BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20268-0001
F&TE
AND
FEE CHANGES, 1997
SEP 4
5 02 PM'97
POSTAL
R:TT CO!‘b,,sy””
OFFICE !li THC SECRC‘~,,~~
I
POSTAL
FIECEIVEI!
Docket No. R97-1
~
OPPOSITION OF UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TO MOTION OF UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF INFORMA.TION AND
MATERIALS REQUESTED IN INTERROGATORY
UPS/USPS-T29-11
(September 4, 1997)
Thle United States Postal Service hereby opposes The Motion of United
Parcel Service to Compel Production
lnterroga,tory
UPS/USPS-T29-11,
Despite LJPS’s assertions
to this prloceeding
released.
in
of the requested
effect on the Postal Service’s and participants
sought is entirely irrelevant
material which shoLlld not be
information
sensitive mailer volume information
would tend to reveal
and also would have a chilling
willingness
to engage in experiments
rules
On August 4, 1997, UPS filed interrogatory
UPS/USPS-T29-1
Priority Mail cost, revenue, and volume results of the experiment
Docket Nlo. MC96-3.’
Requested
filed August 28, 1997 (“Motion to Compef’)
and consists of pre-decisional
under the Commission’s
and Materials
to the contrary, the information
Further, disclosure
commercially
of Information
‘I, requesting
that ensued from
On August 14,, 1997, the Postal Sewice filed on objection,
which resulted in the instant UPS Motion to Compel
’ Actually, UPS requested Priority Mail “cost, revenues, volumes, etc.” for the
experiment.
Perhaps the Postal Service should have objected that the request, as
worded, is overbroad. However, the Postal Service does not know what results there
might be in addition to costs, revenues, and volumes, and thus is responding on those
terms.
2
Even though the Postal Service is making no proposals
experimental
discounts
the information
irrelevant
-- UPS attempts to argue that the information
In support of its argument,
data collected for First Class/Priority
Mail pre-barcoded
request in this proceeding
discount for Parcel Post pre-barcoded
experimental
(emphasis
First Class/Priority
added).
UPS is mistaken,
discount.”
Motion to Compel at 3
in assuming that because the experimental
of mail, they may well have different characteristics
discount.
in this case and the experimental
In addition, the Parcel
discount were derived
machinable
parcels are calculated
parcel once.”
USPS-T-29,
2gE, page 6 of 6, proportional
calculations.
by mailer-applied
as the cost of keying a
parcel once, plus ribbon and label costs, less the cost of scanning
barcoded
and
As Parcel Post and Priority
As stated by witness Daniel, “[T]he savings generated
to nonpresorted
for the
Id.
are both 4 cents, they are related.
Post discount proposed
on the
discount, which are similar to those for the
which would influence the level of the appropriate
barcodes
parcels is directly relevant to
parcels, which appears to be modeled
Mail discounts.
however,
Mail are different categories
differently.
UPS alleges that “the
UPS then goes on to set forth the elrgrbrlrty requirements
First Class/Priority
proposecl discounts
is relevant to
for an identical 4-cent per piece
Mail pre-barcode
proposecl Parcel Post prebarcode
experimental
the
in this docket -- a strong reason in and of itself for deeming
other Pozstal Service proposals.
the Postal Service’s
concerning
a customer
at 20. Also, as is clear from Exhibit USPS-
and fixed adjustments
are made in witness Daniel’s
As UPS should be aware, since it participated
in the cease, witness
3
Garvin’s 3.85 cents cost savings in Docket No. MC96-1
manner.
For example,
was calculated
in a different
witness Garvin used accept rates and assumed
that rejected
pieces wiould default to manual sortation.
See Docket No. MC967,
USPS-T-3,
at
14.
Further, witness Daniel’s calculations
only (1 person).
presented
See USPS-T-29,
are based on productivities
for the keyer
at 20, n. 59 and 60. The keying productivities
in Docket No. MC96-1 by witness Garvin reflected pieces fed on the
SPBS divided by the number of persons per console, which included the keyer as
well as persons doing the loading and sweeping.
278.
See Docket No. M’C96-1,
In addition, the induction capacity of the primary and secondary
Tr. 2/
parcel sorting
machines; used to sort parcel post are different from that of the SPBSs used in the
experiment,
which could contribute
comparision
of “identical’
to productivity
differences.’
4-cent per piece discounts
is misleading.
Thus, UPS’s
A cup of coffee
and a call of soda may both cost $1.00 and may both contain caffeine,
resemblance
ends
UPS’s argument
the proposed
misguided.
but there the
concerning
the similarity in ellglblllty requirements
Parcel Post discount and the experimental
They are similar, but not identical.
discounts
between
is, likewise
As pointed out above , different
machines; are used to process Parcel Post and the First Class and Priority Mail
parcels that are the subject of the experiment.
Thus, the machinability
requirements
2 In Docket No. MC96-1, the Postal Service had stated the induction capacity of
the primalry and secondary parcel sorting machines as 3,600 pieces per hour and the
induction capacity of the SPBS as 2,760 pieces per hour. Id. at 279,.
