BEFORE THE

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON DC 20268-0001

EVOLUTIONARY NETWORK DEVELOPMENT\] DOCKET NO. N2006-1

SERVICE CHANGES, 2006\]

DAVID B. POPKIN MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY

DBP/USPS-100 AND MOTION TO REQUIRE THE POSTAL SERVICE TO FILE MOTIONS
FOR LATE ACCEPTANCE OF INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

I move to compel a response to the interrogatory submitted to the United
States Postal Service which has not been properly answered by them.

September 5, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

N20061MTC6A100

DAVID B. POPKIN, POST OFFICE BOX 528, ENGLEWOOD, NJ 07631-0528

On February 15, 2006, I submitted Interrogatory DBP/USPS-14 to the
Postal Service in an effort to obtain a listing of mail processing
facilities. On February 22, 2006, the Postal Service provided a response
with a listing of some facilities.

**DBP/USPS-14**

Please provide a listing of all mail processing facilities including the
following

information as a minimum: \[1\] Type of facility \[2\] Name of the
facility \[3\] City and

state in which it is located \[4\] ZIP Code range of the mail that is
processed at the

facility.

**RESPONSE**

See the attached list.

Based on an evaluation of the listing that was provided, it did not
appear that the listing was a full and accurate listing of this
information that was requested. As noted in my follow-up Interrogatory
DBP/USPS-32 \[filed on February 27, 2006, and responded to on March 3,
2006\] pointing out three discrepancies that I was aware of, namely,
Aberdeen SD and Fairbanks and Ketchikan AK.

**DBP/USPS-32** Please refer to your response to DBP/USPS-14. Please
confirm

that the response provides a listing of ALL facilities where mail
processing takes place.

For example, Aberdeen SD as referenced in DBP/USPS-33 does not appear to
be on

the list. In addition, is mail processed at the Fairbanks and Ketchikan
AK post offices

that also do not appear to be on the list? Please provide a complete
response to the

original interrogatory.

**RESPONSE**

The list was intended to reflect all mail processing plants Processing &
Distribution

Centers/Facilities) subject to the Area Mail Processing review
procedures. It is not a

complete list of all facilities at which mail processing takes place.
Some form of mail

processing can take place in locations subordinate to a plant, such as a
post office that

houses one or more pieces of equipment used to perform processing that
usually takes

place upstream, or a plant annex which houses operations that would
otherwise be

under the same roof as the plant, but for space constraints.

As noted in my follow-up Interrogatory DBP/USPS-54 \[filed on March 3,
2006, and responded to on March 24, 2006\] pointing out a discrepancy
that I was aware of, namely, Fairbanks AK \[which had previously been
pointed out\].

**DBP/USPS-54**

Please refer to your response to DBP/USPS-32. Please provide a complete
listing of all

facilities that process mail for a collection of post offices. For
example, the listing shows

Eureka CA and does not show Fairbanks AK even though they appear to be
similar in nature.

**RESPONSE**

Attached is a list of facilities that house mail processing equipment
and, therefore process mail

originating and/or destinating throughout the postal system. The
facilities included in this list

process approximately 98 percent of mail volume (which includes the
collection volumes

generated at individual post offices) that is distributed through the
postal mail processing

network.

In response to Interrogatory DBP/USPS-54, the Postal Service now
provided a listing of some 1900+ facilities which appeared to contain
facilities that should not be included on the listing such as my local
Englewood NJ post office. Interrogatory DBP/USPS-60 was filed on March
24, 2006, and responded to on July 13, 2006, over three months and
Presiding Officer\'s Ruling No. N2006-1/27 later.

**DBP/USPS-60**. Please refer to your response to Interrogatory
DBP/USPS-54

which refers to your response to Interrogatory DBP/USPS-32 which refers
to your

response toInterrogatory DBP/USPS-14. \[a\] Please provide the
information that

was requested in DBP/USPS-14 with the list of facilities that were
provided in

response to your Interrogatory DBP/USPS-54. \[b\] Your response to
Interrogatory

DBP/USPS-54 provides a listing of some 1900+ facilities. Please advise
the

order in which these 1900+ facilities have been shown in your response.
\[c\] If

there is no logical order for the 1900+ facilities, please provide the
listing in order

of ZIP Codes of the facility. Please also either number each facility or
number the

pages of the listing or both. \[d\] I notice that my local post office,
Englewood NJ

07631 is shown on the listing. Englewood has not had mail processing

equipment in some time now. Please advise why Englewood NJ is shown on
the

listing. \[e\] Please advise the date of issuance of this listing. \[f\]
If this listing is

more than six months old, please provide a listing which is less than
six months

old. \[g\] Please provide an explanation of any of the abbreviations
that appear in

the listing other than those that have already been provided in response
to

Interrogatory DBP/USPS-48.

**RESPONSE:**

a\. As close as the Postal Service can come to answering this question
is to

refer you to the information provided in response to APWU/USPS-T1-9(a),

which contains responsive information for mail processing plants likely
to

be subject to the AMP process.

b\. The order of the facilities is the way the data was ordered in end
of run on

the date the facility list was pulled.

c\. In order to list the facilities by ZIP code, one need highlight the
columns

associated with the data, within excel, click on data, pull down to
sort,

within the sort by window, select the column in which is of interest to
be

sorted. The number can be done by putting a "1" next to the first
facility,

then on subsequent cells, put a formula equal to 1 + the proceeding
cell.

A native format copy of the file will be e-mailed to any party
interested

in performing such a sortation upon request.

d\. This listing was based on all facilities within the end of run
system.

