type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 16.6.2014
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 184/5
 Despacho do Tribunal de Justiça (Sexta Secção) de 13 de fevereiro de 2014 — Marek Marszałkowski/Instituto de Harmonização do Mercado Interno (marcas, desenhos e modelos), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG
 (Processo C-177/13 P) (1)
 ((Recurso de decisão do Tribunal Geral - Marca comunitária - Regulamento (CE) n.o 40/94 - Artigo 8.o, n.o 1, alínea b) - Pedido de marca figurativa comunitária que inclui os elementos nominativos «Walichnowy» e «Marko» - Oposição do titular da marca nominativa comunitária MAR-KO - Motivo relativo de recusa - Risco de confusão))
 2014/C 184/06
 Língua do processo: polaco
 Partes
 Recorrente: Marek Marszałkowski (representante: C. Sadkowski, consultor jurídico)
 Outras partes no processo: Instituto de Harmonização do Mercado Interno (marcas, desenhos e modelos) (representante: D. Walicka, agente), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co.
 Objeto
 Recurso interposto contra o acórdão do Tribunal Geral (Primeira Secção), de 4 de fevereiro de 2013, Marszalkowski/IHMI — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO) (T-159/11), pelo qual o Tribunal Geral negou provimento ao recurso interposto contra a decisão da Quarta Câmara de Recurso do IHMI, de 11 de janeiro de 2011 (processo R 760/2010-4), que anulou a decisão da Divisão de Oposição que rejeitou a oposição deduzida pelo titular da marca nominativa comunitária «Mar-Ko», para produtos da classe 29 do Acordo de Nice — Violação do artigo 8.o, n.o 1, alínea b), do Regulamento (CE) n.o 207/2009 do Conselho, de 26 de fevereiro de 2009, sobre a marca comunitária (JO L 78, p. 1), e do artigo 48.o, n.o 2, do Regulamento de Processo do Tribunal Geral — Motivo relativo de recusa — Risco de confusão.
 Dispositivo
 1)
 É negado provimento ao recurso.
 2)
 Marek Marszałkowski é condenado nas despesas.
 (1) JO C 207 de 20.7.2013


type: other

text:
Art. 26 da Lei das Sociedades Anonimas de 1976 - Lei 6404/76
 Modelos e peças (0)Diários (756)Legislação (0)Definições (0)
 Página 11 da Industria e Comercio do DOERS (DOERS) de 14 de Outubro de 2019
 e, provisoriamente, cautelas que as representem, observando o disposto nos artigos 24 a 26, da Lei no 6.404/76. §2o- As ações..., da Lei 6.404, de 15 de dezembro de 1976. Sobre a matéria da Ordem ...
 Página 5 da Empresarial do Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOSP) de 5 de Outubro de 2019
 , com qualquer número. Artigo 31. As Assembleias imeiro do artigo 130 da Lei no 6.404, de 15 de dezembro de 1976) Gerais serão...: Artigo 26. Os membros estatutários são responsáveis, nos termos do a......
 Página 3 da Empresarial do Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOSP) de 1 de Outubro de 2019
 do disposto no artigo 124 , § 4o , da Lei 6.404 , de 15 de dezembro de 1976 (“Lei das S.A.”), em virtude da presença... aos preceitos dos artigos 161 a 165 da Lei no 6.404 /76. Artigo 26 : Na ...
 Página 12 da Empresarial do Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOSP) de 18 de Setembro de 2019
 que as representem, observando o disposto nos artigos 24 a 26 da Lei 6.404 /76. Artigo 6o - As ações, ou títulos múltiplos... da Companhia, por considerá-lo excessivo em relação a seu objeto ...
 Página 11 da Industria e Comercio do DOERS (DOERS) de 10 de Setembro de 2019
 registrados na forma do artigo 118 da Lei 6.404/76, cabendo à administração abster-se de registrar transferências de ações... aplicáveis ao funcionamento do mercado de capitais em geral. Artigo 26o ...
 Página 4 da Empresarial do Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOSP) de 7 de Setembro de 2019
 $ 928.452.010,00, sem a emissão de novas ações, nos termos do Artigo 169, §1o da Lei 6.404/76, mediante a capitalização... aprovada a lavratura da presente ata em forma de sumário, nos termos do ...
 Página 28 da Empresarial do Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOSP) de 23 de Agosto de 2019
 , nos termos da alínea b, do artigo 116 , da Lei no 6.404 /1976, em especial: I. eleição de Diretoria; II. proposta... de seus membros, nos termos da alínea b, do parágrafo 4o , do artigo 161 , da Le......
 e pelas disposições legais aplicáveis, em especial pela Lei no 6.404 , de 15 de dezembro de 1976 (“Lei no 6.404/76”). Artigo 2o... da Assembleia Geral ou nas hipóteses previstas na Lei no 6.404 /76....
 Art. 26 da Lei 6404/76
 Art. 26 da Lei das Sociedades Anonimas de 1976


type: contracts

text:
 30.6.2011
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 171/28
 BESLUIT VAN HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER
 Nr. 29/2011
 van 1 april 2011
 tot wijziging van bijlage I (Veterinaire en fytosanitaire aangelegenheden) en bijlage II (Technische voorschriften, normen, keuring en certificatie) bij de EER-overeenkomst
 HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER,
 Gezien de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, gewijzigd bij het Protocol tot aanpassing van de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, hierna „de Overeenkomst” genoemd, en met name artikel 98,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Bijlage I bij de Overeenkomst werd gewijzigd bij Besluit nr. 116/2010 van het Gemengd Comité van de EER van 10 november 2010 (1).
 (2)
 Bijlage II bij de Overeenkomst werd gewijzigd bij Besluit nr. 100/2010 van het Gemengd Comité van de EER van 1 oktober 2010 (2).
 (3)
 Verordening (EU) nr. 116/2010 van de Commissie van 9 februari 2010 tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 1924/2006 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad wat betreft de lijst van voedingsclaims (3) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (4)
 Verordening (EU) nr. 459/2010 van de Commissie van 27 mei 2010 tot wijziging van de bijlagen II, III en IV bij Verordening (EG) nr. 396/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad wat betreft de maximumgehalten aan residuen van bepaalde bestrijdingsmiddelen in of op bepaalde producten (4) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (5)
 Verordening (EU) nr. 600/2010 van de Commissie van 8 juli 2010 tot wijziging van bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 396/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad wat betreft toevoegingen en wijziging van de voorbeelden van verwante soorten of andere producten waarvoor dezelfde MRL geldt (5) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (6)
 Richtlijn 2010/37/EU van de Commissie van 17 juni 2010 tot wijziging van Richtlijn 2008/60/EG tot vaststelling van specifieke zuiverheidseisen voor zoetstoffen (6) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (7)
 Dit besluit is niet van toepassing op Liechtenstein,
 BESLUIT:
 Artikel 1
 In hoofdstuk II van bijlage I bij de Overeenkomst worden in punt 40 (Verordening (EG) nr. 396/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad) de volgende streepjes toegevoegd:
 „—
 32010 R 0459: Verordening (EU) nr. 459/2010 van de Commissie van 27 mei 2010 (PB L 129 van 28.5.2010, blz. 3),
 —
 32010 R 0600: Verordening (EU) nr. 600/2010 van de Commissie van 8 juli 2010 (PB L 174 van 9.7.2010, blz. 18).”.
 Artikel 2
 Hoofdstuk XII van bijlage II bij de Overeenkomst wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 1)
 In punt 54zzy (Verordening (EG) nr. 396/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad) worden de volgende streepjes toegevoegd:
 „—
 32010 R 0459: Verordening (EU) nr. 459/2010 van de Commissie van 27 mei 2010 (PB L 129 van 28.5.2010, blz. 3),
 —
 32010 R 0600: Verordening (EU) nr. 600/2010 van de Commissie van 8 juli 2010 (PB L 174 van 9.7.2010, blz. 18).”.
 2)
 In punt 54zzzt (Verordening (EG) nr. 1924/2006 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad) wordt het volgende streepje toegevoegd:
 „—
 32010 R 0116: Verordening (EU) nr. 116/2010 van de Commissie van 9 februari 2010 (PB L 37 van 10.2.2010, blz. 16).”.
 3)
 In punt 54zzzy (Richtlijn 2008/60/EG van de Commissie) wordt het volgende toegevoegd:
 „ , gewijzigd bij:
 —
 32010 L 0037: Richtlijn 2010/37/EU van de Commissie van 17 juni 2010 (PB L 152 van 18.6.2010, blz. 12).”.
 Artikel 3
 De in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekend te maken teksten in de IJslandse en de Noorse taal van de Verordeningen (EU) nr. 116/2010, (EU) nr. 459/2010 en (EU) nr. 600/2010 en van Richtlijn 2010/37/EU zijn authentiek.
