Group E Post Office Box Service, 41411-41413 [2011-17389]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
American Bar Association, Derivatives and
Futures Law Committee, Business Law
Section (ABA Derivatives Committee)
American Petroleum Institute (API) and
National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association (NPRA)
Argus Media, Inc. (Argus)
Barnard, Chris (Barnard)
Better Markets
Brattle Group Economists (Brattle Group)
Carini, Peter*
CME Group, Inc. (CME Group)
Coalition of Physical Energy Companies
(COPE)
Commodity Markets Council (CMC)
Council of Institutional Investors (Council)
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Freddie Mac
Futures Industry Association, International
Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.
(ISDA) and Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (SIFMA)
(together, the Associations)
Managed Funds Association (MFA)
Pen Fern Oil Co., Inc.*
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
(PMAA)
Platts
Scullin Oil Co.*
Townsend, Clarence (Townsend)
U.S. Senator Carl Levin (Senator Levin)
University of Maryland School of Law,
Professor Michael Greenberger (Professor
Greenberger)
Weir, Bix
West Virginia Oil Marketers & Grocers
Association (OMEGA)*
Working Group of Commercial Energy Firms
(CEF)
Zwack, Joseph
* Denotes commenters filing identical
comments which were consolidated.
[FR Doc. 2011–17549 Filed 7–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 948
[WV–117–FOR; OSM–2011–0006]
West Virginia Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Interim rule; effective date.
AGENCY:
On June 29, 2011, OSM
published an interim rule approving a
program amendment submitted by the
West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP).
The interim rule provided an
opportunity for public comment and
gave the comment due date and
tentative hearing date. The summary
and preamble to the interim rule
specified that it was effective upon
publication; however, the DATES section
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Jul 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
of the rule failed to list an effective date.
This final rule corrects that omission by
providing an effective date.
DATES: The interim final rule published
at 76 FR 37996 is effective July 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the interim rule WV–117–FOR (76
FR 37996; June 29, 2011) by any of the
following two methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. The rule has been
assigned Docket ID OSM–2011–0006. If
you would like to submit comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
go to https://www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Mr. Roger W.
Calhoun, Director, Charleston Field
Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1027
Virginia Street, East, Charleston, West
Virginia 25301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Charleston
Field Office, Telephone: (304) 347–
7158. E-mail: chfo@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
29, 2011, we published an interim rule
with request for comments at 76 FR
37996. The interim rule announced
receipt of a proposed amendment to the
West Virginia permanent regulatory
program under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
On May 2, 2011, the WVDEP submitted
a program amendment to OSM that
included both statutory and regulatory
revisions. West Virginia submitted
proposed permit fee revisions to the
Code of West Virginia as authorized by
House Bill 2955 that passed during the
State’s regular 2011 legislative session.
In addition, West Virginia amended its
Code of State Regulations (CSR) to
provide for the establishment of a
minimum incremental bonding rate as
authorized by Senate Bill 121. The
changes, due to the passage of House
Bill 2995, will increase the filing fee for
the State’s surface mining permit to
$3,500 and establish various fees for
other permitting actions. Senate Bill 121
authorizes regulatory revisions which
includes, among other things, the
establishment of a minimum
incremental bonding rate of $10,000 per
increment at CSR 38–2–11.4.a.2.
Because the West Virginia revisions
have an effective date of June 16, 2011,
we approved the permit fees and the
minimum incremental bonding rate on
an interim basis. Our regulations at 30
CFR 732.17(h)(12) state that ‘‘[a]ll
decisions approving or not approving
program amendments must be
published in the Federal Register and
will be effective upon publication
unless the notice specifies a different
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41411
effective date.’’ Because our approval
was published on June 29, 2011, and the
notice did not specify a different
effective date, for purposes of the West
Virginia Regulatory Program, we
consider the State’s provisions approved
effective June 29, 2011. Please see the
Federal Register document published at
76 FR 37996 on June 29, 2011, for more
details.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948
Intergovernmental relations, Surface
mining, Underground mining.
