BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20268-0001
r-.
RE~CEIVEI)
Nov22
SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL
CONCERNING
The United
Testimony
States
of Witnesses
Production
Bentley
Witness,
filing,
the Postal Service
and specifies
those
portions
of the Consumer
testimony,
Service
interrogatory
requests
contained
I.
responses
(“OCA”)
Special
materials
14, 1996.
the timeliness
Association
witness
Collins’s
pursuant
to Strike
for
In this
of its initial
witness
and oral cross-examination
from the record,
OF THE MOTION
Rule 1 (C) provides
are to be submitted
appearance
of the witness.”
of the testimony
that
motion
Bentley’s,
and
and Sherman’s
which
written
the Postal
to the Presiding1 Officer’s
ruling
in writing
Under this rule, the Postal Service’s
and interrogatory
and Sherman
would
November
4, 1996.
Sufficient
information
1 The Postal
Callow.
to strike testimony
bv that date.
Service
or exhibit
at least 14 days before the scheduled
Collins
to make its motion
TO STRIKE
“motions
Thompson,
witness
its Motion
or, in the Alternative,
addresses
SERVIC:E
at Tr. 5/l 336-37.’
THE TIMELINESS
portions
supplements
filed November
of Major Mailers
Advocate
stricken
hereby
and Thompson,
supplemental
Office
,--
FILING OF UNITED STATES POSTAL
NOVEMBER 14 MOTION TO STRIKE
(November 22, 1996)
Postal Service
of a Commission
4 31 PM '96
responses
motions
of witnesses;
Bentley,
have been due no later than
was not available
to strike
Monday,
for the Postal Service
It was not clear until the receipt
is not moving
to strike
any materials
Iof witness
relating
to OCA
r--
2
Bentley’s
answers
had “made
6/l 971;
to USPWMMA-16
no independent
26 on November
analysis
of Library
7, 1996,
Reference
that
PRC-LR-1
Mr. Bentley
;and 2.”
Tr.
see also Tr. 6/l 972.
It also was not clear to the Postal Service
consulted
or relied upon PRC-LR-1
interrogatories
determine
to OCA witness
if and how those
conclusions
6, 1996.
drawn
witness
Callow
on October
30, 1996.,
November
13, 1996,
OCA-LR-5
October
examine
written
them,
purported
testimony.
The first indication
relying
upon information
were received
to OCA
Collins
on November
and Sherman
8, 1996
and
without
the library
any OCA witness
the Postal Service
from these
two times).
filed interrogatories
and 2 were not filed until
had not been used or relied upon by any OCA
At that point,
to USPSIOCA-T400-21,
Postal Service
on November
interrogatories
and to OCA witnesses
it was not clear whether
revised
into some of the
were received
similarly-aimed
some
seek.ing to
have figured
use data from PRC-LR-1
They apparently
to be, or whether
subsequently
responses
had
respectively.
them.
response
Those
responses
directed
23, 1996
might
25, 1996,
Those
on October
references
directed
and 6, which
31, 1996.
witnesSin
Sherman
in his testimony.
on October
OCA witnesses
and 2. The Postal Service
library
The Postal Service
whether
library
an opportunity
references
intended
was witness
thereafter,
4, 1996
on November
OCA-LR-5
they
or rely upon
had that any OCA witness
references
concerning
were what
to sponsor
first filed on November
Shortly
to fully
might
be
Thompson’s
(and
7, 1996,
and 6 on ‘witness
the
005953
r-.
3
Thompson.
Responses
were received
interrogatories,
which
were redirected
to the OCA,
just yesterday.’
Accordingly,
motion
to those
to strike
circumstances
it simply
was not possible
14 days before hearings
demonstrate
for the Postal Service
on intervenor
to file its
testimony
began.
good cause why the Postal Service’s
motion
Such
to strike
was not untimely.3
II.
SPECIFIC
CITATIONS
The Postal Service
testimony
of MMA
THAT SHOULD
BE STRICKEN
moves that the following
witness
Bentley
be stricken
1.
Tr. 6/l 893,
I#
lines 17-21,
beginning,
2.
Tr. 6/1896,
lines 4-6
3.
Tr. 6/l 896,
lines 7-13
4.
Tr. 6/l 896,
line 16 - 1897,
5.
Tr. 6/1897,
lines 5-7, beginning,
1,
6.
Tr. 6/l 897,
II
lines 9-l 0, beginning,
FROM THE RECORD
references
relating
to the
from the record:
“Thus,
as I show
Iister.
line 3
“If the Postal Service’s
“Again,
CRA.
if the CRA IReports.
2 Those responses
indicate that the OCA “simply
executes
unmodified
Commission
cost model programs on unmodified
‘before rates’ fa,ctor files already
included in PRC-LR-,2 as if it were a ‘turn-key’
cost model” and that it “has not had
the resources to replicate the Commission’s
cost model.”
Answer
to USPS’OCATZOO-20, Answers
of the Office of the Consumer
Advocate
to Interrogatories
lJSPS/OCA-TZOO18-32, 34-37 Redirected from Witness Thompson,
November 21,
1996.
3 If the Postal Service should have filed a request for waiver
1 (C), then it asks that this pleading be treated as such a request.
of Special
Rule
P---
4
7.
Tr. 6/l 897,
lines 1 l-l 7
8.
Tr. 6/l 929-l
933
9.
Tr. 6/l 947- 1948
10.
Tr. 6/l 950-I
952
11.
Tr. 6/l 966-l
970
12.