 Artikel 4
 Dit besluit treedt in werking op 1 mei 2011, op voorwaarde dat alle in artikel 103, lid 1, van de Overeenkomst bedoelde kennisgevingen aan het Gemengd Comité van de EER hebben plaatsgevonden (7).
 Artikel 5
 Dit besluit wordt bekendgemaakt in het EER-gedeelte van en in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 1 april 2011.
 Voor het Gemengd Comité van de EER
 De waarnemend voorzitter
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) PB L 58 van 3.3.2011, blz. 73.
 (2) PB L 332 van 16.12.2010, blz. 50.
 (3) PB L 37 van 10.2.2010, blz. 16.
 (4) PB L 129 van 28.5.2010, blz. 3.
 (5) PB L 174 van 9.7.2010, blz. 18.
 (6) PB L 152 van 18.6.2010, blz. 12.
 (7) Geen grondwettelijke vereisten aangegeven.


text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 22002D0081
 Úřední věstník L 266 , 03/10/2002 S. 0030 - 0031
 Rozhodnutí Smíšeného výboru EHPč. 81/2002ze dne 25. června 2002,kterým se mění příloha II (Technické předpisy, normy, zkoušení a certifikace) Dohody o EHPSMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru ve znění Protokolu o úpravě Dohody o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen "Dohoda"), a zejména s ohledem na článek 98 této dohody,vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Příloha II Dohody byla změněna rozhodnutím Smíšeného výboru EHP č. 51/2002 ze dne 31. května 2002 [1].(2) Nařízení Komise (ES) č. 466/2001 ze dne 8. března 2001, kterým se stanoví maximální limity některých kontaminujících látek v potravinách [2], ve znění opravy v Úř. věst. L 313, 30.11.2001, s. 60, by mělo být začleněno do Dohody.(3) Směrnice Komise 2001/54/ES ze dne 11. července 2001, kterou se zrušuje směrnice 79/1066/EHS o analytických metodách Společenství pro zkoušení kávových a cikorkových extraktů [3], by měla být začleněna do Dohody.(4) Směrnice Komise 2001/101/ES ze dne 26. listopadu 2001, kterou se mění směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2000/13/ES o sbližování právních předpisů členských států týkajících se označování potravin, jejich obchodní úpravy a související reklamy [4], by měla být začleněna do Dohody.(5) Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2375/2001 ze dne 29. listopadu 2001, kterým se mění nařízení Komise (ES) č. 466/2001, kterým se stanoví maximální hodnoty množství určitých kontaminujících látek v potravinách [5], by mělo být začleněno do Dohody.(6) Rozhodnutí Komise 2001/873/ES ze dne 4. prosince 2001, kterým se opravuje směrnice 2001/22/ES, kterou se stanoví metody odběru vzorků a analýzy pro úřední kontrolu dodržování maximálních limitů olova, kadmia, rtuti a 3-MCPD v potravinách [6], by mělo být začleněno do Dohody.(7) Nařízení (ES) č. 466/2001 zrušuje od 5. dubna 2002 nařízení Komise (ES) č. 194/97 [7], které je začleněno do Dohody a které by proto mělo být v Dohodě zrušeno,ROZHODL TAKTO:Článek 1Kapitola XII přílohy II Dohody se mění takto:1. V bodě 18 (směrnice Komise 2000/13/ES) se doplňují slova:"ve znění:— 32001 L 0101: směrnice Komise 2001/101/ES ze dne 26. listopadu 2001 (Úř. věst. L 310, 28.11.2001, s. 19)."2. V bodě 54zj (směrnice Komise 2001/22/ES) se doplňují slova:"ve znění:— 32001 D 0873: rozhodnutí Komise 2001/873/ES ze dne 4. prosince 2001 (Úř. věst. L 325, 8.12.2001, s. 34)."3. Za bod 54zl (směrnice Komise 96/5/ES) se vkládají nové body, které znějí:"54zm. 32001 L 0054: směrnice Komise 2001/54/ES ze dne 11. července 2001, kterou se zrušuje směrnice 79/1066/EHS o analytických metodách Společenství pro zkoušení kávových a cikorkových extraktů (Úř. věst. L 191, 13.7.2001, s. 42).54zn. 32001 R 0466: nařízení Komise (ES) č. 466/2001 ze dne 8. března 2001, kterým se stanoví maximální limity některých kontaminujících látek v potravinách (Úř. věst. L 77, 16.3.2001, s. 1), ve znění opravy v Úř. věst. L 313, 30.11.2001, s. 60, a ve znění:- 32001 R 2375: nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2375/2001 ze dne 29. listopadu 2001 (Úř. věst. L 321, 6.12.2001, s. 1)."4. Bod 22 (směrnice Komise 79/1066/EHS) se zrušuje.5. Bod 54r (nařízení Komise (ES) č. 194/97) se zrušuje.Článek 2Znění směrnic 2001/54/ES a 2001/101/ES, nařízení (ES) č. 466/2001, ve znění opravy v Úř. věst. L 313, 30.11.2001, s. 60, a (ES) č. 2375/2001 a rozhodnutí 2001/873/ES v islandském a norském jazyce, která mají být zveřejněna v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropských společenství, jsou platná.Článek 3Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem 26. června 2002 za předpokladu, že Smíšenému výboru EHP jsou učiněna veškerá oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody [8].Článek 4Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropských společenství.V Bruselu dne 25. června 2002.Za Smíšený výbor EHPpředsedaP. Westerlund[1] Úř. věst. L 238, 5.9.2002, s. 8.[2] Úř. věst. L 77, 16.3.2001, s. 1.[3] Úř. věst. L 191, 13.7.2001, s. 42.[4] Úř. věst. L 310, 28.11.2001, s. 19.[5] Úř. věst. L 321, 6.12.2001, s. 1.[6] Úř. věst. L 325, 8.12.2001, s. 34.[7] Úř. věst. L 31, 1.2.1997, s. 48.[8] Nebyly oznámeny žádné ústavní požadavky.--------------------------------------------------


type: wikipedia

text:
El patriarcado de las Indias Occidentales () es una sede titular de la Iglesia católica. Se trata de un patriarcado latino erigido el 11 de mayo de 1524, durante la colonización española de las llamadas Indias Occidentales. Desde el 31 de agosto de 1963 es sede vacante.
 Por más de 400 años de historia el título de patriarca de las Indias Occidentales fue ostentado por prelados españoles, en especial aquellos que ostentaban funciones en palacio u otros lugares reales como capellanes mayores (hoy arzobispo castrense). Sin embargo, el cargo que ostentó tradicionalmente fue el de limosnero mayor. Los patriarcas fueron miembros de varias juntas y, más tarde, senadores del reino.
 Historia
 Tradicionalmente ha habido confusión con el año de erección de la sede titular y a quién se otorgó el título en los primeros años. Autores como Gil González Dávila y Salazar de Mendoza, opinaron que el patriarcado fue erigido en 1524 por el papa Clemente VII, concediendo la dignidad a Esteban Gabriel Merino. De hecho, los primeros nombramientos de los patriarcas son confusos, tanto es así, que algunos autores llegaron a considerar que la creación del título databa del reinado de Felipe III y que había sido el primero Diego de Guzmán y Haro. A pesar de la confusión, el Anuario Pontificio muestra el 11 de mayo de 1524 como fecha de erección.
 La idea de su erección nació debido al descubrimiento de América, un hecho que abría en la Iglesia española un vasto territorio que se tenía que organizar en materia espiritual, además de llevar a cabo la tarea de evangelización. Para esta tarea, se pensó en la creación de un título eclesiástico de tipo patriarcal que sirviera de título primado para el nuevo continente.
 El 26 de julio de 1513 el regente de Castilla Fernando el Católico, a nombre de su hija Juana, solicitó por medio de su embajador en Roma —Jerónimo Vich y Valterra— al recién elegido papa León X, el nombramiento de su capellán mayor —Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca, obispo de Palencia— como patriarca de las Indias, además de la creación de este título. Hasta entonces Fonseca se había ocupado desde España del gobierno eclesiástico de las tierras recién descubiertas. Adicionalmente, también solicitaba la creación de un nuevo obispado en Nuestra Señora de la Antigua, que debería regir su predicador.
 El papa accedió a la erección de la nueva diócesis, que quedó bajo el gobierno del franciscano Juan de Quevedo, pero era reacio a crear un nuevo patriarcado que eventualmente podría disminuir su poder o derivar hacia un cisma. Más adelante, el 11 de mayo de 1524, Clemente VII creó el título a instancia del emperador Carlos V (rey de España). El pontífice impuso la pena de excomunión al patriarca que se trasladara a las Indias Occidentales sin el consentimiento de la Santa Sede; y lo privó de jurisdicción, renta, súbditos y clero, para evitar cualquier tipo de deriva de ambición parecida al mundo oriental. Por lo tanto, desde su nacimiento, la sede fue titular y el patriarca quedaba sin algún tipo de poder. Recayó sobre el arzobispo de Granada y canciller mayor de Castilla, Antonio de Rojas Manrique.
 Las condiciones eran especificadas en casi todas las bulas de nombramiento; la más expresiva y clara fue la de nombramiento de Antonio Allué Sesé (en 1821): «Cum itaque Patriarchatus Indiarum Occidentalium Maris Océanos, quia Ecclesia, Sede, Capítulo, Choro, Clero et populo omnique cura regimine et jurisdictione tam espirituales quam temporales caret, sed solum en dignitatis Patriarchalis título et honore consistit». Siendo un título honorífico, no daba derecho ni a palio ni a la consagración episcopal; los patriarcas, para ser consagrados, debían obtener aparte el nombramiento en una sede episcopal, titular o residencial.
 A petición de Felipe II, en 1569 se publicó una bula que creó el cargo de procapellán de la Capilla Real, cargo que servía de sustitución del Capilla Mayor que era ejercido tradicionalmente por el arzobispo de Santiago de Compostela. Además, se le pidió también al papa el otorgamiento del título honorífico del patriarcado de las Indias Occidentales, algo que no sería verificado finalmente hasta 1610, en que se le atribuye la jurisdicción de la familia real, sus servidores, los miembros de la Capilla Real, tanto fuera de los palacios reales, como en los reales sitios o los patronatos de la corona.
 A partir de 1644 el patriarca también ostentaba la jurisdicción castrense, que quedó vacante entre 1716 y 1736. De hecho, Clemente XII, el 4 de febrero de 1736 renovó el vicariato castrense para los tiempos de guerra y otorgó facultades en épocas de paz sobre los militares y sus familias. Sin embargo, este acuerdo se abolió dos veces (1750-1762 y 1769-1772) hasta su abolición definitiva el 1933. Otros autores han confundido el cargo de cura mayor de los reyes de España, con el mismo título del Ejército, que con el paso del tiempo se fueron uniendo ambas dignidades.
 El último patriarca de las Indias Occidentales fue Leopoldo Eijo y Garay, obispo de Madrid-Alcalá, entre 1946 y 1963. Desde su muerte, el cargo no ha sido ocupado de nuevo y desde entonces se encuentra vacante, pero nunca ha sido abolido formalmente, como lo demuestra que continúa siendo listado en el Anuario Pontificio.
 Epsicopologio
 Los datos sobre sus primeros titulares son confusos, de ahí que la lista que se presenta contenga datos incompletos, principalmente de los obispos que llevaron el título durante los siglos y .
 Antonio de Rojas Manrique † (11 de mayo de 1524-27 de junio de 1527 falleció)
 Esteban Gabriel Merino † (2 de septiembre de 1530-28 de julio de 1535 falleció)
 Fernando Niño y Zapata † (8 de octubre de 1546-16 de septiembre de 1552 falleció)
 Antonio de Fonseca, O.S.A. † (mencionado en 1554)
 Pedro Moya de Contreras † (15 de enero de 1591-7 de diciembre de 1591 falleció)
 Juan de Guzmán † (15 de noviembre de 1602-1605 falleció)
 Juan Bautista de Acevedo Muñoz † (16 de enero de 1606-8 de junio de 1608 falleció)
 Pedro Manso † (10 de noviembre de 1608-1609 falleció)
 Diego de Guzmán y Haro † (14 de marzo de 1616-15 de septiembre de 1625 nombrado arzobispo de Sevilla)
 Andrés Pacheco † (6 de octubre de 1625-7 de abril de 1626 falleció)
 Alfonso Pérez de Guzmán † (17 de mayo de 1627-antes del 22 de diciembre de 1670 falleció)
 Antonio Manrique de Guzmán † (22 de diciembre de 1670-26 de febrero de 1679 falleció)
 Antonio de Benavides y Bazán † (8 de mayo de 1679-22 de enero de 1691 falleció)
 Pedro Portocarrero y Guzmán † (12 de noviembre de 1691-1705 falleció)
 Carlos Borja Centellas y Ponce de León † (3 de octubre de 1708-8 de agosto de 1733 falleció)
 Juan de Láncaster y Noroña † (28 de agosto de 1733-31 de octubre de 1733 falleció)
 Álvaro de Mendoza Caamaño Sotomayor † (20 de enero de 1734-23 de enero de 1761 falleció)
 Buenaventura de Córdoba Espínola de la Cerda † (6 de abril de 1761-6 de mayo de 1777 falleció)
 Francisco Javier Delgado Venegas † (30 de marzo de 1778-10 de diciembre de 1781 falleció)
 Cayetano de Adsor † (25 de febrero de 1782-12 de julio de 1782 falleció)
 Manuel Ventura Figueroa † (16 de diciembre de 1782-3 de abril de 1783 falleció)
 Antonio Sentmenat y Cartella † (25 de junio de 1784-14 de abril de 1806 falleció)
 Ramón José de Arce Rebollar y Uribarri † (26 de agosto de 1806-7 de julio de 1815 renunció) (el Gobierno de España lo destituyó el 22 de marzo de 1808 tras el motín de Aranjuez, pero no fue reconocido por la Santa Sede. El 18 de marzo de 1810 José Bonaparte lo restituyó, pero el 21 de junio de 1813 se exilió en Francia)
 Pedro de Silva y Sarmiento † (23 de marzo de 1808-1808) (nombrado por el Gobierno de España, murió y no fue preconizado)
 Miguel de Oliván y Lope (1810) (nombrado por Gobierno de España, no fue preconizado)
 Pedro José Chávez de la Rosa (1813) (presentado por la Regencia, no fue preconizado)
 Francisco Antonio Cebrián y Valda † (10 de julio de 1815-10 de febrero de 1820 falleció)
 Antonio Allué y Sesé † (8 de enero de 1821-17 de mayo de 1842 falleció) (el Gobierno de España lo destituyó en 1834, pero en Roma no se aceptó la renuncia y se le siguió considerando patriarca hasta su muerte)
 José Duaso y Latre † (1834) (nombrado por el Gobierno de España y no aceptado por la Santa Sede)
 Manuel Fraile y García † (1834-1837) (nombrado por el Gobierno de España y no aceptado por la Santa Sede)
 Pedro José Fonte † (1837-1839) (nombrado por el Gobierno de España y no aceptado por la Santa Sede)
 Juan José Bonel y Orbe † (1839-1848) (nombrado por el Gobierno de España y no aceptado por la Santa Sede)
 Antonio Posada Rubín de Celis † (17 de diciembre de 1847-22 de noviembre de 1851 falleció)
 Tomás Iglesias Barcones † (27 de septiembre de 1852-9 de mayo de 1874 falleció)
 Francisco de Paula de Benavides y Fernández de Navarrete, O.S. † (5 de julio de 1875-13 de mayo de 1881 nombrado arzobispo de Zaragoza)
 José Moreno y Mazón † (18 de noviembre de 1881-27 de marzo de 1885 nombrado arzobispo de Granada)
 Zeferino González y Díaz Tuñón, O.P. † (27 de marzo de 1885-15 de enero de 1886 nombrado arzobispo de Sevilla)
 Miguel Payá y Rico † (7 de junio de 1886-25 de diciembre de 1891 falleció)
 Antolín Monescillo y Viso † (11 de abril de 1892-11 de agosto de 1897 falleció)
 Beato Ciriaco María Sancha y Hervás † (24 de marzo de 1898-26 de febrero de 1909 falleció)
 Gregorio María Aguirre y García, O.F.M. † (29 de abril de 1909-10 de octubre de 1913 falleció)
 Victoriano Guisasola y Menéndez † (1 de enero de 1914-2 de septiembre de 1920 falleció)
 Jaime Cardona y Tur † (9 de diciembre de 1920-6 de enero de 1923 falleció)
 Julián de Diego y García Alcolea † (27 de julio de 1923-8 de octubre de 1925 nombrado arzobispo de Santiago de Compostela)
 Francisco Muñoz e Izquierdo † (14 de diciembre de 1925-18 de abril de 1930 falleció)
 Ramón Pérez Rodríguez † (30 de junio de 1930-28 de enero de 1937 falleció)
 Leopoldo Eijo y Garay † (21 de julio de 1946-31 de julio de 1963 falleció)
 Sede vacante (desde 1963)
 Véase también
 Patriarcado de las Indias Orientales
 Primado de América
 Referencias
 Bibliografía
 Antonio de Alcedo: Diccionario geográfico-histórico de las Indias Occidentales, vol. II, pp. 429-431 (1787).