Dated: July 5, 2011.
Michael K. Robinson,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian
Region.
[FR Doc. 2011–17336 Filed 7–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Group E Post Office Box Service
Postal ServiceTM.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Postal ServiceTM is
revising the Mailing Standards of the
United States Postal Service, Domestic
Mail Manual (DMM®) 508.4.6 to clarify
eligibility, simplify the standards, and
facilitate uniform administration for
Group E (free) Post OfficeTM (PO) box
service.
DATES: Effective Date: September 6,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurence Welling at 202–268–7792, Ken
Hollies at 202–268–3083, or Richard
Daigle at 202–268–6392.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 24, 2010, the Postal Service
published a Federal Register proposed
rule (75 FR 71642–71643) to clarify
eligibility, simplify the standards, and
facilitate uniform administration for
Group E (free) PO BoxTM service. The
Postal Service received several
comments in response to this proposed
rule that are summarized later in this
notice.
Group E PO Box service is provided
free, with restrictions, to customers
whose physical addresses are not
eligible for any form of USPS carrier
delivery service. This service is
consistent with the USPS responsibility
to provide universal mail delivery. This
final rule simplifies and clarifies some
of the language related to administering
Group E PO Box service.
For this final rule, the Postal Service
removes the descriptive term, ‘‘business
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
41412
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
location’’, in favor of the general term
‘‘physical address’’. The latter describes
residential locations as well as business
locations and no distinction between
the two terms was intended.
USPS further deletes the reference to
‘‘out-of-bounds delivery receptacles’’ in
favor of language recognizing that Group
E PO Box service is not available when
a physical address receives any form of
USPS carrier delivery. Confusion over
the intent of the meaning of ‘‘out-ofbounds’’ obscured the larger context
wherein Group E service should never
supplement a physical location’s carrier
delivery service. Clarifying the intent
and eliminating this confusion may
cause existing Group E customers to
lose Group E eligibility for their
physical addresses, while others whose
physical locations the USPS chooses not
to provide carrier service to may become
eligible for Group E service.
The Postal Service also revises the
DMM to acknowledge carrier delivery
service that, once established to a
particular physical address, eliminates
Group E eligibility. Improved language
in this section illustrates situations
where no eligibility for Group E arises
either because carrier delivery is
available or because action (or inaction)
by third parties precludes USPS from
extending carrier delivery.
Comments Received
Three comments were received
regarding the proposed rule, addressing
multiple issues.
One commenter expressed concerns
about the vagueness of terminology in
the proposal, for determining how close
a ‘‘physical address’’ and delivery
receptacle must be. In response, the
Postal Service intends to add a sentence
to clarify that ‘‘at or near a physical
address’’ should be determined by how
carrier delivery is already established in
a particular locale or ZIP CodeTM.
Two separate comments expressed
concern that local offices might misuse
‘‘unsafe conditions’’ and ‘‘or other
conditions’’ to deny Group E eligibility.
One of the commenters also expressed
concern about the impact of local
discretion on decisions. In response to
these concerns, it is the Postal Service
opinion that neither commenter was
aware that the examples currently listed
in the DMM reflect restrictions that are
out of Postal Service control and are not
all inclusive. Recognizing this lack of
clarity, this final rule attempts to
provide a better explanation.
With respect to ‘‘unsafe conditions’’,
local Postmasters are best able to
determine when mailbox placement
might be unsafe for postal employees to
attempt delivery or for customers to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Jul 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
retrieve mail. Such decisions are made
routinely by Postmasters while
conforming with local practice, driving
conditions, driver expectations, etc.
Further, postmasters already make such
decisions in contexts unrelated to Group
E eligibility. Postmasters who determine
that a proposed mailbox location is
unsafe typically work with customers to
find a solution that allows safe delivery.
