ORIGINAL
OG5lOO
_
W--
BEFORETHE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20268-0001
REkEIVEiI
‘-i 32 Pti '96
SEP 4
pos.rAt KATEGCHHl$SlOM
OFFICEOFTHESCGSETARI
I
SPECIAL SERVICESREFORM, 1996
Docket
No. MC96-3
OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TO OFFICE OF ‘THE
CONSUMER ADVOCATE
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES
OCA/USPS-36(a)
and (b), 37(a) and (b), AND 47,.
(September 4, 1996)
The United
Consumer
States
Advocate
Postal Service
Motion
to Compel
36(a) and (b), 37, and 47 (“OCA
has not made convincing
requested
information
Accordingly,
motion
must be denied.
which
requests
design
have been discovered
that the Postal Service
for FY 1993.
of the reliability
Motion
at 2.
of statistical
Even assuming
OCA states,
“This
28, 1996.
in producing
OCA/USPS-36(a)
recompute
detailed
cost systems
it.
information
impossible
C.V. estimates,
on the TRACS
would
is relevant,
14,
OCA/USPS-47
“allow
1993
sample
a comparison
and 1995.”
the OCA’s
that there are other ways to accomplish
makes it virtually
of the
and (b)
the FY 1993
for fiscal years
such a comparison
The OCA
the relevance
to have been in error.
provide
OCA/USPS-
and (b) and 37 on August
OCA alleges that this information
seems to acknowledge
thing,
16, 1996.
require that the Postal Service
recently
inherent
OCA/USPS-36(a)
on August
of the
to Interrogatories
either demonstrating
the burden
the OCA’s
to the Office
filed on August
or justifying
and OCA/USPS-47
essentially
responds
Responses
Motion”),
arguments
The OCA filed interrogatories
1996
hereby
motion
this goal.
to tell whether
OCA
For one
there have
-2been changes
developed
(intentional
or otherwise)
for FY 1995.”
been changes.
In fact,
ld.
c.v.‘s.
the United
Postal
Service
IOCA/lJSPS-37-35,
limited
special
service
up” for consideration
subclasses
reform
than on concerns
Lyons
Testimony
USPS-T-7,
accompanying
costs
of Susan
Of course,
sought
States
classification
contribution
than it was in FY 1993,
has made #only
to “open
and
has
and equity
restoration
See Direct
Testimony
of
USPS-T- 1, at 2-3;
States
Postal
Service,
rates
cover their attributable
costs.
Nonetheless,
here than other issues.
that one of the cost systems
as indicated
of such
with the Act, the proposed
to institutional
cost levels are of lesser importance
for example,
1996.
of its witnesses
of United
requests
of
of the Consumer
for all classes
Postal Service,
on Behalf
Response
nor intended
The testimony
cost levels.
asked if
the relevance
structures
in compliance
the Postal Service’s
for the sake of argument,
in FY 1995
attributable
W. Needham
and make an adequate
attributable
services.
on Behalf of United
at 32-34.
It neither
are based more on market
with
28,
The Postal Service
the rates and classification
of mail, or other special
W. Ashley
Direct
of this case.
proposals.
of the Office
questions
there have
for the Rural Carrier
filed August
the Postal Service
made clear that the proposals
concerns
38-39,
were
OCA/USPS-36(c)
that there were not.
to Interrogatories
given the posture
estimates
be to ask whether
methodology
responded
36/c),
Even more importantly,
comparisons,
done that.
to the estimation
The Postal Service
States
Advocate
One way to tell would
OCA has already
there were other changes
System
in the way reliability
by its C.V. estimates.
Assume
is less reliable
Assume
r-
~~-
~-
---
further
that certain
costs
and that the proposed
percentage
proposals
for certified
mail were shown
cost coverage
point or two.
in this docket
for certified
Precisely
how would
or even, ultimately,
The OCA has not made and cannot
Additionally,
how specious
no changes
the OCA’s
OCA’s
between
allow the Commission
as reliable
general
as the FY 1993
rate case.”
added).
then why
OCA Motion
If the FY 1993
inquire
estimates
OCA/USPS-37(a)
when
,,--.
of finance
willingness
to accept
sample
and (b) request
the Postal Service’s
sensitivity
numbers
that it would.
claims
design
now?