 Gaetano Moroni: Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica, vol. XXXIV, pp. 174-179 (1845).
 Vicente de la Fuente: Historia eclesiástica de España, vol. III, pp. 42-44 y 542-543 (1855).
 Cesáreo Fernández Duro: Noticias acerca del origen y sucesión del patriarcado de las indias occidentales, en el boletín de la RAH, tomo VII, pp. 196-230 (1885).
 Félix Ruiz García: Revista Española de Derecho Canónico, vol. 23, pp. 449-471 (1967).
 David M. Cheney: Catholic-hierarchy.org.
 Beatriz:
 Félix Ruiz García:
 Patriarcados latinos
 Indias occidentales


text:
 25.10.2008
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 272/12
 Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Oberlandesgerichts München (il-Ġermanja), fil-11 ta' Awissu 2008 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV vs Adolf Darbo AG
 (Kawża C-366/08)
 (2008/C 272/21)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: Il-Ġermaniż
 Qorti tar-rinviju
 Oberlandesgericht München
 Partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali
 Rikorrenti: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV.
 Konvenuta: Adolf Darbo AG
 Domandi preliminari
 1)
 Il-frażi “ġamm b'ammonti żgħar ta' zokkor” li tinsab fil-Parti A tal-Anness III tad-Direttiva tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill Nru 95/2/KE tal-20 ta' Frar 1995, dwar l-addittivi tal-ikel għajr kuluri u sostanzi li jagħtu ħlewwa (1), għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li tkopri wkoll ġammijiet magħrufa bħala ġamm extra?
 2)
 Jekk ir-risposta għall-ewwel domanda hija pożittiva:
 a)
 Kif għandha alternattivament tiġi interpretata l-frażi “ġamm b'ammonti żgħar ta' zokkor” fil-Parti A tal-Anness III tad-Direttiva 95/2/KE?
 b)
 B'mod partikolari għandha tiġi interpretata li tkopri wkoll ġammijiet magħrufa bħala ġamm extra li għandhom 58 % tal-kontenut li jkun materjal solubbli niexef?
 3)
 Jekk ir-risposti għad-domandi 1 u 2(b) huma pożittivi:
 It-tieni paragrafu tal-Parti II tal-Anness I tad-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 2001/113/KE tal-20 ta' Diċembru 2001 li għandha x'taqsam mal-ġamm tal-frott, il-ġelatini u l-marmellati u mal-purejiet tal-qastan mogħtija l-ħlewwa maħsuba għal konsum mill-bniedem (2), għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li l-isem ġamm extra jista' jiġi awtorizzat anki għal dawk il-ġammijiet li għandhom mhux iktar minn 60 % tal-kontenut li jkun materjal solubbli niexef fejn fil-każ ta' dawn il-ġammijiet ma jkunx hemm rekwiżiti inqas stretti li jiġu imposti fuq l-isem ġamm?
 (1) ĠU 1995 L 61, p. 1.
 (2) ĠU 2002 L 10, p. 67.


text:
 Pomembno pravno obvestilo
 |
 21999D0170
 Uradni list L 061 , 01/03/2001 str. 0029 - 0029
 Sklep Skupnega odbora EGPšt. 170/1999z dne 26. novembra 1999o spremembi Priloge XIII (Promet) k Sporazumu EGPSKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE -ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, prilagojenega s Protokolom o prilagoditvi Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, v nadaljnjem besedilu "Sporazum", in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma,(1) ker je bila Priloga XIII k Sporazumu spremenjena s Sklepom št. 33/97 Skupnega odbora EGP z dne 29. maja 1997 [1];(2) ker je Direktivo Komisije 1999/52/ES z dne 26. maja 2001 o prilagoditvi Direktive Sveta 96/96/ES o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic, ki se nanaša na tehnične preglede motornih vozil in njihovih priklopnikov, tehničnemu napredku [2] treba vključiti v Sporazum -SKLENIL:Člen 1V točki 16b (Direktiva Sveta 96/96/ES) v Prilogi XIII k Sporazumu se doda naslednje:", kakor je bila spremenjena z:399 L 0052 : : Direktivo Komisije 1999/52/ES z dne 26. maja 1999 (UL L 142, 5.6.1999, str. 26)."Člen 2Besedili Direktive Komisije 1999/52/ES v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki sta priloženi ustrezni jezikovni različici tega sklepa, sta verodostojni.Člen 3Ta sklep začne veljati 27. novembra 1999 pod pogojem, da so bila Skupnemu odboru EGP predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma.Člen 4Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP in v Dopolnilu EGP Uradnega lista Evropskih skupnosti.V Bruslju, 26. novembra 1999Za Skupni odbor EGPPredsednikN. v. Liechtenstein[1] UL L 270, 2.10.1997, str. 19.[2] UL L 142, 5.6.1999, str. 26.--------------------------------------------------


text:
Gå till...Hem3DAbstraktArkitekturAnimationdjurFåglarcyklarbilarTecknade serierkändisarStadFärgrikHäftigtdatorerSötBlommaRoligSpelflickorKillarSemesterHDVarmBoLogotypKärlekBioMusikNaturplatserUtrymmeSportTeknologiVärldMer Hem / HD / näthinnan tapeter HD näthinnan tapeter HD
 0 näthinnan tapeter HD
 tweet Om HD Lover Tidigare: nya tapeter hämta HD
 Nästa: stjärnor Bakgrund HD
 Visningar (136) Zedge bakgrunds HD samlingar
 tapeter för laptop gratis Ladda nerhäftigt tapeter HDxperia tapeter gratis Ladda nerVattenfall tapet vacker samlingfri tapeter för Android gratis Ladda nertapeter för flickor gratis Ladda nerfödelsedag Bakgrund HDnya hd bakgrundsbilder gratis Ladda nerCykel bakgrunds HD Collectionkyla hd bakgrunds Hämta Designad av HDwallpaper20.com | powered by zuuur.com © Copyright 2016, EFTERTRYCK FÖRBJUDES Scrolla till toppen


jurisdiction: US

text: b"April 9, 2001\n\nJOHN E. POTTER\nCHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND\n EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT\n\nKENNETH C. WEAVER\nCHIEF POSTAL INSPECTOR\n\nSUBJECT:\t Audit Report - Review of the Revised Rules Governing Commercial Mail\n Receiving Agencies (Report Number DE-AR-01-002)\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of the revised rules governing commercial\nmail receiving agencies (Project Number 00PA013DS000). The audit was initiated in\nresponse to a congressional request for an independent assessment of the Postal\nService\xe2\x80\x99s revision of rules for commercial mail receiving agencies. The audit objectives\nwere to determine whether (1) Postal Service management fully assessed the impact of\nthe revised rules, and (2) objections raised in opposition to the revised rules were valid.\n\nOur audit revealed that the Postal Service complied with internal rulemaking procedures\nin revising rules for commercial mail receiving agencies. In some cases, the Postal\nService went further in accommodating the affected parties than internal procedures\nrequired. However, the Postal Service did not fully assess the impact of the revised\nrules on receiving agencies and their boxholders. In addition, two of the four objections\nraised in opposition to the revised rules were valid. Specifically, physical location\ninformation may still be disclosed for victims of violence who have an expired civil\nprotection order on file or have moved to a different jurisdiction, and commercial mail\nreceiving agencies and boxholders will incur costs to implement the revised rules.\nHowever, the $1 billion industry estimate of costs was unsupported and overstated.\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s comments were responsive to two findings and recommendations, but\nnonresponsive to one finding and recommendation. They indicated they had modified\nthe Inspection Service reporting system to identify fraud involving both private\nmailboxes and post office boxes. Management also stated they will reissue instructions\nto emphasize protective orders and clarify the actions taken after the protective order\nhas expired or the person moves, including the need to consult counsel in these\ninstances. However, management disagreed with our first recommendation that in the\nfuture proposed changes to the rules governing commercial mail receiving agencies\naddress the magnitude of the problem, include a cost impact analysis, and identify\n\x0calternative solutions. We view recommendation one as unresolved and plan to pursue it\nthrough the audit resolution process. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) considers\nrecommendations one, two, and three significant and, therefore, require OIG\nconcurrence before closure. Consequently, the OIG requests written confirmation when\ncorrective actions are completed. These recommendations should not be closed in the\nfollow-up tracking system until OIG provides written confirmation that the\nrecommendations can be closed. Management comments in their entirety are included\nin the appendix to this report.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and courtesies provided by your staff during the review.\nIf you have questions or need additional information, please contact Tracy A. Lapoint,\nacting deputy assistant inspector general, Business Operations, or me at (703) 248-\n2300.\n\n\n\nDebra S. Ritt\nAssistant Inspector General\n for Business Operations\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: John R. Gunnels\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nPart I\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nPart II 1\n\n\nIntroduction 1\n\n\n Background 1\n\n Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 3\n\n Prior Audit Coverage 4\n\n\nAudit Results 5\n\n\n Need for Revised Rules 5\n\n Magnitude of the Problem and Ability to Curb Fraud 6\n\n Regulatory Impact Analysis and Alternatives 7\n\n Recommendations 8\n Management's Comments 8\n\n Evaluation of Management's Comments 9\n\n\n Validity of Claims 11 \n\n Public Disclosure of Physical Location 11 \n\n Cost of Revised Rules 12 \n\n Treatment of Boxholders 14 \n\n Alleged Retaliation 14 \n\n Recommendation 15\n Management's Comments 15 \n\n Evaluation of Management's Comments 15 \n\n\nAppendix. Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 17 \n\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n Introduction \t We conducted an audit of the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s revisions of\n rules governing commercial mail receiving agencies\n (receiving agencies) and their boxholders. Our audit was\n initiated in response to a request from the then Ranking\n Minority Member of the Subcommittee on the Postal\n Service, House Committee on Government Reform. The\n audit objectives were to determine whether (1) Postal\n Service management fully assessed the impact of the\n revised rules, and (2) objections raised in opposition to\n revised rules were valid.