February 4, 2015

Extension of the Comment Deadline in the Current Rate Case

While a deadline extension might seem small or technical, in this case it is meaningful. The Alliance along with two other mailers associations, MPA and Postcom, filed the request on January 26 and it was approved on February 2. The decision by the PRC showed backbone at a time when the regulator has been under attack by the USPS, the Senate Oversight Committee, and even the President’s budget proposal. The PRC backed the Alliance in asserting an important principle—that all interested parties need adequate time to evaluate data that the USPS is required to provide to validate that its proposed price increases comply with the CPI cap on classes of mail.

PRC rules normally grant everyone 20 days to comment after the USPS files all of its legally required documents and data. It filed an incomplete rate case on January 15 and the comment deadline was set 20 days later at February 4. The PRC requested the missing information, but it was not due until three business days before the February 4 deadline. The Alliance requested two more weeks to comment after all of the work papers were provided by the USPS. The missing information is critical because it involves new rate cells being introduced to replace old rate cells, primarily related to the Flat Sequencing System (FSS) that USPS wants to incent. In keeping with its campaign to minimize external scrutiny and regulation, the Postal Service formally opposed our request.

When new rate cells are proposed, the weights or “billing determinants” that are assumed for the cells are often very important to calculating the average price increase in each class of mail that is subject to the CPI price cap. The PRC noted in its order: “In this case, the missing information impacts the annual limitation calculations related to the vast majority of rate changes proposed in this proceeding for Standard Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, and Special Services.  Such information is essential to the Commission’s ability to carry out its fundamental responsibilities under 39 U.S.C. § 3622 and determinations of compliance with the annual limitation for those market dominant classes of mail.”

Further, the PRC order concluded: “Given the importance of the missing information to the issues in this proceeding, the Commission finds that commenters would be significantly prejudiced if they were only provided three business days to provide comments based on a complete record when the Commission’s regulations require 20 days.”

Three cheers for a regulator that focuses on its “fundamental responsibilities.”

© Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers