RECEIVED
BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20268-0001
liuc 19
Docket
No. MC96-3
MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE: FOR
RELIEF FROM OBLIGATION
TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES
NASHUA/MYSTIC
PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION FOR
OF PRC ORDER 1129 AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
OBJECTIONS
TO NASHUA/MYSTIC
INTERROGATORIE
(August 19, 1996)
filed interrogatories
On August
1-27 directed
16, 1996,
PRC Order No. 1029,
consideration
of a Business
Nashua/Mystic.
for the consideration
hereby
moves
interrogatories
P
expanded
resolution
For Reconsideration
No. MC96-3
Reply Mail (BRM) classification
August
§ 3623(b)
16, 1996,
of its Motion
that it be relieved
Motion
a separate
Of
to include
of interest
to
seeks a reversal
‘exercise
classification
of
Iof its
proceeding
proposal,
For Reconsideration,
of any obligation
through
proposal
the Commission’s
to initiate
FF:OM
Postal Service.
the scope of Docket
of the Nashua/Mystic
NM/USPS-8
States
filed a Motion
Order or, in the alternative,
under 39 U.S.C.
Pending
the Postal Service
The Postal Service’s
the Commission’s
authority
which
to the United
‘96
POSTAL RATE CSHti!SSfOH
OFFICE OF THE SiCRETAkY
,
SPECIAL SERVICES REFORM, 1996
4 23 PM
the Postal Service
to respond
also
to Nashua/Mystic
27
’ Which the Postal Service apologizes for misidentifying
in its Augtrst 16, 1996, Motion
For Reconsideration
Of PRC Order No. 1129 as “Nashua District Photo.”
Nashua
Photo’s litigation alliance with District Photo in previous cases, apparently,
has had a
lasting impression on some.
In all material
respects,
Nashua/Mystic’s
interest
Commission’s
would
of the Postal Service’s
be relieved
August
prudent
of any obligation
if the Commission
Reconsideration
by initiating
consistent
should
respond
proceeding
be permitted
with the procedural
to
be affected
16, 1996,
initial
Motion
in its Motion
interrogatories.
to the Motion
For
for consideration
schedule
For
that the Postal
to these
to respond
by the
request
to assume
to respond
should
a separate
the Postal Service
on a timetable
Reply Mail and would
is granted, ’ it appears
Alternatively,
proposal,
relate exclusivelly
In the event that the Postal Service’s
For Reconsideration
Service
in Business
disposition
Reconsideration.
these interrogatories
of the BRM
to these
established
interrogatories
for suc:h a
proceeding.
Accordingly,
respond
the Postal Service
to interrogatories
In any event,
objectionable
the Postal Service
1 throuqh
Interrogatories
Donald
Mallonnee
interrogatories
which
0
which
1 through
to
interrogatories
grounds:
19 refer to the Rebuttal
by the Postal Service
and 22 refer to the Rebuttal
by the Postal Service
both documents
’ That the Commission
to include consideration
o,f any obligation
in this proceeding.
finds the aforementioned
additional
was offered
NM/USPS-21
struck
that it be relieved
19; 21 and 22
NM/USPS-l
also was offered
Commission
NM/USPS-8-27
on the following
NM/USPS-l
requests
in Docket
from the record
reverse its decision
of Nashua/Mystic’s
Testimony
in Docket
Testimony
No. R94-I.
of
No. R94-1;
of Hien Pham
The
in that proceeding.
PRC Order
to expand the scope of IDocket No. MC96-3
BRM proposal.
F-
-3No. 1028
(September
As an example
the current
28, 1994);
from this group,
BRM fees, which
conform
to characterizations
rejected
Docket
discovery
which
Mallonnee
assumptions,
chose to exclude
from Docket
that record
and those
investigation
of Business
classification
or fee changes
relatively
Considering
Reply Mail which
should,
which
comprehensive
review
to request
Commission.“
objects
observations,
No. R94-I.
The ill-fated
of the unique
fees are
by the Postal Service
No. R94-1
were thwarted,
seeks to provide
of necessity,
to
and opinions
the fact that the current
proceed
has indicated
of Business
authority
As ii: moves
that it currently
to
arly
a basis for future
on the basis of a
is engaged
Reply Mail, with the intention
to pursue changes
ahead with
which
its internal
4 Statement Of United States Postal Service
(July 19, 1996).
will require
review
3 To complicate
matters, the authors of the proffered
responsibilities
relevant to Business Reply Mail, having
important responsibilities.