\n\n Results in Brief \t Our audit revealed that the Postal Service complied with\n internal rulemaking procedures in revising rules for\n commercial mail receiving agencies. In some cases, the\n Postal Service went further in accommodating the affected\n parties than internal procedures required. However, the\n Postal Service did not fully assess the impact of the revised\n rules on the receiving agencies and their boxholders. In\n particular, the Postal Service did not demonstrate the need\n for regulatory change by presenting statistical or scientific\n data to support its claims of mail fraud conducted through\n private mailboxes. In addition, it did not show how the\n regulations would curb fraud, assess the impact of the\n proposed rules on receiving agencies and private\n boxholders, or consider alternatives to revising the rules.\n\n The Postal Service was not legally required to perform a\n detailed analysis to justify proposed changes to regulations\n like most federal agencies. However, considering that over\n 10,000 receiving agencies and their boxholders were\n impacted by the proposed revised rules, a better business\n practice would have been to take into account the concerns\n from all sources, including all competing businesses.\n Enactment of the revised rules created the appearance that\n the Postal Service misused its regulatory authority to hinder\n competition and contributed to public perception that\n associated costs for implementing the revised rules were\n unnecessary and burdensome.\n\n Further, two of the four objections raised in opposition were\n valid. Specifically, the Postal Service revised the rules to\n further restrict public disclosure of physical location\n information, however, there are still concerns that\n information may be released on individuals who have\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n expired civil protection orders on file or have relocated to a\n different jurisdiction. Claims that receiving agencies will\n incur additional costs to implement the rules were also valid.\n However, the $1 billion industry estimate was unsupported\n and resulted in overstated costs. Additionally, we were\n unable to substantiate claims that the revised rules treated\n private boxholders unfairly or that the Postal Service revised\n the rules to retaliate against the receiving agency industry\n for a complaint filed with the Postal Rate Commission.\n\n Summary of To avoid negative public perception of proposed changes to\n Recommendations receiving agency rules, and to ensure better business\n practices, we recommend that in the future, the chief\n operating officer and executive vice president require\n supporting justification, which addresses the magnitude of\n the problem and cost implications associated with proposed\n changes.\n\n To assess the effectiveness of the revised rules and\n quantify the magnitude of fraudulent activity, we recommend\n the chief postal inspector modify the tracking system to\n include both receiving agency and post office boxholders.\n\n To ensure physical location information is not improperly\n disclosed, we also recommend the chief operating officer\n and executive vice president instruct postmasters to seek\n advice from field legal counsel when civil protection orders\n on file have expired or individuals have relocated to different\n jurisdictions.\n\n Summary of Management disagreed with our finding that it did not fully\n Management's assess the revised rules. They also stated with regard to\n Comment our first recommendation that future proposed changes\n should address the magnitude of the problem, include a\n cost impact analysis, and identify alternative solutions, that,\n as in the past, procedures will be decided on a case-by-\n case basis. Management indicated the magnitude of the\n problem was demonstrated by the results of Inspection\n Service investigations, State Attorneys General testimonies,\n and interaction with the law enforcement community,\n mailing industry, and financial institutions. They also stated\n the Postal Service was not able to calculate a reasonable\n cost estimate, because the revised rules did not create\n significant new requirements and only clarified existing\n rules. In addition, they stated that by making specific\n accommodations, changes and clarification to the rules as a\n\n\n ii\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n result of numerous meetings with industry representatives\n and interested groups and notice-and-comment rulemaking\n procedures, management had considered alternative\n solutions.\n\n Management agreed with the remaining two findings and\n recommendations. They indicated they had modified the\n Inspection Service reporting system to identify fraud\n involving both private mailboxes and post office boxes.\n Management also stated they will reissue instructions to\n emphasize protective orders and clarify actions taken after\n the protective order has expired or the person moves,\n including the need to consult counsel in these instances.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments, in their entirety, are included in\n the appendix to this report.\n\n Overall Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments were responsive to two findings\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s and recommendations, but nonresponsive to one finding\n Comments and recommendation. We disagree with management\xe2\x80\x99s\n assertion that they adequately demonstrated the need for\n revising the rules. Their basis for quantifying the magnitude\n of the problem did not include background studies regarding\n fraud involving receiving agencies and post office boxes, or\n any analytical studies to identify trends or determine the\n frequency, location, nature, or monetary loss of illegal\n activities. We also disagree with management\xe2\x80\x99s position\n that the revised rules would not significantly impact\n receiving agencies and customers. Some of the rules\n represented significant changes that could cost receiving\n agencies and their customers millions of dollars. In\n addition, we disagree that the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s consideration\n of variations to the rules equated to it considering\n alternatives to revising the rules. We view this\n recommendation as unresolved and plan to pursue it\n through the audit resolution process.\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n Background \t A commercial mail receiving agency (receiving agency) is a\n business that offers private mailboxes and accepts mail for\n customer pickup or remail to the addressee. Today, there\n are over 10,000 receiving agencies that serve over 800,000\n customers. It is generally recognized that receiving agency\n customers use their boxes for legitimate purposes.\n However, some individuals have used receiving agencies to\n conduct deceptive and illegal mail scams.\n\n To improve security of the mail and protect the interests of\n the general public, the Postal Service published proposed\n changes to receiving agency regulations. The proposed\n rules would also bring the receiving agencies in line with the\n rules that govern post office boxholders. The first notice of\n proposed revisions to the rules was published in the Federal\n Register in August 1997 for 30 days, and no comments\n were received. At the request of the receiving agency\n industry, the Postal Service republished the proposed\n regulations in November 1997 for an additional 30 days.\n\n Approximately 8,000 comments opposing the changes were\n received from receiving agencies and their boxholders. The\n majority of the comments were simple form letters from\n boxholders complaining of:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Use of a private mailbox designator instead of\n suite/apartment number.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Disclosure of physical address location information.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Unnecessary and burdensome costs to implement\n revised rules.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Differential treatment based on the requirement to\n refile address information and provide two forms of\n identification.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The Postal Service's use of regulatory authority to\n hinder competition.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Quarterly reporting of customer information.\n\n In the October 1999 testimony before the House\n Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork\n\n 1\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n Reduction, concerns from the receiving agency industry\n were expressed about the Postal Service's exemption from\n federal rulemaking requirements.\n\n About a dozen responses from mailing and financial\n industry associations, consumer groups, state offices of\n attorney general, and law enforcement organizations\n supported the rules.\n\n The final rules were published on March 25, 1999, and were\n to be effective April 26, 1999. However, based on\n comments from the receiving agencies and their\n boxholders, elements of the requirements were phased in at\n later dates to facilitate implementation. Opposition to the\n final rule, however, continued from various interest groups,\n such as the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,\n National Association for the Self-Employed, and the Cato\n Institute. In addition, Congress held hearings on the revised\n rules, and Postal Service officials repeatedly met with\n receiving agencies and their boxholders. This resulted in a\n joint receiving agency industry and Postal Service working\n group to modify and clarify the final rules. Currently, the\n rules provide that receiving agencies:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Register with the Postal Service within ten days of the\n April 26,1999, implementation date. This was a\n one-time requirement.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Require two forms of identification from boxholders, one\n of which must include a photograph.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Are not authorized to deliver mail unless a current\n customer application form was on file beginning\n June 26, 1999. This requirement was later extended to\n August 1999.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Are not authorized to accept registered mail.