One commenter expressed concern
about the potential misuse of ‘‘or other
conditions’’ is now addressed by the
Postal Service as: (1) Clarifying that the
examples contained in the current DMM
consist of conditions outside the control
of the Postal Service and, (2) by
introducing the examples using ‘‘such
as’’ so that it is understood that they are
not all inclusive. By using these
explanations, the ‘‘or other conditions’’
text is deleted from the final rule.
The foundation of Group E PO Box
eligibility is a discretionary Postal
Service decision not to extend carrier
delivery to a specific carrier delivery
point (e.g., a house). When conditions
prevent carrier delivery, where it would
otherwise be operationally feasible,
Group E eligibility is not an option. The
DMM will continue to identify
examples of conditions, including
‘‘unsafe conditions’’ that preclude the
Postal Service from deciding whether or
not to extend carrier delivery.
The same commenter expressed
concern about the fair administration of
Group E eligibility. The Postal Service
agrees about the importance of Group E
in the context of its universal service
obligation and at the time of
implementation, the Postal Service
identified Group E service as one tool
for offering universal service under an
overarching policy of providing one free
form of delivery to each customer.
The Postal Service adopts the
following changes to the Mailing
Standards of the United States Postal
Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM),
which is incorporated by reference in
the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39
CFR 111.1.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
Administrative practice and
procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 111 is
amended as follows:
PART 111—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR
Part 111 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301–
307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101,
401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–
3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632,
3633, and 5001.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Revise the following sections of
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM) as follows:
■
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM)
*
*
*
*
*
500
Additional Mailing Services
*
*
508
Recipient Services
*
*
*
*
*
4.0
Post Office Box Service
*
*
4.6
Fee Group Assignments
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise the title, introductory text and
items 4.6.2a, b and c, and eliminate item
d in its entirety as follows:]
4.6.2
Free PO Box Service (Group E)
Customers may qualify for Group E
(free) PO Box service at a Post Office if
their physical address location meets all
of the following criteria:
a. The physical address is within the
geographic delivery ZIP Code
boundaries administered by a Post
Office.
b. The physical address constitutes a
potential carrier delivery point of
service.
c. USPS does not provide carrier
delivery to a mail receptacle at or near
a physical address for reasons in 4.6.3b.
‘‘At or near a physical address’’ is
defined by reference to how carrier
delivery is already established in a
particular locale or ZIP Code.
[Revise the title and introductory text
of 4.6.3 and add new items a through d
as follows:]
4.6.3 Additional Standards for Free
PO Box Service
Only one Group E (free) PO Box may
be obtained for each potential carrier
delivery point of service, under the
following conditions:
a. Group E PO Box customers are
assigned the smallest available box that
reasonably accommodates their daily
mail volume.
b. Eligibility for Group E PO Boxes
does not extend to:
1. Individual tenants, contractors,
employees, or other individuals
receiving or eligible to receive singlepoint delivery to a location such as a
hotel, college, military installation,
campground, or transient trailer park.
2. Locations served, or eligible to be
served, by centralized delivery or
grouped receptacles such as cluster box
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 135 / Thursday, July 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
units, apartment style receptacles,
mailrooms, or clusters of roadside
receptacles.
3. Locations where circumstances not
within the control of the Postal Service
prevent extension of carrier delivery,
such as town ordinances, private roads,
gated communities, unimproved or
poorly maintained roadways, or unsafe
conditions.
4. Locations served by a delivery
receptacle that a customer chooses to
locate along a carrier’s line of travel and
to which the Postal Service makes
delivery.
c. A customer must pay the applicable
fee for each PO Box requested in
addition to the initial free Group E PO
Box.
d. The online application tools
described in 4.3.1b cannot be used for
free PO Box service.