4
likely will be different.
MC96-1,
As UPS should know from its participation
parcels eligible for the experiment
the maximum
weight limit of the SPBS.
Parcel sorting machines
could weigh no more than 20 pounds,
See Docket No. MC967,
or deliberative
opinions and recommendations
from disclosure,
USPS-T-4,
at
can process heavier weight pieces.
UIPS also argues that the requested
pre-decisional
in Docket No.
process privilege.
underlying
so as to encourage
to protect the decisionmaking
materials are not protected
under the
UPS argues that only “certain
governmental
open discussion
process of government
decisions
rnay be protected1
of legal and policy issues and
agencies.”
Motion to Compel,
at 5 (em,phasis in original; citations omitted).
UPS urges that the material it seeks is
purely factual and thus must be disclosed.3
Although the Postal Service likely
could produce “severable
possibility
that producing
facts“ concerning
the information
decision on the future of the experimental
preordained
outcome
managernent’s
results, there is a real
prior to postal management
making a
discount may tend to suggest a
and may allow outside influences to be brought to bear on
decision.
Thus, “open discussion
very thin’g the deliberative
inhibited.
the experiment
This consideration
of legal and policy issues”
process privilege is designed to protect
-- the
-.. will be
should be given special weight where the materials
sought are so lacking in relevance.
3 But cf. Presiding Officer’s Ruling No. R90-l/29, June 19, 1990 (Postal Service not
required to disclose minor configurations of nor additions of cities to the Eagle Network,
which were under consideration).
5
UPS does not even discuss the Postal Service’s argument
commercial
particular
sensitivity
mailers.
cclncerning
of specific volumes by site that may be associated
the
with
Given the limited number of test sites, it is highly likely that no
matter how the Postal Service sought to mask any mailer identities,
associated
with particular
information
would be the equivalent
the volumes
mailers would be relatively simple to decipher.
of releasing mailing statements
This
of particular
mailers, which the Postal Service considers to potentially fall under ‘exemption 4 of
the FOIA, and thus to potentially
volume information
Ruling hfo. R90-7/68,
be subject to withholding.
has been protected
September
in past dockets.
Moreover,
See Presiding
UPS’s
Officer’s
71, 7990. This situation should be treated no
differently.
UIPS cavalierly
information
dismisses the Postal Service’s concerns that revealing this
could have a chilling effect on the Postal Service’s willingness
new products,
as well on mailers desires to participate
states, “I!nformation
willingness
Decision
of that information
UPS
process of the Postal
will in no way ‘chill’ the F’ostal Service’s
to test new product offerings or inhibit ‘open discussion
policy issues.“’
previously,
in future experiments.
of this type will not reveal the deliberative
Service, and production
to test
of legal and
Motion to Compel, at 6. As the Postal Service pointed out
neither the Commission’s
in Docket No. MC96-1
experimental
established
rules nor its Recommended
any requirement
that the Postal Service
6
report any results of the experiment.4
MC96-1,
In fact, during the litigation of Docket No
UPS never urged that any such requirements
established.
existed or should be
To force the Postal Service to reveal the results under these
circumstances
clearly will curb its willingness,
other experimental
endeavors.5
that the #experimental discounts
and likely that of mailers, to engage in
Also, should the Postal Service decide to request
be made permanent,
case will have been released early, to the detriment
Filnally, the Postal Service reiterates
was a participant
in Docket No. MC96-1
then the data underlying
its
of its litigating position.
its questions
about UPS’s motives.
UPS
and has taken an active rolle in this docket.
In this docket, UPS has reviewed witness Daniel’s testimony
in enough detail to ask
whether the productivities
productivity
UPS/USPS-T29-16.
she uses are average or marginal
The productivity
figures UPS questions
rates.
in the interrogatory,
See
in
fact, are the very Parcel Sorting Machine figures which are used in witness Daniel’s
derivation
of the 4-cent per piece discount.
dissimilarities
First-Class
between the proposed
and Priority Mail discounts
for the Priority Mail experimental
UPS’s confusion
the
Parcel Post discount and the experimental
is thus quite puzzling.
Also, UPS asks only
results -- an area where it competes
Postal Service --, not for the First Class results.
other than legitimate
concerning
with the
UPS’s behavior suggests goals
inquiry into the Postal Service’s proposals
in this docket.
4 This should be contrasted with the Commission’s rules on market tests and
provisional services, where reporting requirements are established.
See 39 CFR $5
3001.165 and 3001.175.
5 Of course, this may be the very outcome
UPS is seeking
7
For all of the foregoing
reasons, UPS’s motion to compel must be denied
Respectfully
submitted,
UNITED STATES
POSTAL
SERVICE
By its attorneys:
Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr.
Chief Counsel, Ratemakirrg
/4L--)N. AL-~
Susan M. Duchek
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing docurment upon all
participants of record in this proceeding in accordance with section 12 of the Rules
of Practice.
- A7QgLs7
Susan M. Duchek
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20260-I 137
(202) 268-2990; Fax -5402
September 4, 1997
--__.