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Submit quarterly lists of their boxholders to the Postal\n Service.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Add new postage to remail items for at least six months,\n rather than indefinitely. After six months, the receiving\n agency will endorse and return First-Class Mail to the\n post office without new postage for subsequent return to\n sender.\n\n 2\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Endorse and return First-Class Mail to the post office if\n the receiving agency does not have a current customer\n application form on file.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Are subject to suspension for failure to correct infractions\n in a timely manner.\n\n Further, the Postal Service strengthened the requirements\n that it may only release a boxholder\xe2\x80\x99s address pursuant to a\n written request from government or law enforcement\n agencies, or a court order.\n\n The March 25, 1999, final rule made the use of the\n designation \xe2\x80\x9cPMB\xe2\x80\x9d (private mailbox) in customer mailing\n addresses mandatory. On March 13, 2000, the Postal\n Service published the rule proposing the \xe2\x80\x9c#\xe2\x80\x9d sign as an\n alternative to use of \xe2\x80\x9cPMB\xe2\x80\x9d designation. On\n August 16, 2000, the Postal Service published the final rule\n allowing the use of the \xe2\x80\x9c#\xe2\x80\x9d sign or the \xe2\x80\x9cPMB\xe2\x80\x9d designation.\n\n Objectives, Scope, This audit was initiated in response to a request from the\n and Methodology then Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on the\n Postal Service, House Committee on Government Reform.\n Our audit objectives were to determine whether (1) Postal\n Service management fully assessed the impact of the\n revised rules and, (2) objections raised in opposition to\n revised rules were valid.\n\n To determine if the Postal Service fully assessed the impact\n on the receiving agencies and their boxholders, we\n reviewed internal rulemaking procedures for developing and\n implementing rules. We also evaluated the written\n justification for revising the rules and analyzed public\n comments received in response to publication of the\n proposed rules in the Federal Register.\n\n In addition, we reviewed four of the six objections raised in\n opposition to the revised rules to ascertain if they were\n valid. These included public disclosure of physical location\n information, potential cost of implementing the revised rules,\n unfair treatment of private boxholders, and alleged\n retaliation. We did not assess objections to use of the\n private mailbox designator because the Postal Service was\n considering an alternative to this requirement. We also did\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n not review objections to quarterly reporting of customer\n listings because annual reporting was already required.\n\n We also analyzed a cost assessment--The U.S. Postal\n Service War on Private Mailboxes and Privacy Rights--\n published by the Cato Institute and PostalWatch\n Incorporated1 on July 30, 1999, to inform the public of the\n new rules governing receiving agencies and the costs\n incurred to implement these new rules. We focused our\n analysis on the adequacy of supporting documentation and\n reasonableness of assumptions.\n\n Finally, we interviewed Postal Service management and\n ten panelists who testified on the revised rules on\n October 19, 1999, before the Subcommittee on Regulatory\n Reform and Paperwork Reduction.\n\n We performed our audit at Postal Service Headquarters\n between December 1999 and March 2001. The audit was\n performed in accordance with generally accepted\n government auditing standards, and included such test of\n internal controls as were considered necessary under the\n circumstances.\n\n Prior Audit Coverage We did not identify any prior audits or reviews related to the\n objectives of this audit.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The Cato Institute and PostalWatch Incorporated are two nonpartisan organizations whose missions are to achieve\ngreater involvement of the general public in questions of policy and the proper role of government.\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n AUDIT RESULTS\n\n Need for Revised Our audit revealed that the Postal Service complied with\n Rules internal rulemaking procedures in revising rules for\n commercial mail receiving agencies. In some cases, the\n Postal Service went further in accommodating the affected\n parties than internal procedures required. For example, the\n Postal Service publicized the proposed rules in the Federal\n Register for public comment and worked with law\n enforcement agencies, the mailing industry, and financial\n institutions to modify the rules. Furthermore, rule\n implementation dates were extended to reduce the financial\n impact on receiving agencies and their customers.\n\n However, the Postal Service did not fully assess the impact\n on the receiving agencies and their boxholders. In particular,\n the Postal Service did not demonstrate the need for\n regulatory change by presenting statistical or scientific data\n to support its claims of mail fraud conducted through private\n mailboxes or show how the regulations would curb fraud,\n assess the impact of the proposed rules on receiving\n agencies and boxholders, or consider alternatives to revising\n the rules. According to Postal Service officials, the\n magnitude of the problem was demonstrated by the results of\n Inspection Service investigations, States Attorney General\n testimony, and interaction with the law enforcement\n community, mailing industry, and financial institutions. They\n also stated that the Postal Service was not able to calculate a\n reasonable cost estimate, but that was not unreasonable\n because the revised rules did not create significant new\n requirements and only clarified existing rules. In addition,\n they stated that by making specific accommodations,\n changes, and clarification to the rules as a result of\n numerous meetings with industry representatives and\n interested groups and notice-and-comment rulemaking\n procedures, management had considered alternative\n solutions.\n\n However, considering that over 10,000 receiving agencies\n and their boxholders were impacted, a better business\n practice would have been to take into account the concerns\n from all sources, including competing businesses. The\n manner in which the rules were revised gave the impression\n that Postal Service did not consider the financial impact.\n Enactment of the revised rules created the appearance that\n the Postal Service misused its regulatory authority to hinder\n\n 5\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n competition and contributed to public perception that\n associated costs to implement the revised rules were\n unnecessary and burdensome.\n\n Magnitude of the The Postal Service did not demonstrate the magnitude of the\n Problem and Ability to problem it sought to alleviate through its regulations. In the\n Curb Fraud October 1999 testimony before the House Subcommittee on\n Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, the Postal\n Service indicated the revised rules were intended to deter\n and prevent mail fraud in receiving agencies. According to\n 21 Inspection Service investigations, fraudulent activities\n involving receiving agencies increased dramatically over the\n last decade. For example, the Postal Service reported that\n during a six-year period in the 1990s an individual used\n private mailboxes to defraud 880 elderly Americans in\n 14 states out of $128 million.\n\n While this was a legitimate concern, the Postal Service did\n not establish the nature and magnitude of the problem\n through the use of statistical or scientific data, or detailed\n studies. For example, the Postal Service did not provide or\n conduct any background studies regarding fraud involving\n receiving agencies and post office boxes, or any analytical\n studies to determine the frequency, location, nature, or\n monetary loss of illegal activities involving receiving\n agencies. Such an analysis might have demonstrated the\n need for the revised regulations. Also in the October 1999\n testimony, an Inspection Service official indicated the\n Inspection Service could not determine the magnitude of the\n problem because investigative results are tracked by type of\n crime and not by postal or private mailbox. The Inspection\n Service since has modified its tracking system to include the\n identification of fraud involving postal and private mail boxes.\n\n The Postal Service did not demonstrate how the new\n regulations would deal with mail fraud, or how much of the\n problem the regulations would eliminate. For example, the\n Postal Service maintained that eliminating the use of the\n address designation \xe2\x80\x9csuite\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9capartment\xe2\x80\x9d for mail that goes\n to private mailboxes would reduce the risk of mail fraud and\n that the use of the delivery address designator of \xe2\x80\x9cPMB\xe2\x80\x9d for\n private mailboxes would establish the true address identity of\n mail delivered to receiving agencies. However, the Postal\n Service was not able to determine how many cases of mail\n fraud involve the use of \xe2\x80\x9csuite\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9capartment\xe2\x80\x9d designations.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n Regulatory Impact The Postal Service did not conduct a regulatory impact\n Analysis and analysis or consider alternatives to revising the rules. Since\n Alternatives the Postal Service is exempt from various federal\n requirements, including Executive Order Number 12866,2 it is\n not required to conduct a regulatory analysis mandated for\n other federal agencies. Such an analysis includes\n determining the justification for the rules, assessing the cost\n impact, identifying various options, and evaluating the\n effectiveness of proposed actions.