*
*
*
*
*
We will publish an appropriate
amendment to 39 CFR Part 111 to reflect
these changes.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2011–17389 Filed 7–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 241
Post Office Organization and
Administration: Establishment,
Classification, and Discontinuance
Postal Service.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Postal Service is
amending 39 CFR part 241 to improve
the administration of the Post Office
closing and consolidation process. In
addition, certain procedures employed
for the discontinuance of Post Offices
are applied to the discontinuance of
other types of retail facilities operated
by Postal Service employees.
DATES: Effective date: July 14, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Boldt, (202) 268–6799.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On March 31, 2011, the Postal Service
published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register (76 FR 17794) to
improve the process for discontinuing
Post Offices and other Postal Serviceoperated retail facilities. The proposed
rule also reflected the Postal Service’s
determination, as a matter of policy, to
apply the same discontinuance
procedures to all retail facilities
operated by Postal Service employees.
The Postal Service requested comments
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Jul 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
on the proposed rule. Analysis of the
various comments received appears
below.
The Postal Service is currently in the
process of consultation under 39 U.S.C.
1004(b)–(d) about certain aspects of the
proposed rule. Therefore, the relevant
proposed changes and comments
relative to those proposed changes are
not included in this final rule, but may
be addressed in a subsequent final rule.
Under 39 U.S.C. 1004(b)–(d), the Postal
Service is obliged to consult with
certain supervisory and other
managerial organizations about the
planning and development of pay
policies and schedules, fringe benefit
programs, and other programs related to
supervisory and other managerial
employees. (The Postal Service
understands ‘‘other programs’’ to
constitute those concerning
employment, of a piece with the other
enumerated subjects of consultation,
and not programs concerning facilities
or the operating network more
generally, which may have an indirect
effect on employees.) Because the
subject matter of this final rule does not
itself comprise any program subject to
39 U.S.C. 1004(b)–(d), the Postal Service
considers it to fall outside the scope of
those provisions. Nevertheless, the
Postal Service has taken into account
comments by supervisory and other
managerial organizations, as it has
comments by other members of the
public.
As explained in the proposed rule,
this final rule is not retroactive.
Therefore, any change in policy or
regulations does not affect the
procedures applicable to discontinuance
processes initiated before the effective
date of this final rule, when previous
regulations may have been in effect.
The Postal Service is exempt from the
notice requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(d)) regarding final rules by 39
U.S.C. 410(a). Moreover, the chief
substance of this final rule is to extend
to Postal Service-operated stations and
branches the notice and comment
procedures applicable to the
discontinuance of Post Offices, thereby
relieving restrictions that had
previously been placed on public
participation in the discontinuance
process for stations and branches.
I. Response to Comments Received
The Postal Service received
approximately 257 comments in
response to the proposed rule.
Commenters included 34 Members of
Congress, the Postal Regulatory
Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘PRC’’),
five state legislators, three postmasters’
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41413
and postal supervisors’ organizations,
one postal lessors’ organization and
various of its members, one mailing
industry stakeholder, and numerous
other postal customers. Although some
comments were favorable about certain
aspects of the proposed rule, almost all
of the comments expressed concerns
about various aspects of the proposed
rule. Below we discuss the comments
and our response to each.
A. Closure of Post Offices and Other
Retail Facilities
1. Procedural Safeguards
The overwhelming majority of
comments urged the Postal Service not
to close Post Offices (as well as,
presumably, stations and branches),
especially in small and rural
communities. These commenters stated
that cost savings would be low, that
there would be undue hardship on some
customers, and other matters. Many
expressed concern about a specific
postal retail facility. Additionally, many
appeared to believe that the proposed
rule would eliminate procedures and
make it easier to close retail facilities,
including for reasons prohibited by
statute. See, e.g., 39 U.S.C. 101(b) (‘‘No
small post office shall be closed solely
for operating at a deficit[.]’’). To the
contrary, the Postal Service has long
been and remains focused on the need
for customers in less populated locales
to have regular and effective access to
delivery and retail services, thereby
helping to bind all customers and the
nation together through written
correspondence.
