USPS Retracts Increase In Penalties For Violations of Conduct On Postal Property
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 232
Conduct on Postal Property; Penalties and Other Law
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
———————————————————————–
SUMMARY: The U.S. Postal Service is amending the Code of Federal Regulations to retract an increase in the maximum penalty for violations of the rules concerning conduct on Postal Service property.
DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth P. Martin, General Counsel,
Office of Inspector General, (703) 248-2100.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 27, 2010, the Postal Service published an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations concerning the maximum penalty for a violation of the rules governing conduct on Postal Service property (75 FR 4273). The former rules had established the maximum penalty for a violation as a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. As revised by that notice, the maximum penalty for a violation was increased to a fine of not more than that allowed under title 18 of the United States Code or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both.
Since the publication of this amendment, the Postal Service has determined that it is necessary to revisit this matter, and to re-examine the text of the rule for clarity, specificity, and contractual compliance. For this reason, the Postal Service has determined that it is appropriate to amend the relevant provision once again to re-establish the maximum penalty in effect before the effective date of the previous notice, January 27, 2010.
OPM Proposes Changing FEHBP Open Season To Month of November
From the Federal Register
We are also proposing to change the annual FEHB Program Open Season from the Monday of the second full workweek in November through the Monday of the second full workweek in December, to November 1st through November 30th of each year. We are also adding a new opportunity for eligible employees to enroll in the FEHB Program or to change enrollment from self only to self and family under the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. Finally, we are proposing to allow FEHB plans to offer three options, without the requirement that one of the options be a high deductible health plan.
Change in Dates of Open Season
The current regulations provide for the FEHB Program Open Season to be held from the Monday of the second full workweek in November through the Monday of the second full workweek in December of each year. We are revising the regulations to change these dates to the month of November. Therefore, beginning in 2010, the Open Season dates will be November 1st through November 30th of each year. This will simplify the annual announcement of the time period for Open Season and allow agencies and employees to better plan for the enrollment opportunity since they will know well in advance when it will occur each year.
New Enrollment Opportunities
Public Law 111-3, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2009 (the Act), enacted on February 4, 2009, allows States to subsidize health insurance premium payments for certain low-income children who have access to qualified employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. FEHB-eligible enrollees who meet the criteria for child health assistance are eligible to receive State premium subsidy assistance payments to help them pay for their FEHB plan premiums. Current FEHB Program regulations already allow an eligible enrollee who loses coverage under the FEHB Program or another group health plan, including loss of eligibility or assistance under Medicaid or CHIP, to enroll or change enrollment from self only to self and family within the period beginning 31 days before and ending 60 days after the date of loss of coverage. The Act provides new opportunities for eligible employees to enroll in the FEHB Program or to change enrollment from self only to self and family when the employee or an eligible family member becomes eligible for premium assistance under CHIP. Employees must request the change in enrollment within 60 days after the date the employee or eligible family member is determined to be eligible for assistance. Employees may make these enrollment changes regardless of whether they are covered under premium conversion (pay premiums with pre-tax dollars).
DATES: OPM must receive comments on or before June 18, 2010.
PRC Notice:Nationwide Change in Frequency of Postal Delivery
“The Postal Service emphasizes that the proposed changes do not affect retail operations.” The change will not take place before October 1, 2010. Interventions are due April 26, 2010.
The Postal Regulatory Commission notice published in the Federal Register :
SUMMARY: The Postal Service has requested an advisory opinion from the Commission on a proposed nationwide change in its longstanding 6-day street delivery operating plan. Under the plan, Saturday street delivery day would be eliminated, except for Express Mail deliveries. Some corresponding changes would be made in related aspects of service and processing. This notice addresses related preliminary procedural steps and announces the Commission’s intention to hold some hearings outside of the Washington, DC area.
DATES: Interventions are due: April 26, 2010; prehearing conference: April 27, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit notices of intervention and other documents eletronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system. Commenters who cannot submit documents electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for advice on alternatives to electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 or stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 30, 2010, the United States Postal Service (Postal Service) filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission (Commission) for the Commission to issue an advisory opinion under 39 U.S.C. 3661(c) for the elimination of Saturday delivery.\1\ Section 3661(c) requires that such service changes conform to the policies reflected in title 39 of the United States Code.