\n\n In revising the rules, the Postal Service followed its internal\n rulemaking procedures. These procedures require that a\n written justification for the proposed rules be prepared and\n routed to the relevant vice presidents, and the chief counsel\n for concurrence. However, while concurrence was obtained,\n the director of Regulatory Studies for the Cato Institute\n testified that the written justification for the proposed rules\n was not compelling because it failed to demonstrate the\n magnitude of the problem or whether the proposed solution\n represented an appropriate level of action for the problem\n identified.\n\n Also, the Postal Service considered several variations to the\n rules, but did not consider alternatives other than revising the\n rules. For example, the Cato Institute believed that better\n education by local postmasters of receiving agencies would\n help deter 90 percent of mail fraud, thus eliminating the need\n to revise the rules. Further, the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s internal\n process does not provide for an assessment of the cost\n impact. Postal Service officials indicated the variances in the\n size of affected receiving agencies, and the length of time to\n replace stationery products prevented a cost assessment\n from being made. The Postal Service was not required to\n perform a detailed cost/benefit analysis of the proposed\n revisions and stated the various cost factors could not be\n accurately quantified for such an assessment in any event.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Executive Order Number 12866, was issued on September 30, 1993, to reform and improve the efficiency of the\nregulatory process. The objectives of the executive order were to enhance planning and coordination for new and\nexisting regulations, reaffirm the primacy of federal agencies in the regulatory decision making process, restore the\nintegrity and legitimacy of regulatory review and oversight, and make the process more accessible and open to the\npublic.\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, the Postal Service extended a longer grace\n period for compliance with the rules in order to minimize the\n cost impact the revisions could impose on private mailbox\n users.\n\n Although the Postal Service complied with its internal\n process and procedures for rulemaking, the nature of the\n revised rules and their impact on a competitor industry\n indicated a deviation from the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s normal\n practice was warranted. Considering the financial impact\n that regulations can have, rules must be adequately justified\n to avoid negative public perception. For this reason, the\n\n Postal Service should have analyzed the potential costs of\n the rules and identified alternatives to revising them.\n\n Recommendation To avoid the perception that the Postal Service misused its\n authority to hinder competition, and that associated costs to\n implement the revised rules were unnecessary and\n burdensome, we recommend the chief operating officer and\n executive vice president:\n\n 1. Ensure that in the future written justification supporting\n proposed changes to rules governing commercial mail\n receiving agencies address the magnitude of the problem,\n include a cost impact analysis, and identify the various\n options considered.\n\n Management's Management disagreed with our finding that it did not fully\n Comments assess the revised rules and stated, with regard to our\n recommendation, that procedures for changes to rules\n governing receiving agencies will be decided on a case-by-\n case basis.\n\n Management indicated the magnitude of the problem was\n demonstrated by the results of Inspection Service\n investigations, State Attorneys General testimonies, and\n interaction with the law enforcement community, mailing\n industry, and financial institutions.\n\n They also stated that the Postal Service was not able to\n calculate a reasonable cost estimate, because the revised\n rules did not create significant new requirements and only\n clarified existing rules. However, although a cost estimate\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n was not done, management extended regulation compliance\n dates to minimize the cost impact.\n\n In addition, they stated that by making specific\n accommodations, changes and clarification to the rules as a\n result of numerous meetings with industry representatives\n and interested groups and notice-and-comment rulemaking\n procedures, management had considered alternative\n solutions\n\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s actions are nonresponsive to the\n Management's recommendation. During the audit, we reviewed all data\n Comments provided by the Postal Service including Inspection Service\n audit reports. The Postal Service stated they provided us\n with hundreds of cases involving identify theft in support of\n the rulemaking. However, the Postal Service only provided\n us with a synopsis of 21 investigations that identified\n individual fraud cases in 13 states and Washington D.C.\n Although, this information did show that fraud was a problem\n it did not sufficiently demonstrate the magnitude of the\n problem or identify trends. For example, the Postal Service\n could not demonstrate the rate at which fraudulent activity\n had increased since 1992, which was the basis for revising\n the rules.\n\n We were also aware that that the Postal Service interacted\n extensively with the law enforcement community, mailing\n industry, and financial institutions. However, these actions,\n while indicative of the Inspection Service\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to\n coordinate a response to fraudulent activity, did not\n demonstrate the magnitude of the problem.\n\n We also disagree with management\xe2\x80\x99s position that the\n revised rules would not significantly impact receiving\n agencies and customers. Some of the rules constituted new\n requirements. For example, the revised rules prohibited the\n used of \xe2\x80\x9csuite\xe2\x80\x9d or apartment\xe2\x80\x9d and required the use of a \xe2\x80\x9cPMB\xe2\x80\x9d\n designator. This would require receiving agency customers\n to send change of address notifications. An independent\n estimate computed this cost at $94 million. Although our\n analysis found this estimate to be overstated, we concluded\n that costs nonetheless would total $20 million. Therefore, we\n maintain that a cost assessment should have been done.\n The Postal Service stated that a cost estimate was not\n completed because of the number of receiving agencies and\n customer turnover rates were unknown. To determine the\n\n 9\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n universe, the Postal Service could have considered\n techniques such as inquiring with Postal Service district\n offices, performing a market analysis, obtaining data from the\n Small Business Administration and Better Business Bureau,\n and using application forms submitted by receiving agencies.\n Additionally, customer turnover rates could have been\n estimated from customer listings provided by receiving\n agencies.\n\n Finally, we disagree that the Postal Service sought to identify\n alternative solutions. The Postal Service considered several\n variations to the rules rather than considering alternatives to\n revising the rules.\n\n We view the disagreement on this recommendation as\n unresolved and plan to pursue it through audit resolution.\n\n Recommendations \t To assess the effectiveness of the revised rules and quantify\n the magnitude of fraudulent activity, we recommend the chief\n postal inspector:\n\n 2. Modify the existing tracking system to include the\n identification of fraud involving both private mailboxes and\n post office boxes.\n\n Management's Management agreed with our recommendation. The\n Comments Inspection Service has developed and implemented a\n tracking system responsive to our recommendation.\n\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive to our \n\n Management's recommendation. \n\n Comments \n\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\nValidity of Claims Two of four receiving agency objections that we reviewed\n were valid. Specifically, the Postal Service revised the rules\n to further restrict public disclosure of physical location\n information, however, the rules are unclear about releasing\n this information when a civil protection order has expired or\n customers have relocated to a different jurisdiction. Also,\n the objections that receiving agencies will incur additional\n costs to implement the rules were valid. However, the\n industry estimate of $1 billion was unsupported and\n overstated. In addition, we were unable to substantiate\n claims the revised rules treated receiving agency\n boxholders unfairly, or that the Postal Service issued its\n revised rules in retaliation to a complaint filed by the\n Coalition Against Unfair USPS Competition.\n\nPublic Disclosure of Under the initial proposed rule, the physical location\nPhysical Location information of receiving agency customers conducting\n business with the public could be disclosed to the general\n public, and the physical location information of any receiving\n agency customer could be disclosed to law enforcement\n officials conducting criminal investigations upon verbal\n request. In an October 1999 hearing before the House\n Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork\n Reduction, the National Coalition Against Domestic\n Violence expressed concerns about the ease with which\n such information for victims of violence could be released.\n\n To address this concern, the Postal Service issued a final\n rule in January 2000, further restricting release of physical\n location information. The final rule stated the Postal Service\n could only disclose information upon written request by\n government or law enforcement officials or pursuant to a\n court order. The rule also stated a written request would be\n denied if an individual had a civil protection order on file.\n\n Receiving agency customers and the National Coalition\n Against Domestic Violence were still concerned with the\n revised rules because physical location information could be\n disclosed if a civil protection order on file expired or an\n individual relocated outside the jurisdiction the civil\n protection order covered.