Englewood NJ would show up on the listing if it was ever mapped into the

end of run system.

e\. The date of issuance of this listing was March 21, 2006.

f\. N/A

g\. Post Office (PO), Station (STA), Mail Processing Center (MPC),
Customer

Service Bar Code Sorter (CSBCS),

PRESIDING OFFICER'S RULING N2006-1/27 ON

DAVID B. POPKIN MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY

DBP/USPS-60

(Issued July 14, 2006)

RULING

The David B. Popkin Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatory DBP/USPS-

60, filed July 5, 2006, is granted, as specified in the body of this
ruling.

In an effort to determine why Englewood NJ and other similarly situated
offices were shown on this listing, I filed Interrogatory DBP/USPS-94 on
July 19, 2006, and received a response on August 2, 2006.

**DBP/USPS-94** Please refer to the response to Interrogatory
DBP/USPS-60

subparts b and d.

\[a\] Please discuss and explain exactly what the list represents and
the types of

facilities that are on the list.

\[b\] Please define the term \"end of run\".

\[c\] Does this listing represent a snapshot of what facilities were in
operation on

March 21, 2006, or does it also include facilities that terminated
activity prior to

that date?

\[d\] Please provide a listing of those facilities that were active on
March 21, 2006,

or at any other date after March 21, 2006.

\[e\] Please explain and discuss what the term \"if it was ever mapped
into the end

of run system.\" means in the response to subpart d.

\[f\] Please confirm, or explain if you are unable to confirm, that
Englewood NJ

07631 should not be listed on a current listing of facilities.

**RESPONSE**

\(a\) It is a list of facilities thought to contain one or more pieces
of automated

mail sortation equipment.

\(b\) "End of run" is a reference to the completion of a particular use
of a piece

of automated mail sorting equipment to perform a particular sort

scheme or operation.

\(c\) There is always the possibility that the list is imperfect, but
all of the

facilities listed are presumed to have been active on March 21, 2006.

\(d\) You have been provided with the former.

\(e\) A facility is mapped into the EOR system when it has a piece of

automated mail processing equipment that produces EOR reports.

\(f\) If a facility is currently operating or presumed to be, it stands
to reason

that it should be listed on a current listing of facilities.

Interrogatory DBP/USPS-96 was filed on August 9, 2006, and responded to
on August 16, 2006, to attempt to obtain the type of data that was
requested on the original Interrogatory DBP/USPS-14.

**DBP/USPS-96** Please refer to the response to Interrogatory
DBP/USPS-93.

Please provide the specific data that was originally requested and
provided in

response to Interrogatory DBP/USPS-14 for the listing of the 1900+
facilities that

was provided to correct that listing. The following is the data that was
originally

requested:

**DBP/USPS-14**

Please provide a listing of all mail processing facilities including the

following information as a minimum: \[1\] Type of facility \[2\] Name of
the

facility \[3\] City and state in which it is located \[4\] ZIP Code
range of the

mail that is processed at the facility.

The only data that was provided on the listing of 1900+ facilities was
the site and

the ZIP Code. The type of facility, City and State in which the facility
is located,

and the ZIP Code range of the mail that is processed at that facility
were not

provided.

**RESPONSE**

You have been provided with a name or designation for each of the mail

processing facilities. The Postal Service does not have a centralized
list of the

ZIP Code ranges attached to each facility. For city and state
designations, see

the attached.

Interrogatory DBP/USPS-99 was filed on August 9, 2006, and responded to
on August 16, 2006, to attempt to obtain the specific reason why
Englewood NJ was on the listing and I was advised that none of the
equipment was in use.

**DBP/USPS-99** Please refer to your response to Interrogatory
DBP/USPS-94

subpart f. Please advise the specific piece or pieces of automated mail
sortation

equipment that are in use at the Englewood NJ 07631 facility.

**RESPONSE**

None is presently in use.

If Englewood NJ did not have any of the required equipment, I filed
Interrogatory DBP/USPS-100 on August 15, 2006, to find out why it \[as
well as other similarly situated offices\] was on the list. On August
30, 2006, the Postal Service responded stating that they were not going
to provide a revised list.

**DBP/USPS-100** Please refer to the response to Interrogatory
DBP/USPS-99.

Since you have indicated that the Englewood, New Jersey 07631 facility
does not

have any automated mail sortation equipment in use, please explain why
it, and

all other similarly situated facilities, appears on the list of
facilities provided in

response to Interrogatory DBP/USPS-96 and other previously provided
lists. If

necessary, please provide a revised listing of facilities that is
responsive to my

request.

**RESPONSE**

As explained at least several times now, the list reflects facilities
thought to have

automated equipment. Accordingly, it is not necessary to revise the
list.

This series of Interrogatories raises the question as to why a proponent
of an Interrogatory must be aware of the nature of the response received
so that some question will arise which warrants a follow-up to achieve a
proper response and the effort made by the Postal Service to investigate
those requests and to provide responses which are accurate.

I also move to require the United States Postal Service to file Motions
for Late Acceptance of Interrogatory Responses. It is noted that the
responses to Interrogatories DBP/USPS-60 and 100 above were filed after
the 14-day response period and no contemporaneously filed Motion for
Late Acceptance was filed. An evaluation of this condition for other
than the Interrogatories in this filing was not made.

For the reasons stated, I move to compel a response to the referenced
interrogatory.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon
all participants of record in this proceeding in accordance with section
12 of the rules of practice.

David B. Popkin September 5, 2006