pallets that were observed, 832

packages, or 1.1 percent, were broken

when first unloaded from the mailerprepared pallets by the Postal Service.

For mail in sacks, of a total of 11,826

packages that were observed, 2,074

packages, or 17.5 percent, were broken

when the sacks were emptied. Broken

packages were identified as those with

a total loss of integrity resulting in one

or more pieces loose or missing. Various

characteristics concerning the packages

and the mailpieces were recorded to

identify key factors affecting package

integrity. For all mail in sacks, the

breakage rates were statistically very

close, ranging from 16.7 to 19.8 percent,

when packages were secured with two

rubber bands, two plastic straps, or two

strings (twine). Shrinkwrapped

packages broke at a rate of 13.3 percent

while packages secured with

shrinkwrap plus one strap broke at the

lowest rate of 9.5 percent.

The data shows that coated paper

stock leads to significantly greater

package breakage than uncoated stock.

Coated paper is the slick, shiny paper

usually associated with magazines and

catalogs while uncoated stock is often

associated with newspapers and

enveloped mail. For packages in sacks,

the breakage rate for mailpieces with

covers of coated paper stock was 23.6

percent compared with a breakage rate

of 11.6 percent for mailpieces of

uncoated stock. For pieces of coated

paper stock, shrinkwrap plus one strap

proved to be the most effective

packaging method. Shrinkwrap alone

was the second most effective packaging

method, followed by double banding

with rubber bands, string (twine), or

plastic straps. All methods of double

banding caused packages to break at

about the same rate. However, as

package height increases, the breakage

rate for shrinkwrapped packages

increases at a greater rate than the

breakage rate for packages secured with

two plastic straps. As a bundle increases

in height, it often becomes more rigid

and two plastic straps are likely to

maintain package integrity more

effectively. Packages secured with

shrinkwrap of insufficient strength or

durability are less likely to retain their

integrity, as the packages become taller

(and consequently heavier), particularly

when those packages are placed in

sacks. Mail in sacks is subject to

additional processing steps before the

contents are distributed by the Postal

Service (e.g., sacks bedloaded on trucks

or dumped on sack sorting equipment)

when compared to mail prepared on

pallets.

The data collected during the live

mail tests in October and November

1999 are contained in USPS–LR–1–297

filed in conjunction with R2000–1.

Results of Controlled Package Integrity

Test To Determine Key Drivers of

Package Breakage

On the basis of results of the live mail

tests, the MTAC Package Integrity Work

Group concluded that the most

significant reductions in package

breakage could be achieved in the near

future by improving the integrity of

packages currently prepared in sacks,

particularly for packages of mailpieces

with covers of coated stock. These

changes supplement other efforts,

described later in this notice, that are

underway to move mail out of sacks and

onto pallets, when possible.

Accordingly, a controlled test of mail

prepared in sacks was conducted in

August 2000. A variety of packaging

methods and mailpiece types, both

coated and uncoated, were tested with

test packages ranging in height from

under 1 inch up to approximately 8

inches. These pieces were

representative of the Periodicals and

Standard Mail mailstreams. The

following mailpiece types and securing

methods were tested:

• Unbound, uncoated half-fold

newspapers secured with plastic straps

and with string (twine).

• Quarter-fold newsprint

advertisements secured with plastic

straps and with string (twine).

• DVDs prepared in padded plastic

containers measuring approximately 71⁄2

inches by 53⁄8 inches by 5⁄8 inch and

secured with plastic straps and with

rubber bands.

• 9-inch by 12-inch enveloped pieces

secured with plastic strap(s), with

rubber bands, and with string.

• Individually polywrapped

magazines secured with plastic straps.

• Saddle-stitched magazines with

coated cover stock secured with

shrinkwrap, with plastic straps, with

string, and with rubber bands.

• Perfect bound magazines with

coated cover stock secured with plastic

straps, with rubber bands, and with

shrinkwrap.

Sacks containing the test pieces were

deposited at the Cincinnati BMC,

processed through the sack sorter, and

transported to the Philadelphia BMC,

where they were processed through that

facility’s sack sorter before being

unloaded to collect information about

the condition of the packages. This was

consistent with the transportation and

processing of sacked mail that is entered

at an origin facility for delivery to

addresses outside of the mailer’s local

BMC service area. A small number of

sacks were deposited at the

Philadelphia BMC and were not

processed through any sack sorter before

being unloaded for examination of their

contents.