Tr. 6/l 972-l
976
13.
Tr. 6/1980
14.
Tr. 6/2005,
15.
Tr. 6/2006,
line 9 - 2007,
doesn’t normally.
_”
16.
Tr. 6/2008,
line 18 - 2009,
17.
Tr. 6/2022,
II
line 6
The Postal Service
testimony
of OCA witness
Tr. 5/l 773-l
line 16, beginning,
line 54
line 15, beginning,
moves that the following
Collins
“The Co’mmissiorr
be stricken
“If you raise the level.
references
relating
to the
relating
to the
from the record:
775
The Postal Service
testimony
lines 15-25
of OCA witness
moves that the following
Sherman
be stricken
references
from the record:
Tr. 712383-2384
,,--
-..-.-
g The Postal Service also has moved to strike Tr. 6/2009,
Iin 6 - 20110, line 3,
relating to MMA witness Bentley’s new analysis.
See Supplemental
Comments
of
United States Postal Service to Motion to Strike Major Mailers Association
Witness
Bentley’s
New Analysis,
November 21, 1996.
--
5
The Presiding
“sufficient
grounds
from
explanation”
PRC-LR-1
Tr. 5/l 337.
and 2, in terms
costs
institutional
costs,
for specific
under Special
sponsored
also ruled that the Postal Service
of “the link between
for exclusion....”
attributable
which
Officer
The references
of overall attributable
mail categories,
and cost coverages
PRC-LR-1
by a witness
the record
by due process.
of the various
and 2, is best summarized
and MMA
witness
in the following
and the
cost levels, specific
between
attributable
a costing
and
references,
designated
methodology
and has not been subject
witnesses,
provide
cited above refer to results
unless and until
and 2 contain
has not been sponsored
as is required
shifts
testimony
PRC-LPI-1 and 2 are library
Rule 5 are “not evidence
by a witness.”
The position
the witness’s
should
and
which
to full scrutiny
on
who cited to or relied1 upon PRC-LR-1
exchange
between
Commissioner
Haley
Bentley:
COMMISSIONER
HALEY: I take it from the discussions
have been having today that you do understand of course the
Commission’s
cost methodology?
THE WITNESS:
about the Commission’s
COMMISSIONER
from your -THE WITNESS:
replicate it.
that
we
I would not say that I understand everything
methodology
and I am the first to admit that.
HALEY:
But you have been able to use it
I am able to use the results.
I am not able to
5 In fact, some of the specified materials consist of interrogatories
direct,ed to the
witnesses
by the Postal Service and oral cross-examination
conducted
by the Postal
Service. The Postal Service pursued these matters in order to protect its due process
rights at the time, but now moves that they be stricken from the record.
--
.
--
6
COMMISSIONER
HALEY:
THE WITNESS:
i? 6/2026-2027.
verify,
the costing
sources.
who use the results
methodology
It is true that witnesses
exogenous
For example,
or questioned.
Use of DRI information,
purposes
methodology
concerning
this and other
in this fashion,
proceedings
experts
another
discovery
without
which
accepted
proceedings.
cost issues
If participants
who
witness
and another
simply
in these
by hiring two
to use the results
-- and only
uses the results.
references.
in Commission
Normally,
or the institutional
on the calculations
at the heart of
be an easy task for any participant
the study
costing
are allowedi to use results
to shield much of its case from examination
in library
and used for a
and complex
and institutional
usa
bleing sponsored
of a detailed
attributable
rely on
and the C:ommission
that information
is widely
often
from using the results
Again, this is not comparable
-----
before the Commissicln
for forecasting
then it would
the expert
the resullts.
as an input
It is also true that witnesses
presented
produced
replicate,
ratemaking,
Commission
-- one to perform
presenting
purposes
other than postal
is quite different
can neither
both the Postal Service
for forecasting
of purposes
which
in proceedings
DRI information
variety
Okay --
Nor have I ever tried.
The participants
or explain
Okay.
however,
sponsor
and assumptions
to the instant
proceedings
use material
either these witnesses,
of the witness
contained
situation
often
will respond
in the library
where
participants
to
references,
are relying
,.-.
7
on results
record
of a detailed
costing
methodology
which
has escaped
scrutiny.
Moreover,
the Commission
_. making
testing
and complex
in this situation,
-- tasked
the extra-record
with
being the impartial
it all the more critical
that such material
on the record.
will be advising
The very analysts
the Commission
that such individuals
participation
in its deliberations
in the event these
this material
Further,
might
Accordingly,
alternative,
be subject
on its deliberations
has not indicated
the Commission
for production
November
of a Commission
The
will be recused
from
references
to strike or, in the
must be granted.
submitted,
STATES POSTAL. SERVICE
By its attorneys:
Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr.
Chief Counsel, Ratemaking
Susan M. Duchek
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20260-l
137
(202) 268-2990;
Fax -5402
November 22, 1996
_-
whereby
due proc:ess.
14 motion
Respectfully
and
are treated
any procedures
with
witness
UNITED
by
the material1 presumably
library
be used or relied upon consistent
to full review
in this docket.
has not established
the Postal Service’s
has been prepared
trier of fact in th,ese proceedings
who prepared
Commission
evidence.
material
as
8
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify
participants
of record
of Practice.
OF SERVICE
that I have this day served the foregoing document
upon all
in this proceeding in accordance with section 12 of thle Rules
-U
-&I 46)
Susan M. Duchek
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20260-I
137
November 22, 1996
,_--.
-