These comments seem to overlook the
actual scope of the changes. This
rulemaking does not reduce or abolish
any transparency attained through, for
example, public notice, public input,
and consideration of all comments
received before any Post Office may be
discontinued. In fact, transparency will
be enhanced. Nor does the rulemaking
change any of the criteria for
discontinuing a Post Office, which are
set forth in the statute and include
consideration of cost savings, the effects
on employees and the community, and
the prohibition on closing small Post
Offices solely for financial reasons. It
should be noted that the statutes in
question apply only to the justifications
for actually discontinuing a facility;
they do not restrict Postal Service
discretion to evaluate its retail network
and identify specific facilities for formal
study.
To highlight the distinction between
initiation of a preliminary feasibility
study and the development of an official
proposal, the Postal Service is adding
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41411-41413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17389]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Group E Post Office Box Service
AGENCY: Postal Service\TM\.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Postal Service\TM\ is revising the Mailing Standards of
the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM[supreg])
508.4.6 to clarify eligibility, simplify the standards, and facilitate
uniform administration for Group E (free) Post Office\TM\ (PO) box
service.
DATES: Effective Date: September 6, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurence Welling at 202-268-7792, Ken
Hollies at 202-268-3083, or Richard Daigle at 202-268-6392.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 24, 2010, the Postal Service
published a Federal Register proposed rule (75 FR 71642-71643) to
clarify eligibility, simplify the standards, and facilitate uniform
administration for Group E (free) PO Box\TM\ service. The Postal
Service received several comments in response to this proposed rule
that are summarized later in this notice.
Group E PO Box service is provided free, with restrictions, to
customers whose physical addresses are not eligible for any form of
USPS carrier delivery service. This service is consistent with the USPS
responsibility to provide universal mail delivery. This final rule
simplifies and clarifies some of the language related to administering
Group E PO Box service.
For this final rule, the Postal Service removes the descriptive
term, ``business
[[Page 41412]]
location'', in favor of the general term ``physical address''. The
latter describes residential locations as well as business locations
and no distinction between the two terms was intended.
USPS further deletes the reference to ``out-of-bounds delivery
receptacles'' in favor of language recognizing that Group E PO Box
service is not available when a physical address receives any form of
USPS carrier delivery. Confusion over the intent of the meaning of
``out-of-bounds'' obscured the larger context wherein Group E service
should never supplement a physical location's carrier delivery service.
Clarifying the intent and eliminating this confusion may cause existing
Group E customers to lose Group E eligibility for their physical
addresses, while others whose physical locations the USPS chooses not
to provide carrier service to may become eligible for Group E service.
The Postal Service also revises the DMM to acknowledge carrier
delivery service that, once established to a particular physical
address, eliminates Group E eligibility. Improved language in this
section illustrates situations where no eligibility for Group E arises
either because carrier delivery is available or because action (or
inaction) by third parties precludes USPS from extending carrier
delivery.
Comments Received
Three comments were received regarding the proposed rule,
addressing multiple issues.
One commenter expressed concerns about the vagueness of terminology
in the proposal, for determining how close a ``physical address'' and
delivery receptacle must be. In response, the Postal Service intends to
add a sentence to clarify that ``at or near a physical address'' should
be determined by how carrier delivery is already established in a
particular locale or ZIP Code\TM\.
Two separate comments expressed concern that local offices might
misuse ``unsafe conditions'' and ``or other conditions'' to deny Group
E eligibility. One of the commenters also expressed concern about the
impact of local discretion on decisions. In response to these concerns,
it is the Postal Service opinion that neither commenter was aware that
the examples currently listed in the DMM reflect restrictions that are
out of Postal Service control and are not all inclusive. Recognizing
this lack of clarity, this final rule attempts to provide a better
explanation.
