« PreviousContinue »
NOTE: Information from FY 90 was only available for the first three quarters of the fiscal year.
On average, the number of appeals to the Office of Federal Operations represent about 15 percent of the total complaints filed over those years. The findings of discrimination represent less than 5 percent of the total decisions.
The findings of discrimination in the U.S. District Court cases represent less than 2 percent of the total decisions.
We only maintain records on the office of Federal Operations (OFO) decisions. Over the past three fiscal years, the average time between appeal to the Oro and date of decision has been 186 days.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS TRANSMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
The IPA report on the Ratemaking Process finds that, "Every
1. The IPA report does not make it quite clear what sorts of "change(s) in service" are meant. There are two possibilities, both of which we will discuss.
A. One type of "change" is a change in the defining characteristics of a postal service: mailer eligibility, preparation requirements, permissible physical characteristics of the mail such as rigidity or envelope color, and the like. of these characteristics fall under the heading of mail classification, for which a Commission hearing and recommended decision and Governors' decision re required by 39 U.S.C. $ $ 3623-3625. A great many, however, are made without participation by the Commission or the Governors. The more detailed operational rules implementing the classification schedule are issued by the Postal Service, usually (though not invariably) after publication in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment.
The line between classification and operational rulemaking was first drawn in National Retired Teachers Association v. U. S. Postal Service, 430 F. Supp. 141 (D.D.c. 1977), affirmed, 593 F.2d 1360 (D.c, cir. 1979). The court stated:
.. a classification is a "grouping" of mailing matter for the purpose of assigning it a specific rate or method of handling. Relevant factors include size, weight, content, ease of handling, and identity of both posting party and recipient.
430 F. Supp. at 146-7. This definition, and the division of responsibility between the Commission and Governors (on the "classification" side) and the Postal Service (for operational rules), were reaffirmed in combined Communications Corp. v. u.s. Postal Service, 686 F. Supp. 663 (M.D. Tenn. 1988), affirmed, 891 F.2d 1221 (6th cir. 1989).
From the mailers' point of view, both the classification decisions of the Commission and the Governors and the rules issued unilaterally by the Service can "change" the service they receive or the requirements they must satisfy to receive it. In terms of sheer volume and level of detail, the Service's Domestic Mail Manual regulations considerably exceed the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule.'
As stated above, these "changes" can be made without reference to the Commission, provided they fall short of cha ring the basic "grouping of mailing matter" referred to in the NRTA decision. The Domestic Mail Classification Schedule, indeed, often specifically provides for requirements to be set administratively by the Postal Service.? To the extent that the
It is interesting that the recent Competitive Services Task Force report reflects interest by mailers in reducing the size and complexity of the regulations in the Domestic Mail Manual.
See, for instance, DMCS 46 100.0201(d) (First-class address readability); 100.0202 (FIMs and machinability standards); 100.0204 (presort standards); 100.0211 and 100.0214 (machinability and address readability standards - cards) ; 100.0231 (rules for availability of Priority Mail pickupj;
IPA report was concerned with changes in the practical definition of the services offered, therefore, it is inaccurate in stating that all such changes must be submitted to the Commission.
B. A further possibility is that the statement refers to changes not in the definitions of types of mail service or requirements for using them, but in the way such services are rendered. This is a relevant concern because 39 U.S.C. $ 3661(b) requires that
When the Postal Service determines that there
Section 3661(c) requires the Commission to hold trial-type hearings on the proposed change.
This provision seems relevant to IPA's assertion because it does, in so many words, address "change(s) in service." We would question whether the rendering of an advisory opinion constitutes "review" in the normal sense: the Postal Service is legally free to disregard the advisory opinion, and in the most recent $ 3661 case' has done so.
100.041 (Postal Service to set presort regulations): 100.042 (presentation and identification marks for presort mail); 100.043 (certain cards not mailable unless prepared as prescribed by Postal Service); 100.047 (general First-class/Priority presentation and marking requirements). These are provisions governing only first class; the other major classes have many similar provisions. 3
Change in Service, 1989; First-Class Delivery Standards Realignment, PRC Op. N89-1, July 25, 1990. This advisory opinion reported unfavorably on the Service's plan to reduce the scope of overnight and second-day First-class Mail delivery standards.
What is certainly not accurate in IPA's observation, as applied to § 3661, is the proposition that "[e]very change in service by the Postal Service large or small" must be reviewed. Buchanan v. U.S. Postal Service, 508 F.2d 259 (5th cir. 1975), established early in the history of the Act that (i) § 3661 should be construed narrowly so as not to interfere unduly with postal management, and (ii) consequently, an advisory opinion is required only where the change is nationwide or substantially so, of significant import, and concerned with service. This case has governed the interpretation of $ 3661 ever since.
As might be expected, therefore, $ 3661 cases have been few and far between. since Reorganization, there have been four of them. They have concerned, respectively: a program for identifying redundant retail facilities, the abolition of Airmail as a distinct category, the acceptance of checks in payment for COD shipments, and the 1989 reduction in First-class delivery standards.
If accurate, the IPA statement quoted in the question would signal the need for a fresh look at the process. But it is inaccurate in asserting that all changes must be reviewed. The Act, as consistently interpreted and applied, draws a commonsense line between changes fundamental enough to require independent evaluation by the Commission and final approval by the Governors (or, in the $ 3661 case, the Commission's independent but non-binding advice) and those better left to operating management.
The IPA report also determined that, "The ratemaking process is not linked effectively to planning, budgeting or leadership objectives in the Postal Service." Again, now that you have had time to digest the IPA report, would you please comment on this finding.