\n\n We recognize that individuals are responsible for\n maintaining a current civil protection order on file and that\n the Postal Service has no authority to uphold expired civil\n\n\n 11\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n protection orders. However, our review disclosed the\n revised rules are silent on whether physical location\n information will be released when an expired civil protection\n order is on file or individuals relocate to a different\n jurisdiction. As a result of these conditions, release of this\n information may be subject to the interpretation of Postal\n Service field legal counsel.\n\n Further, disclosure statements on application forms3 did not\n reflect the revised disclosure rules published in\n January 2000. We discussed this issue with Postal Service\n management during the audit, which subsequently updated\n the application forms. Therefore, no recommendation is\n required.\n\nCost of Revised Rules \t According to a July 30, 1999, Cato Institute study,4 the\n revised regulations would cost receiving agencies and their\n customers $1 billion. The Postal Service found, and our\n review confirmed, that the assumptions Cato used to\n estimate costs were unsupported and that the cost\n estimates were overstated. For example, the study\n indicated that private boxholders and receiving agencies\n would incur $977 million and $89 million, respectively, to\n implement the revised rules. The $977 million estimate for\n private boxholders included $537 million for new supplies\n and $440 million for change of address notification. The\n estimate assumed there were 2.5 million private boxholders\n and that there was a 100 percent occupancy rate.\n\n Our audit disclosed that the Cato Institute lacked\n documentation to support these assumptions. In fact, a\n spokesperson for a major receiving agency indicated the\n number of private boxholders could not be accurately\n estimated because businesses renting mailboxes vary in\n size. Further, the communications director for Mail Boxes\n Etc. and spokesperson for the receiving agency industry\n estimated the number of private boxholders was closer to\n 800,000 than 2.5 million. Data was not available to\n establish the correct number of private boxholders.\n However, the significant difference between estimates\n\n\n\n3\n These forms include Postal Service Form 1093, \xe2\x80\x9cApplication for Post Office Box or Caller Service,\xe2\x80\x9d Postal Service\nForm 1583, \xe2\x80\x9cApplication for Delivery of Mail Through Agent,\xe2\x80\x9d and Postal Service Form 1583-A, \xe2\x80\x9cApplication to Act as\na Commercial Mail Receiving Agency.\xe2\x80\x9d\n4\n Cato Institute Briefing Paper entitled, The U.S. Postal Service War on Private Mailboxes and Privacy Rights.\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n provided by the Cato Institute and an official representative\n of the receiving agency industry raises serious questions\n about the reliability of the Cato assumptions. Also, because\n the turnover rate for private mailboxes is high, the\n occupancy rate of boxes cannot be tracked. Nevertheless,\n a 100 percent occupancy rate assumption is unreasonable.\n\n Our analysis also disclosed that Cato's $537 million\n estimate for new supplies might be overstated. This\n estimate does not allow for stock depletion during the one-\n year transition and assumes that 2.5 million private\n boxholders are current renters and will be renters at the end\n of the transition period. We also believe that many of the\n small businesses that are likely to use private mailboxes are\n printing their own stationery rather than purchasing large\n quantities from printing companies. While specific data was\n not available, the above factors would reduce the\n $537 million estimate proposed by Cato.\n\n The Postal Service also noted that Cato's estimate\n regarding address change notification was overstated. For\n example, Cato assumed that 2.5 million private boxholders\n would require an average of 40 changes of address\n notifications at 94 cents5 per notification, for a total of\n $94 million. The Postal Service contends that it can provide\n a preprinted address change notification card at no cost.\n Even relying on Cato\xe2\x80\x99s assumptions, the cost would be only\n $20 million by using this card and 20-cents postage per\n notification.\n\n In conclusion, we observed that none of the Cato Institute\n calculations appeared to be supported by accurate data.\n The costs are highly sensitive to the estimate of the number\n of boxholders; a number that we have noted is not tracked\n by industry. Specifically, the Cato Institute costs were\n directly proportional to the assumed number of boxholders;\n any change in the assumed number of boxholders changes\n the resulting cost by the same factor. For example, if the\n number of boxholders was half that assumed by the Cato\n Institute, the change of address costs would be half those\n published by the Cato Institute, even before addressing the\n\n\n5\n The 94 cents includes costs such as stationery and postage, and excludes labor costs for preparing address\nchange notifications.\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n issues of questionable turnover rate and labor and supply\n cost assumptions.\n\nTreatment of \t The Postal Service revised the rules for private boxholders\nBoxholders\t to make them similar to current post office boxholders. A\n comparison of rules for post office and private boxholders\n found minimal differences in the treatment of post office\n customers and receiving agency customers. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Former private boxholders bear the cost of remailing\n items for the first six months after termination of services\n with the receiving agency, whereas post office\n boxholders do not. However, before the revised rules,\n private boxholders bore remailing costs indefinitely.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Private boxholders can authorize a receiving agency to\n forward accountable mail without going to the receiving\n agency, but post office boxholders must present a valid\n identification to obtain such mail.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Private boxholders must refile an updated application\n form and present two forms of identification, one of\n which must be a photograph, by April 26, 2000. This\n was a one-time requirement for current private\n boxholders to bring them in line with post office\n boxholders\xe2\x80\x99 rules. Post office boxholders were already\n required to update their forms and provide photo\n identification when they renew their post office boxes.\n\nAlleged Retaliation In May 1996, the Coalition Against Unfair USPS\n Competition filed a complaint with the Postal Rate\n Commission alleging the Postal Service was hindering\n competition by directly competing with receiving agencies.\n Subsequent to this action, the Postal Service issued the\n proposed revised rules in August 1997. Due to the timing of\n Postal Service's actions, the revised rules were perceived\n as retaliation for the complaint filed by the coalition.\n\n A review of postal documents disclosed that the need for\n the revised rules was first discussed in 1993, three years\n before the coalition's complaint. The discussions were\n based on Inspection Service reviews conducted in the early\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n to mid 1990s and a 1995 California state law6 regulating\n the receiving agency industry. Two Inspection Service\n reports7 recommended revisions to the application and\n identification requirements for private boxholders.\n\n Although we found no evidence of retaliation, based on\n interviews with representatives from major receiving\n agencies and witnesses who testified at the October 1999\n congressional hearing, a strong perception existed that\n Postal Service was hindering competition. This perception\n was based, in part, on the lack of adequate justification for\n the revised rules. Preparing a cost/benefit analysis would\n have mitigated public reaction by providing a well reasoned\n rationale for Postal Service actions.\n\nRecommendation To ensure physical location information is not improperly\n disclosed, we recommend the chief operating officer and\n executive vice president:\n\n 3. Instruct postmasters to seek legal counsel before\n releasing physical address information when civil\n protection orders on file have expired or individuals have\n relocated to another jurisdiction.\n\nManagement's \t Management agreed with our recommendation.\nComments \t Management will reissue instructions to emphasize\n protective orders. They will also clarify the actions taken\n after the protective order has expired or the person moves,\n including the need to consult counsel in these instances.\n\nEvaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive to our \n\nManagement's recommendation. \n\nComments\n\n\nAdditional Management questioned the validity of Cato Institute\xe2\x80\x99 s\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s statement that by educating postmasters, 90 percent of mail\nComments fraud would be deterred. They made this statement\n because we found their report to be unreliable when\n estimating the cost to implement the revised rules.\n\n\n\n6\n California State Law A B 171, effective January 1, 1995, was designed to protect California consumers by regulating\nreceiving agencies and boxholders.\n7\n The Inspection reports included Report on preliminary results of national pilot project to assess DMM compliance by\nCMRA\xe2\x80\x99s in the Houston, TX, delivery area, Case 180-1182689 PVC (1), and Central New Jersey District P. O. Box\nand CMRA Review, Case 072-1206438-SI (2).\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\nEvaluation of By making this statement, our intent was not to validate the\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s 90 percent estimate, but rather to show that training local\nComments postmasters could deter fraud. In fact, as stated in\n management\xe2\x80\x99s comments, the Inspection Service has\n launched an effort to educate both postmasters and\n receiving agencies to help identify and prevent fraud.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n APPENDIX. MANAGEMENT\xe2\x80\x99S COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0cReview of the Revised Rules Governing DE-AR-01-002\n Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c"