Results from the controlled test show

that the average breakage rate for

packages of unbound, uncoated

newspapers/newsprint advertisements

and individually polywrapped pieces

combined was approximately 3 percent

while the average breakage rate for

pieces with coated cover stock was

approximately 55 percent. For the

pieces with coated cover stock, the

breakage rate increased significantly as

the height of the packages increased. For

pieces with coated cover stock, packages

over 3 inches high (4 inches to 6 inches)

broke apart at rates ranging from 42 to

100 percent depending on the package

height and securing method. The taller

packages that were secured with two

plastic straps had the lowest breakage

rates. Packages secured with shrinkwrap

plus one strap had lower breakage rates

than packages secured with only

shrinkwrap. These data are consistent

with the data collected in October and

November 1999 for the live mail test

which showed that double plastic bands

or shrinkwrap plus one band are

generally more effective for securing

taller packages. It should be noted that

various formulations of shrinkwrap

were used to secure mail in the

controlled test and the shrinkwrap

ranged in thickness from 1 to 1.5 mil.

The breakage rate for the 9 inch × 12

inch enveloped mailpieces of uncoated

paper stock was approximately 58

percent. The breakage rate for these

pieces, which were of irregular

thickness due to an insert enclosed in

the center of each piece, also increased

significantly as the height of the

packages increased. This occurred

because the packages were thicker in the

center (football-shaped) and the straps,

if they moved off the thicker package

center during transportation or

processing, would tend to fall off the

thinner edges creating loose or broken

packages.

Analysis of Data and Proposed

Standards

Analysis of the data gathered from the

controlled test described above

indicates that increasing package height

results in greater breakage rates, with

10870 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

breakage increasing by approximately

14 percentage points for each additional

inch of package height. This results in

a very high breakage rate for packages 4

inches and taller. On average, the

breakage rate for shrinkwrapped

packages was 15 percent higher than for

packages secured with two plastic

straps. Also, by adding a single plastic

strap to shrinkwrapped packages, the

breakage rate for shrinkwrapped

packages was reduced by 25 percent.

As a result, the MTAC Package

Integrity Work Group has identified

preparation changes that will improve

package integrity and reduce the percent

of packages that break. This reduction in

breakage will reduce processing costs.

The proposed changes contained in this

Federal Register notice have been

drafted based on the data collected

during the live mail and controlled

tests. The specific proposed changes are

described in detail below.

The key focus of the proposed

changes is to significantly reduce

package breakage for mailpieces with

covers of coated stock that are prepared

in sacks, identified as a key contributor

to the package integrity problem. The

proposed standards requiring smaller

packages for some sacked mail may

result in a greater number of packages

in sacks for mail found to currently have

exceptionally high breakage rates.

However, any costs for handling

additional smaller packages will be

greatly outweighed by modeled savings

that will result from avoiding additional

package handlings, recovery costs, and

single-piece handlings that are incurred

when these packages break prematurely.

The proposed revisions to the DMM, in

conjunction with other Postal Service/

Industry initiatives, are intended to and

expected to improve package integrity

in general for mail both in sacks and on

pallets.

It is important to note that

representatives of many Periodicals and

Standard Mail associations, serving

large and small volume mailers, have

been involved in all aspects of test

design, data collection and analysis, and

development of recommendations to

improve package integrity. These

mailers produce a wide variety of flatsize mailpieces (and irregulars for

Periodicals) using all currently

permitted package securing methods.

Additional Efforts To Reduce Package

Breakage and Associated Costs

Amending and revising the DMM

packaging standards to improve mailer

preparation, as proposed in this notice,

is one of several efforts underway to

reduce costs associated with processing

packages of Periodicals non-letters and

Standard Mail flats. Based on analyses

of the test data described above and on

other studies and discussions between

the Postal Service and Periodicals

industry representatives, it was

determined that other steps, in addition

to improvements in packaging by

mailers, could help reduce Postal

Service handling costs that relate to

package breakage. These steps include

working with mailers to move mail from

sacks to pallets, improving packagesorting methods related to SPBS feed

systems, improving Postal Service

recovery methods for broken or

damaged packages of flats, and working

with mailers to develop a process

enabling customers to prepare flat-size

mail in a manner that supports

processing on flat-sorting machines.

Many mailers have indicated that,

until recently, they were not aware of

the package breakage problem at Postal

Service facilities. In response, and at the

recommendation of the MTAC Package

Integrity Work Group, the Postal Service

established the MTAC Feedback

Mechanism Work Group to develop

effective methods to provide mailers

with information about mail that is not

properly prepared and that is adding

costs to processing operations. The

expectation is that when mailers receive

feedback about specific package

integrity problems, they will take

appropriate steps to improve their

packaging methods.