—————————————————————————
\1\ Request of the United States Postal Service for an Advisory Opinion on Changes in the Nature of Postal Services, March 30, 2010 (Request).
—————————————————————————
The Postal Service proposes to eliminate Saturday delivery nationally, except for delivery of Express Mail and delivery to those post office boxes currently providing Saturday delivery. The change will not take place before October 1, 2010. Request at 1, 10. The Postal Service also proposes to eliminate Saturday initial processing of all mail but Express Mail and qualifying destination entry bulk mail. Id. at 1.
The Postal Service bases the Request on its deteriorating financial condition, precipitated by drastic volume decline. Id. at 3-4. If the Postal Service is authorized to make its proposed changes, it claims that its financial condition would be improved by a net of $3.1 billion annually. Id. at 4. The Postal Service summarizes all of its statutory service and financial obligations, and the need for operational flexibility to reduce delivery days to respond to the changing needs of the postal customer. Id. at 9-11.
The Postal Service’s Request is accompanied by 11 pieces of testimony and 12 library references.\2\ The Postal Service states that the service changes in the Request, and the basis thereof, are examined in detail in the Direct Testimony of Samuel Pulcrano on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-1). That testimony indicates that collecting mail from blue street collection boxes will also be eliminated on Saturday, except to collect overflow on an as needed basis. USPS-T-1 at 4, 14. The Postal Service states it has taken stakeholder views into account in planning the Saturday elimination. Id. at 5-6. The Postal Service also claims that it may, on an as needed basis, resume the delivery of packages/parcels during the pre-Christmas rush on Saturdays in December. Id. at 13. The Postal Service emphasizes that the proposed changes do not affect retail operations, some bulk mail processing, and service standards (except for adding a non-delivery day). Id. at 15-16.
—————————————————————————
\2\ Two of the library references are provided under seal.
—————————————————————————
The Postal Service sets forth the financial context of the Request in the Direct Testimony of Joseph Corbett on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-2). The Postal Service outlines its financial obligations in the face of declining volume and concludes that the current service model is unsustainable. USPS-T-2 at 2-4. The Postal Service also describes the significant cost cutting measures it has implemented in the last few years. Id. at 7-9. The Postal Service concludes that the negative trends in volume and revenue, coupled with a volume dependant network, result in a Postal Service network that is unsustainable. Id. at 17-18. The Postal Service outlines operational issues associated with the elimination of Saturday delivery in the Direct Testimony of Dean J. Granholm on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-3). The Postal Service asserts it can reduce expenditures for carriers and clerks and increase efficiency on other delivery days. USPS-T-3 at 4-5. The Postal Service indicates that perhaps the biggest change for retail customers is that mail accepted on Saturday will not be processed until Monday. Id. at 7-8. The Postal Service states that although it will probably have to change rural routes to adjust to the workload, it intends to adhere to all of its negotiated labor agreement requirements. Id. at 9-10. It also indicates that field managers may have to develop plans to effectively deal with Monday holiday overflow.
Id. at 18.
The Postal Service describes the changes to mail processing in the Direct Testimony of Frank Neri on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-4). The Postal Service describes, generally, how outgoing and destinating mail is processed at a facility. USPS-T-4 at 2-3. It identifies the elimination of all Saturday outgoing mail processing activities, with the exception of Express Mail operations, as the most significant mail processing change. Id. at 8. The Postal Service states that mail in transit between processing facilities will still continue to be processed. Id. at 10. The Postal Service also forecasts mail processing operations that may be reduced to cut costs, and operations that may increase costs on other days as a result of heavier volume. Id. at 17-18.
The Postal Service examines the effect of a reduction in delivery days on the transportation of mail in the Direct Testimony of Luke T. Grossmann on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-5). The Postal Service states that it will realign transportation networks to support a 5-day delivery mail processing and operating environment. USPS-T-5 at 5. The Postal Service estimates cost reduction through a decreased need for surface transportation in a 5-day environment. Id. at 6-12.