4-6
Docket
rate cafse,”
finance
have
No. R94-1.
to produce
in LR-SSR-90.’
with
for a
The OCA should
of confidentiality
information
are at least
bold emphasis
for a general
in regard to OCA/USPS-37(a)
the requested
estimates
in original;
good enough
it clear
in that it would
in turn were good enough
the Postal Service
Tables
makes
“Even the fact of
be relevant
it was relevant-during
and input files needed to produce
argued against
would
which
“were
recommendations?
The OCA states,
at 4 (italic emphasis
into the FY 1993
asked for that information
are.
a
the Postal Service’s
that the FY 1995 TRACS
estimates,
up or down
regard to OCAIUSPS-47
and FY 1995
to conclude
this affect
went
the Commission’s
with
of relevance
FY 1993
accordingly
make an argument
argument
claims
to be over or understated
the programs
The OCA has not
and commercial
and (b), indicating
numbers
a
masked.
’ The Postal Service recently answered some OCA interrogatories,
providing programs
used to produce certain C.V. estimates for TRACS. Although the Postal Service does
not concede that those programs are any more relevant than the ones at issue here,
they could be produced without
the problems inherent in changing or substituting
finance numbers.
-4OCA Motion
at 5. Thus, the Postal Service,
will not further
Again,
particular
address
“presumptively
Instead,
recall the OCA requesting
programs
proposals.
c.v.‘s.”
Consumer
OCA Motion
see also Office
Service,
what
l-35,
Advocate
- 56, filed August
dockets
requested
OCA/USPS-31
36(c),
38-39,
22,
docket
where
for discovery
the information
circumscribed
is available
28,
of the
1996;
States
Postal
would
encounter
in
interrogatories.
While
in an appropriate
is of little or no value in assessing
proposals
are not in compliance
the August
of the Office
to United
in the above-discussed
the informatior:
beyond
were
1996.
they are here, where
rule provides
formulas
filed August
Interrogatories
context,
these interrogatories
the
and OC:A/USPS-52.
to Interrogatories
of 3 to 5 or more days may not be overwhelming
Further,
in o’rder to evaluate
mathematical
burdens
of the Postal Service’s
is
does not
says that without
light of the burden that the Postal Service
the information
the merits
that the information
Once again, the OCA has already
Postal Service
of the Consumer
OCA makes
producing
States
OCA/USPS-3
OCA/USPS-48
at 5.
in interrogatories
of United
Advocate,
in previous
“be verified
in this
The Postal Service
The OCA generally
it cannot
asked for this information
See Response
that argument,
why it needs the informaition
under Rule 31 (k)(3)(i).
this information
and input files,
used to generate
states
OCA falls back on the argument
necessary”
rate and classification
not abandoning
it here.
OCA never specifically
docket.
while
in this docket.
with
Special
Rule 2E.
12, 1996 date established
only from the Postal Service.
That
in this
The driving
,-
-5force
behind this rule is to allow
Service
in order to obtain
The OCA has not offered
development
initial
objection,
information
the OCA’s
to continue
to develop
an explanation
of any testimony
For all of the foregoing
parties
discovery
agaiinst the F’ostal
their own cases and testimony.
of how the requested
information
it may plan.
reasons
motion
as well as those
to compel
should
Respectfully
UNITED
stated
in the Postal Service’s
be denied.
submitted,
STATES POSTAL. SERVICE
By its attorneys:
Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr.
Chief Counsel, Ratemaking
ycYLJv@d
Susan M. Duchek
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20260-l
137
(202) 268-2990;
Fax -5402
September 4, 1996
furthers
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify
participants
that
OF SERVICE
I have this day served the foregoing
of record in this proceeding
in accordance
with
document
sectioln
of Practice.
+;)Nd$L-Susan M. Duchek
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20260-l
137
September 4, 1996
,-
upon all
12 of the Rules