C
appear in Mr. Pham’s
in the context
record and efforts
fees in Docket
No. R901-1 recorcl,
clean slate.3
The Postal Service
whether
were proffered
7, 1994),
asks whether
The Postal Service
and clarify
No. R90-1
(Oc,tober
NM/USPS-22(b)
features
testimony.
of that proceeding.
based upon the Docket
update
rebuttal
and Pham testimonies
circumstances
interrogatory
are based upon the Docket
to re-hash
the Commission
PRC Order No. 1032
of BRM service
No., R94-1
designed
aff’d,
in a
of deterrnining
review
of Business
by the
Reply Mail,
testimony
no longer
moved on to assume
On Plans For Business
have
other
Reply Mail Reform
,--
-4the Postal Service
how
Business
should
Reply Mail operations
observations
which
were offered
Given the incomplete
Business
presentation5
NM/USPS-l
Several
history
interrogatories
of Messrs.
C
that much will be
a scavenger
No. R94-1
hunt through
Business
Reply Mail fee
proposal.
which
of any classification
cc) throuqh
record
For instance,
seek confirmation
and Pham concerning
The Postal Service
again to observations
No. R94-1
on other grounds.
of the Postal Service’s
2 and 21).
to the merits
NM/USPS-14(a),
Docket
on the issue of
their classification
are objectionable
Mallonnee
and the structure
Referring
Docket
of advancing
pose a series of questions
Mail (NM/USPS-l
irrelevant
to conduct
No. R!94-I.
2 and 21
Nashua/Mystic
and opinions
does not consider
of the Postal Service’s
for the purpose
record
of measuring
to specific
from the Docket
No. R94-1
are permitted
burden
in relation
for, but excluded
state of the Docket
if Nashua/Mystic
portions
with the additional
have changed
Reply Mail, the Postal Service
accomplished
rejected
not be saddled
such matters
management
as the
of Business
regards these
proposal
of observations
Reply
inl:errogatories
Nashua/Mystic
as
may pursue.
(el
of Mr. Mallonee
by the Commission,
which
Nashua/Mystic
were excluded
seek updates
from the
on the
5 For instance, interrogatory
NM/USPS-l9
seeks an explanation of Mr. Mallonnee’s use
of the term “minimal” in a particular context and poses a series of questions
based
upon that explanation.
The Commission’s
rules generally do not allow discovery on
rebuttal testimony.
In the spirit of those rules, the Postal Service objects to discovery
in the current docket on rebuttal testimony
that was offered, b’ut rejected by the
Commission
two proceedings
ago.
I
r
-5number
of customers
(NM/USPS-14(a
letters
who entered
or dropped
and c)); the number
to postcards
or vice versa,
of BRMAS
must
Service
be reprogrammed
does not appreciate
classification
the Domestic
the average
Mail Manual
the Domestic
does not include
implementing
Mail Classification
Schedule.
conclusions
and, therefore,
a year BRMAS
The Postal
to the Nashua/Mystic
the point where
goes beyond
internal
operational
information
been executed.
requirements.
it believes
language
The Postal
are not inconsistent
as the initerrogatory
of the DMCS provisions
considers
in
ipertaining
that it calls for legal
the bounds
of permissiblle
discovery.
and 26
The Postal Service’s
22(b))
added post
why the culrrent
Insofar
interpretation
Reply Mail, the Postal Service
NM/USPS22(b)
certain
regulations
to Business
questions
of times
of these questions
9(c) seeks to determine
about the Postal Service’s
produce
number
which
at local sites (NM/USPS-14(e).
the relevance
NM/USPS-l
has promulgated
inquires
letter senders
from
9
Interrogatory
with
who changed
proposal.
NM/USPS-l
Service
in PY 1995
letter senders
or the number
cards or vice versa (NM/USPS-14(d);
software
out of BRMAS
surveys
responsive
Accordingly,
concerning
Reply Mail review
and cost studies
to a number
of the sort which
Nashua
and pricing
appears
to
might
interrogatories
is unable to offer
Reply Mail costing
amendment
has not advanced
of Nashua/Mystic
the Postal Service
Business
or the classification
Business
responses
policy
to favor
have
to
(NM/IJSPS-
(NM/USPS-26).
-6Respectfully
UNITED
submitted,
STATES
POSTAL
SERVICE
By its attorneys:
Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr.
Chief Counsel. Ratemakina
Michael
T. Tidwell
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20260-l
137
(202) 268-2998;
Fax -5402
August 19, 1996
CERTIFICATE
I hereby
certify
participants
that
of record
OF SERVICE
I have this day served the foregoing
in this proceeding
in accordance
document
with
of Practice.
Michael
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20260-l
137
(202) 268-2998;
Fax -5402
August 19, 1996
,--
-._-
T. Tidwell
section
upon all
12 of the Rules