The Postal Service presents the methodology that it used to calculate cost savings realized from moving to a 5-day delivery model in the Direct Testimony of Michael D. Bradley on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-6). The Postal Service provides an overview of previous estimates employed by the Commission and the Postal Service to calculate savings from a 5-day delivery environment. USPS-T-6 at 2-3. The Postal Service also states that it discards the volume variability analysis, which generally has formed a basis for cost estimates, because the change to 5-day delivery is an operational change, not a volume change. Id. at 3. The Postal Service examines and quantifies the direct and indirect costs identified in previous witness testimonies, and cost savings resulting from moving to a 5-day environment. Id. at 7-53.
The Postal Service estimates the annualized cost savings, expressed in 2009 dollars, in the Direct Testimony of Jeff Colvin on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-7). This testimony builds on the methods described in USPS-T-6 by applying them to the Postal Service’s costs. USPS-T-7 at 2-3. It develops the calculated net annual savings (after reduction of contribution from loss of volume) and reports the figure as $3.103 billion. Id. at Attachment 3. The Postal Service states that the estimate may be affected by future increases in hourly labor costs, input unit costs, delivery points, and reduced mail volumes. Id. at 17.
The Postal Service provides an overview of the market research activities it conducted to gauge consumer and business impact from a reduction in delivery in the Direct Testimony of Rebecca Elmore-Yalch on Behalf of United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-8). The Postal Service describes the qualitative methods it used to garner consumer and business opinion in the form of focus groups and interviews. USPS-T-8 at 4-11. The Postal Service also describes the quantitative research it employed utilizing surveys. Id. at 12-29. The Postal Service attempts to quantify the affect on use of postal products of moving from a 6-day to a 5-day environment. Id. at 30. The Postal Service provides an assessment of the reactions of customers and commercial organizations to the proposed 5-day change and
estimated volume and revenue impact in the Direct Testimony of Gregory M. Whiteman on Behalf of United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-9). The Postal Service states that most consumers and small commercial organizations thought that elimination of Saturday delivery would have little impact on their consumer or commercial requirements. USPS-T-9 at 1. The Postal Service also indicates that most respondents thought they would adapt and the adaptation would not be difficult. Id. Quantitatively, the Postal Service estimates the reduction of volume of 0.7 percent, producing a loss of $428 million in revenue. Id. at 2. The Postal Service describes the changes to “start-the-clock” and “stop-the-clock” events used for service performance measurements that would change as a result of 5-day delivery in the Direct Testimony of Thomas G. Day on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-10). The Postal Serve explains that elimination of outbound mail processing on Saturday affects when the “clock starts to run” for service performance standards. USPS-T-10 at 3. Likewise, the elimination of Saturday delivery delays the “stop-the-clock” event for those mail pieces currently being delivered on Saturday. Id. The testimony presents various “start-the-clock” examples for different products the Postal Service offers, and suggests that each may require realignment as a result of moving to a 5-day environment. Id. at 6-9.
The Postal Service describes how it will inform and prepare customers for the implementation of 5-day delivery and related service changes in the Direct Testimony of Stephen M. Kearney on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, March 30, 2010 (USPS-T-11). The Postal Service recognizes that the ability of customers to adjust will depend on the Postal Service’s actions taken to clearly and effectively inform them. USPS-T-11 at 1. The Postal Service states that it will use multiple channels to reach stakeholders and garner feedback, including Customer Advisory Councils, the National Postal Forum, print and broadcast news media, a dedicated micro-Web site, and customer outreach. Id. at 2-7.
The Request, according to the Postal Service, contains changes that will affect every stakeholder, internal and external, of the Postal Service. See id. at 1, 7. The Request and all supporting public materials are on file in the Commission’s docket room for inspection during regular business hours, and are available on the Commission’s Web site at http://www.prc.gov.
Further procedures. Section 3661(c) of title 39 requires that the Commission afford an opportunity for formal, on-the-record hearing of the Postal Service’s Request under the terms specified in sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code before issuing its advisory opinion. All interested persons are hereby notified that notices of intervention in this proceeding shall be due on or before April 26, 2010. See 39 CFR 3001.20 and 3001.20a. It is the Commission’s intent to hold hearings for the receipt of evidence in this proceeding.