The MTAC Package Integrity Work

Group also developed a video, produced

and disseminated by the Postal Service,

to raise mailer awareness of the impact

of poor package integrity. Copies are

available to mailers and have been

shown at Postal Customer Council (PCC)

meetings, focus groups, and Postal

Forums. The video has also been used

as a training tool by mailers to raise the

awareness of their employees to the

importance of package integrity and to

focus on improving packaging.

Additional videos are being developed

to focus on best practices in packaging

for small volume and large volume

mailers.

Other efforts are underway by the

mailing industry, particularly large

printers, to analyze how changing

presort parameters affects

containerization in order to move mail

out of sacks, where it is more vulnerable

to package breakage and less likely to be

drop shipped, by optimizing

palletization.

The Postal Service has made several

modifications to SPBS feed systems to

reduce package breakage when

containers are unloaded and when the

packages are transported on belts to

keying stations. Broken package

recovery methods have also been

modified to reduce costs.

Projected lower Postal Service mail

processing costs, due to reduced

package breakage, were incorporated

into the rates resulting from the R2000–

1 rate case. These savings were based,

in part, on anticipated improvements in

the preparation of packages of

Periodicals non-letter-size mail and

Standard Mail flats resulting from the

activities of the MTAC Package Integrity

Work Group and other related efforts

that are currently underway. The

following proposed DMM changes are

attributable to those activities. The

Postal Service is proposing to

implement these revisions to the current

mail preparation standards effective

June 1, 2001.

Although exempt from the notice and

comment requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553(b), (c)) regarding proposed

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

Postal Service invites comments on the

following proposed revisions of the

DMM, incorporated by reference in the

Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR

part 111.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

Administrative practice and

procedure, Postal Service.

PART 111—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

part 111 continues to read as follows:

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

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

3403—3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

2. Revise the following sections of the

DMM as set forth below:

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10871

[Amend the heading of 1.2 and revise

the text to require counter-stacking of

pieces of irregular thickness, when

appropriate, to create packages of

uniform thickness to read as follows:]

1.2 Counter-Stacking—Sacked and

Palletized Mail

Packages of flats and other pieces of

nonuniform thickness must be prepared

by counter-stacking if counter-stacking

will create packages of more uniform

thickness. 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. When

counter-stacking, pieces must all have

the addresses facing up and be divided

into no more than four approximately

equal groups with each group rotated

180 degrees from the preceding and/or

succeeding group(s). 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 (e.g., a footballshaped package would be created).

Instead of counter-stacking such pieces,

limit the height/thickness of the package

to from 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 Postal Service

employees.

b. Packages must be secured with

banding, shrinkwrap, or shrinkwrap

plus one or more bands. Banding

includes plastic bands, rubber bands,

twine/string, or similar material. Use of

wire or metal banding is not permitted.

c. Where permitted by standard, 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 thick must be secured with

at least 2 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 the point that the bands 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 of redesignated 1.5 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 over 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

Postal Service. 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. * * *

* * * * *

[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 must be able to withstand

normal transit and handling without

breakage or injury to Postal Service

employees.

c. 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.

d. 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, paper wrapper, or plastic

wrapper (polybag)) are subject to these

conditions:

(1) Except as noted in d.(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).

(3) Packages may be measured at the

lowest (thinnest) point to determine the

package height (thickness).

(4) 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).

e. Packages containing pieces with

outer surfaces of uncoated stock are

subject to these conditions:

(1) Packages must not exceed 8 inches

in height (thickness).

(2) Uncoated stock also includes

pieces that are individually enclosed in

an envelope, paper wrapper, or plastic

wrapper (polybag), as well as pieces

with outer surfaces composed of

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

cloth, fiberboard, or metal).

(3) It is recommended that such

packages not exceed 6 inches in height

(thickness).

(4) Packages may be measured at the

lowest (thinnest) point to determine the

package height (thickness).

(5) A package that exceeds the

maximum prescribed height by less than

the thickness of a single piece meets the

standard (e.g., 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).

10872 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2001 / Proposed Rules

[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

* * * * *

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, redesignate

2.3a as the content of 2.3, and delete

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 that must be attached to

show distribution desired (e.g., rural

route, city route, post office boxholder).

* * * * *

An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR

part 111 to reflect these changes will be

published if the proposal is adopted.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 01–4146 Filed 2–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–U