With respect to ``unsafe conditions'', local Postmasters are best
able to determine when mailbox placement might be unsafe for postal
employees to attempt delivery or for customers to retrieve mail. Such
decisions are made routinely by Postmasters while conforming with local
practice, driving conditions, driver expectations, etc. Further,
postmasters already make such decisions in contexts unrelated to Group
E eligibility. Postmasters who determine that a proposed mailbox
location is unsafe typically work with customers to find a solution
that allows safe delivery.
One commenter expressed concern about the potential misuse of ``or
other conditions'' is now addressed by the Postal Service as: (1)
Clarifying that the examples contained in the current DMM consist of
conditions outside the control of the Postal Service and, (2) by
introducing the examples using ``such as'' so that it is understood
that they are not all inclusive. By using these explanations, the ``or
other conditions'' text is deleted from the final rule.
The foundation of Group E PO Box eligibility is a discretionary
Postal Service decision not to extend carrier delivery to a specific
carrier delivery point (e.g., a house). When conditions prevent carrier
delivery, where it would otherwise be operationally feasible, Group E
eligibility is not an option. The DMM will continue to identify
examples of conditions, including ``unsafe conditions'' that preclude
the Postal Service from deciding whether or not to extend carrier
delivery.
The same commenter expressed concern about the fair administration
of Group E eligibility. The Postal Service agrees about the importance
of Group E in the context of its universal service obligation and at
the time of implementation, the Postal Service identified Group E
service as one tool for offering universal service under an overarching
policy of providing one free form of delivery to each customer.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to the Mailing
Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM), which is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal
Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 111 is amended as follows:
PART 111--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR Part 111 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-
1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219,
3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
0
2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United
States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as follows:
Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail
Manual (DMM)
* * * * *
500 Additional Mailing Services
* * * * *
508 Recipient Services
* * * * *
4.0 Post Office Box Service
* * * * *
4.6 Fee Group Assignments
* * * * *
[Revise the title, introductory text and items 4.6.2a, b and c, and
eliminate item d in its entirety as follows:]
4.6.2 Free PO Box Service (Group E)
Customers may qualify for Group E (free) PO Box service at a Post
Office if their physical address location meets all of the following
criteria:
a. The physical address is within the geographic delivery ZIP Code
boundaries administered by a Post Office.
b. The physical address constitutes a potential carrier delivery
point of service.
c. USPS does not provide carrier delivery to a mail receptacle at
or near a physical address for reasons in 4.6.3b. ``At or near a
physical address'' is defined by reference to how carrier delivery is
already established in a particular locale or ZIP Code.
[Revise the title and introductory text of 4.6.3 and add new items
a through d as follows:]
4.6.3 Additional Standards for Free PO Box Service
Only one Group E (free) PO Box may be obtained for each potential
carrier delivery point of service, under the following conditions:
a. Group E PO Box customers are assigned the smallest available box
that reasonably accommodates their daily mail volume.
b. Eligibility for Group E PO Boxes does not extend to:
1. Individual tenants, contractors, employees, or other individuals
receiving or eligible to receive single-point delivery to a location
such as a hotel, college, military installation, campground, or
transient trailer park.
2. Locations served, or eligible to be served, by centralized
delivery or grouped receptacles such as cluster box
[[Page 41413]]
units, apartment style receptacles, mailrooms, or clusters of roadside
receptacles.
3. Locations where circumstances not within the control of the
Postal Service prevent extension of carrier delivery, such as town
ordinances, private roads, gated communities, unimproved or poorly
maintained roadways, or unsafe conditions.
4. Locations served by a delivery receptacle that a customer
chooses to locate along a carrier's line of travel and to which the
Postal Service makes delivery.
c. A customer must pay the applicable fee for each PO Box requested
in addition to the initial free Group E PO Box.
d. The online application tools described in 4.3.1b cannot be used
for free PO Box service.
* * * * *
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR Part 111 to
reflect these changes.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2011-17389 Filed 7-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P