At this time, the Commission cannot anticipate the duration, or even the exact form, proceedings on this matter will take. Participants who wish to offer their views on these issues may do so in their interventions. Due to the nature of this Initiative, the Commission also will hold public hearings outside of Washington, D.C. Dates and locations of these public hearings will be announced subsequently. The Commission urges participants to carefully consider, prior to the prehearing conference, the justification for any proposed discovery period.
The Commission will hold a prehearing conference in this docket on April 27, 2010 at which these questions will be discussed.
Public Representative. Section 3661(c) of title 39 requires the participation of an “officer of the Commission who shall be required to represent the interests of the general public” in these proceedings. Patricia A. Gallagher, Kenneth Moeller, and Larry Fenster are designated to serve as Public Representatives to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. The foregoing Public Representatives shall direct the activities of Commission personnel assigned to assist them and, at an appropriate time, shall provide the names of these employees for the record. Neither the Public Representatives nor the assigned personnel shall participate in or advise as to any Commission decision in this proceeding, other than in their designated capacity.
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. N2010-1 to consider the Postal Service Request referred to in the body of this order.
2. The Commission will sit en banc in this proceeding.
3. Notices of intervention are due no later than April 26, 2010.
4. A prehearing conference is scheduled for April 27, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in the Commission’s hearing room.
5. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 3661(c), the Commission appoints Patricia A. Gallagher, Kenneth Moeller, and Larry Fenster to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
source: Federal Register
Postal Regulatory Commission’s Monthly Meeting
The POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION meets the first Wednesday of each month at 11:00 a.m. in the Commission’s Main Conference Room, 901 New York Ave., NW, Suite 200. The public is invited to attend
TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 11 a.m.
PLACE: Commission hearing room, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
STATUS: Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public. The public session will be podcast.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC SESSION:
1. Review of Postal-related Congressional Activity
2. Report on International Activities
3. Review of Active Cases
4. Report on Public Communications regarding the Nature of Service Inquiry
5. Report on Status of a Special Study, pursuant to Section 802(c) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006, addressing the Postal Service’s estimated share of a certain Civil Service Retirement System-related retirement benefit liability
6. Report on Recent Activities of the Joint Periodicals Task Force and Status of the report to the Congress pursuant to Section 708 of the PAEA
7. Report on Status of Internal Evaluation of the Public Representative Function
8. Report on Status of Technical Conference Papers Authored by Staff Chairman’s Closing Remarks for Open Session
Matters for Consideration in Closed Session
9. Discussion of Pending Litigation
10. Discussion of Confidential Commercial Information relative to Potential Commission Contracts
11. Discussion of Confidential Personnel Issues involving Performance Management
source: Federal Register
OPM Proposes Changes To Management of Official Personnel Folders
SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to amend the regulations governing disposition of Official Personnel Folders of Federal employees to clarify the roles and responsibilities of OPM and Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver written comments to, Tanya Bennett, Records Manager, Office of Chief Information Officer, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 7439, Washington, DC 20415-8200; by e-mail to tanya.bennett@opm.gov; by fax to (202) 606-1719.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Bennett by telephone at (202) 606-4054, by fax at (202) 606-1719, or by e-mail at tanya.bennett@opm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to amend part 293 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (Personnel Records) to clarify agency responsibilities concerning Official Personnel Folders (OPFs) of employees in the civil service.
Section 293.303, currently encaptioned “Ownership of folder,” provides that OPFs are under the “jurisdiction and control” of and are “part of the records of” OPM. The language of the current version of Sec. 293.303 has caused confusion with respect to the allocation of costs for the storage and physical transfer of OPFs. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which stores OPFs when the subjects are not employed by the Federal Government, has informed OPM
that it adopted the position that it lacks authority to bill any agency other than OPM for costs associated with OPFs because it believed that the language of 5 CFR 293.303 precluded any other solution. This interpretation has caused the cost of OPF transfers initiated by other agencies to be shifted to OPM. For example, any time an agency requests that NARA send the agency the OPF of an applicant for an agency position, OPM is billed. Sometimes, the same file is returned and
requested more than once by the same agency in connection with the same personnel action. As long as the cost is borne by OPM, however, an entity has no incentive to make requests judiciously, i.e., obtain all necessary information at once.
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify OPM’s and agencies’ roles with respect to OPFs and permit a more rational allocation of the costs associated with the movement of OPFs. The use of the term “ownership” and the reference to “jurisdiction and control of OPM” in 5 CFR 293.303 were intended to summarize OPM’s Governmentwide authority to standardize practices and procedures for the establishment and maintenance of the OPF, not to minimize the responsibilities of other agencies with respect to the maintenance and use of OPFs.
To clarify the intended meaning of its regulations, OPM proposes the following specific changes to the regulations:
In section 293.303, we propose to change the heading from “Ownership of the folder” to “The roles of the Office and custodians” to revise and clarify the text of the section. “Ownership of the folder” will be deleted as the title of this section because its use has had confusing implications as to what entity should be
responsible for ancillary costs associated with the OPF.
In section 293.303, we also propose to delete the phrase “under the jurisdiction and control of” to eliminate confusion about the meaning of this clause. This section now specifies that the role of the Office is to develop regulations, practices and procedures for the establishment, maintenance, and transfer of OPFs. Additionally, several subsections have been proposed to specify the role of custodians.
In section 293.102, we propose to add a definition of the term “custodian,” to be consistent with the revisions to section 293.303 summarized above.
In section 293.307, which addresses the disposition of folders of former Federal employees, we propose to add paragraphs (c) and (d) to clarify responsibility for costs associated with the disposition of OPFs of former employees.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 293
Government employees, Privacy, Records.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend part 293 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 293–PERSONNEL RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 293 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 1103, 1104, 1302, 2951(2), 3301, and 4315; E.O. 12107 (December 28, 1978), 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp.; 5 CFR 7.2; E.O. 9830; 3 CFR 1943-1948 Comp.
Subpart A–Basic Policies on Maintenance of Personnel Records
2. In Sec. 293.102, add a definition of Custodian in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 293.102 Definitions.
* * * * *
Custodian means an agency in physical possession of an Official Personnel Folder. The custodian is responsible for the maintenance and disposition of the Folder and the costs associated with maintenance and disposition until after the Folder has been transferred to and accepted at the National Personnel Records Center. The custodian carries out its responsibilities
[[Page 2822]]
with respect to the Folder in accordance with regulations, practices, and procedures promulgated or published by the Office of Personnel Management.
* * * * *
Subpart C–Official Personnel Folder
3. Revise Sec. 293.303 to read as follows:
Sec. 293.303 The roles of the Office and custodians.
(a) The OPF of each employee in a position subject to civil service rules and regulations and of each former employee who held such a position is part of the records of the Office of Personnel Management (the Office). The Office has Governmentwide responsibility for developing regulations, practices and procedures for the establishment, maintenance, and transfer of OPFs.
(b) An agency is the legal custodian of an employee’s OPF during the period of the employee’s employment at that agency. An agency is responsible for the establishment of the OPF for a new appointee or a new employee for whom no OPF has previously been established and is similarly responsible for the maintenance of a previously existing OPF during the period any new appointee or employee remains in the agency’s employ. An agency is also the custodian of an OPF it requests from the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) for any other temporary use, during the period the agency holds the OPF and until the OPF is returned to the NPRC.
(c) Once an employee separates from federal service, the agency must transfer the OPF to the NPRC in accordance with established procedures for maintaining OPFs as indicated in OPM’s Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping.
(d) Once NPRC has approved the transfer, the Office is the legal custodian of the OPF and is responsible for the maintenance of the OPF until the destruction date established for the file pursuant to the National Archive and Records Administration’s General Records Schedule unless another agency requests the OPF from the NPRC in the interim. In the event another agency requests the OPF from the NPRC, that agency becomes the custodian from the date that the OPF is transmitted by the
NPRC until the date that the NPRC receives the OPF back from the agency.
4. Amend Sec. 293.307 by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) as
follows:
Sec. 293.307 Disposition of folders of former Federal employees.
* * * * *
(c) Agencies are responsible for all costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of OPFs, and transfer of OPFs to the National Personnel Records Center.
(d) Agencies are responsible for all costs associated with agency-initiated requests for OPFs or services from the National Personnel
Records Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-809 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
source: Federal Register
USPS Board of Governors Issues Notification Of Location Change Two Days After Meeting
The USPS Board of Governors issued a notice in yesterday's Federal Register changing the previously announced location TIMES AND DATES: 3:30 p.m., Monday, January 11, 2010; and 7:30 a.m., Tuesday, January 12, 2010. PLACE: Newport Beach, California, at the Fairmont Hotel, 4500 MacArthur Boulevard. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Monday, January 11, at 3:30 p.m. (Closed)1. Strategic Issues. 2. Financial Matters. 3. Pricing. 4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues. 5. Governors’ Executive Session–Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance. Tuesday, January 12, at 7:30 a.m. (Closed) 1. Continuation of Monday’s agenda.To: Notification of Change in Location and Start Time Previous Announcement: 75 FR 1088, January 8, 2010. Previously Announced Date of Meeting: January 11 and 12, 2010. Status: Closed. Change In Meeting Location and Time: Change location to Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., and change start time to January 12 at 10 a.m. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800. Julie S. Moore, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2010-736 Filed 1-12-10; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
USPS Proposes New Standard For Mailing Replica Or Inert Explosive Devices
Some comments USPS received last year stated that banning ‘replica or inert explosive devices’ in the mail violated the Second Amendment.
39 CFR Part 111
Restricting the Mailing of Replica or Inert Explosive Devices
ACTION: Proposed rule; revised.
SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes to revise Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) to clarify that a proposed new standard to allow for the mailing of replica or inert explosive devices, such as grenades, be sent by Registered MailTM only.
DATES: Submit comments on or before February 4, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Room 3436,
Washington, DC 20260–3436. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at USPS Headquarters Library, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor N, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
E-mail comments, containing the name and address of the commenter, may be sent to: MailingStandards@usps.gov, with a subject line of ‘‘Inert Munitions’’
Faxed comments are not accepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary J. Collins 202–268–5440 or Evans
King, 202–268–4982.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service published a Federal Register proposed rule (73 FR 12321) on March 7, 2008 to prohibit replica and inert munitions from the mail. Upon further review and in consideration of respondents’ comments, we are revising our proposal to:
1. More specifically identify these items as ‘‘replica or inert explosive devices’’ rather than ‘‘replica or inert munitions’’ and, 2. Identify a process for mailing such items rather than prohibiting them from the mail altogether.
In the past, postal operations have been disrupted and facilities have been evacuated when replica or inert explosive devices have been discovered in the mail. Such evacuations result in unnecessary expense and loss of productivity to the Postal Service and can jeopardize USPS® service commitments. We believe this revised proposed rule will minimize the chances of operational disruptions caused by replica or inert explosive devices and at the same time allow mailers to continue to use the mail for shipping these items.
Comments Received
All comments received in response to the original proposed rule were in opposition to the proposal, falling into four major categories. Comments are summarized and presented below followed by our responses:
Comment: The Postal Service proposal is vague and overly broad when identifying all replica or inert ‘‘munitions’’ as being prohibited from mailing.
The Postal Service agrees that the language in the rule could be more descriptive. We have, therefore, termed these articles as ‘‘inert or replica explosive devices’’ to distinguish them from inert munitions, such as empty shell casings and the like. In the revised proposed rule, replica or inert items that clearly look like a bomb or an explosive device, to an untrained observer, must be presented for mailing in accordance with the proposed standards in this document. This proposed rule is
intended to discourage indiscriminate mailing of articles that appear to be explosive devices.
Comment: Respondents dispute whether there really is a problem of inert munitions in the mail.
In the past three years, the Postal Service has recorded numerous incidents involving the discovery of mail that exhibited characteristics of possible explosives. Postal facilities have been evacuated due to these occurrences. Postal Inspectors or local emergency first responders were contacted and required to respond to each of these occurrences.
Comment: The proposal is in violation of the Second Amendment.
We no longer propose to prohibit the mailing of items currently allowed by law to be mailed. In this revised proposed rule we are limiting the mailing of articles that have the appearance of real explosive devices. This revised proposed rule requires customers to present packages containing replica or inert explosive devices at a retail counter and that they be sent via Registered Mail. This process will ensure that packages containing these items remain separate and easily identifiable during the mailing process.
Comment: The Postal Service lacks the authority to ban mailing of this matter.
While the Postal Service does not necessarily agree with the legal arguments presented by certain respondents in response to its prior proposed rule, in reconsideration, we elieve we can achieve the goal of reducing operational interruptions and maintaining the safety of the mail and postal employees by limiting the mailing process of replica or inert explosive devices rather than prohibiting them from being mailed.
Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. of 553 (b), (c)] regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 111—[AMENDED]
2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as follows:
* * * * *
600 Basic Standards for All Mailing Services
601 Mailability
* * * * *
11.0 Other Restricted and Nonmailable Matter
* * * * *
11.5 Replica or Inert Explosive Devices [Renumber current 11.5 through 11.20 as 11.6 through 11.21. Insert new 11.5 to read as follows:]
Replica or inert devices that bear a realistic appearance to explosive devices such as simulated grenades, but that are not dangerous, are permitted in the mail when all of the following conditions are met:
a. The package is presented by the mailer at a retail counter.
b. Registered Mail is used. Registered Mail service is only available for items mailed as either First-Class Mail or Priority Mail.
c. The address side of the package is labeled with ‘‘REPLICA EXPLOSIVE’’ using at least 20 point type or letters at least 1?4? high.
* * * * *
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if our proposal is adopted.
Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
source: Federal Register
EEOC Proposes Broader Definition of Disability
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Federal Register Notice proposing to revise its Americans with Disability Act (ADA) regulations and accompanying interpretive guidance in order to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110?325. Comments on the proposed regulations, 74 Fed. Reg. 48431-48450, are due no later than November 23, 2009. The EEOC described the nature of the revised regulations as follows:
Pursuant to the 2008 amendments, the definition of disability under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq., shall be construed in favor of broad coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA as amended, and the determination of whether an individual has a disability should not demand extensive analysis. The Amendments Act makes important changes to the definition of the term “disability” by rejecting the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC’s ADA regulations. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA. . . . .
The Amendments Act retains the ADA’s basic definition of “disability” as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. However, it changes the way that these statutory terms should be interpreted in several ways, therefore necessitating revision of the existing regulations and interpretive guidance contained in the accompanying “Appendix to Part 1630—Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” which are published at 29 CFR part 1630.
Consistent with the provisions of the Amendments Act and Congress’s expressed expectation therein, the proposed rule:
—Provides that the definition of “disability” shall be interpreted broadly;
—Revises that portion of the regulations defining the term “substantially limits” as directed in the Amendments Act by providing that a limitation need not “significantly” or “severely” restrict a major life activity in order to meet the standard, and by deleting reference to the terms “condition, manner, or duration” under which a major life activity is performed, in order to effectuate Congress’s clear instruction that “substantially limits” is not to be misconstrued to require the “level of limitation, and the intensity of focus” applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky v. Williams, 534 U.S. 134 [sic: correct citation is 534 U.S. 184] (2002) (2008 Senate Managers’ Statement at 6);
—Expands the definition of “major life activities” through two nonexhaustive lists:
—The first list includes activities such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working, some of which the EEOC previously identified in regulations and sub-regulatory guidance, and some of which Congress additionally included in the Amendments Act;
—The second list includes major bodily functions, such as functions of the immune system, special sense organs, and skin; normal cell growth; and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive functions, many of which were included by Congress in the Amendments Act, and some of which have been added by the Commission as further illustrative examples;
—Provides that mitigating measures other than “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” shall not be considered in assessing whether an individual has a “disability”;
—Provides that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active;
—Provides that the definition of “regarded as” is changed so that it no longer requires a showing that the employer perceived the individual to be substantially limited in a major life activity, and instead provides that an applicant or employee who is subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA (e.g., failure to hire, denial of promotion, or termination) because of an actual or perceived impairment will meet the “regarded as” definition of disability, unless the impairment is both transitory and minor;
—The proposed rule provides that actions based on an impairment include actions based on symptoms of an impairment, and the Commission invites public comment on this point;
—Provides that individuals covered only under the “regarded as” prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodation; and,
—Provides that qualification standards,employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an individual’s uncorrected vision shall not be used unless shown to be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.