76874 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Notices 

1Complaint regarding blind mail, June 17, 2024 

(Complaint). In its motion to dismiss, the Postal 

Service asserts that because complaints must only 

be brought on the part of interested persons and 

because the Complaint fails to identify the nature 

of ‘‘Fiat Fiendum, Inc.,’’ the Complaint should be 

dismissed as it relates to that party. United States 

Postal Service’s Motion to Dismiss, July 8, 2024, at 

1 n.1 (Motion to Dismiss). As the resolution of this 

issue has no impact on the disposition of the 

Complaint, the Commission will decline to reach 

the merits of this question. 

2See Motion for summary elevation, or extension 

and contingent withdrawal, and clarification, July 

12, 2024, at 5–9 (Motion for Extension). In addition 

to the seeking an extension, Complainants 

requested: (1) ‘‘summary elevation to a full 

proceeding under § 3022.30(a)(1) & Part 3010 

Subpart F[;]’’ (2) conditional withdrawal of the 

Complaint should Complainants fail to file an 

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss; and (3) 

clarification of which rules apply to Commission 

proceedings. See Motion for Extension at 4, 9, 10– 

12. The Commission denies these requests as moot. 

3See Notice re opposition to motion to dismiss, 

August 5, 2024 (Opposition). Both parties also filed 

a number of other documents not directly relevant 

to the issues in question here. 

Contract 335 to Competitive Product 

List and Notice of Filing Materials 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

September 13, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Jana Slovinska; 

Comments Due: September 23, 2024. 

4. Docket No(s).: MC2024–679 and 

CP2024–688; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority 

Mail & USPS Ground Advantage 

Contract 336 to Competitive Product 

List and Notice of Filing Materials 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

September 13, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments 

Due: September 23, 2024. 

5. Docket No(s).: MC2024–680 and 

CP2024–689; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority 

Mail & USPS Ground Advantage 

Contract 337 to Competitive Product 

List and Notice of Filing Materials 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

September 13, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Christopher C. Mohr; 

Comments Due: September 23, 2024. 

6. Docket No(s).: MC2024–681 and 

CP2024–690; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority 

Mail & USPS Ground Advantage 

Contract 338 to Competitive Product 

List and Notice of Filing Materials 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

September 13, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Almaroof Agoro; 

Comments Due: September 23, 2024. 

7. Docket No(s).: MC2024–682 and 

CP2024–691; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground 

Advantage Contract 349 to Competitive 

Product List and Notice of Filing 

Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance 

Date: September 13, 2024; Filing 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: 

Samuel Robinson; Comments Due: 

September 23, 2024. 

8. Docket No(s).: MC2024–683 and 

CP2024–692; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority 

Mail & USPS Ground Advantage 

Contract 339 to Competitive Product 

List and Notice of Filing Materials 

Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: 

September 13, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Gregory S. Stanton; 

Comments Due: September 23, 2024. 

This Notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21458 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. C2024–13; Order No. 7507] 

Complaint Proceeding 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

appointing a Presiding Officer to 

represent the interests of the general 

public and provide a public written 

intermediate decision including 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

on the issues raised in this proceeding. 

ADDRESSES: Submit notices of 

intervention electronically via the 

Commission’s Filing Online system at 

http://www.prc.gov. Persons interested 

in intervening who cannot submit their 

views electronically should contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, 

General Counsel, at 202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Commission Analysis 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On June 17, 2024, Sai and Fiat 

Fiendum, Inc. (Complainants) filed a 

complaint with the Commission 

regarding the Postal Service’s treatment 

of mail items for the blind (blind mail).1

On July 8, 2024, the Postal Service filed 

its Motion to Dismiss. In response, 

Complainants filed their ‘‘[m]otion for 

summary elevation, or extension and 

contingent withdrawal, and 

clarification,’’ requesting, amongst other 

relief, that the Commission extend the 

deadline to respond to the Motion to 

Dismiss.2 The Commission granted this 

extension. On August 5, 2024, 

Complainants filed their opposition.3

For the reasons explained below, the 

Commission concludes that the 

Complaint raises an issue of material 

fact as to whether the Postal Service has 

violated 39 U.S.C. 403(c) in its treatment 

of blind mail for international mailers. 

The Commission determines that 

Complainants’ remaining claims should 

be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction 

due to Complainants’ failure to state a 

claim for which relief can be granted. 

II. Background 

Complainant Sai is a blind American 

citizen living in the United Kingdom 

who is the President of Fiat Fiendum, 

Inc., the other named Complainant. 

Complaint at 3. Complainants explain 

that the Universal Postal Convention 

(UPC), to which the United States is a 

party, mandates that the international 

mailing of certain items for the blind be 

free. Id. Complainants allege that the 

Postal Service has abdicated its 

responsibilities under the UPC by 

putting unlawful conditions on the free 

mailing of items for the blind, thus 

violating international law as well as 

human rights law, anti-discrimination 

statutes, and the U.S. Constitution. See, 

e.g., Complaint at 11–21. 

Complainants provide several 

examples of the manner in which the 

Postal Service is restricting the scope of 

free blind mail and describes how these 

restrictions harm blind mailers who, 

like them, need items shipped overseas. 

Complaint at 11–14. For instance, 

Complainants explain that a common 

item used by blind individuals is ‘‘a 

brailler—a specialized typewriter . . . 

that outputs braille embossing rather 

than ink.’’ Id. at 11. Complainants 

explain that this item is essential for 

blind individuals and is often only 

available from one U.S.-based company 

worldwide. Id. at 11–12. Complainants 

assert, however, that because of the size 

of these braillers, the Postal Service 

refuses to ship these items as free blind 

mail, in violation of UPC rules. Id. 

According to Complainants, ‘‘it is cost 

prohibitive to mail this internationally 

without blind mail,’’ particularly 

considering that blind people ‘‘are often 

quite poor’’ and cannot rely on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Notices 76875 

4The Postal Service also states that Complainants 

have no private right of action under the UPC. Id. 

at 14–17. 

5Opposition at 1, 3. Complainants also argue that 

the Postal Service’s arguments for dismissal rely on 

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and 

related caselaw), which does not apply to 

Commission proceedings. See Opposition at 1–2; 

see also Motion for Extension at 11–12. The 

Commission does not interpret the Postal Service’s 

arguments as relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and any 

caselaw cited within the Motion to Dismiss appears 

to be for purposes of persuasive analogy. 

Nevertheless, the Commission’s conclusions in the 

analysis that follows do not rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12. 

6See Opposition at 3; see also Complaint at 9; 

Motion for Extension at 5–9. The Commission notes 

that the meet-and-confer requirement is an 

obligation that applies only to a complaint and a 

subsequent answer and does not apply to motions 

to dismiss or subsequent pleadings. See 39 CFR 

3022.10(9), 3022.12, and 3022.14. Because the 

Postal Service has not yet filed an answer in the 

current docket, the meet-and-confer requirement 

does not apply to the Postal Service at this time. 

7 39 U.S.C. 3662(b)(1)(A); see 39 CFR 3022.30(a). 

8 39 U.S.C. 3662(a); see 39 CFR 3022.2. 

9 Docket No. C2023–1, Order Granting Motion 

and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice, January 

24, 2023, at 5–6 (Order No. 6428). 

10 Docket No. C2015–3, Order Dismissing 

Complaint, August 26, 2015, at 15–16 (Order No. 

2687); Docket No. C2015–2, Order Granting Motion 

to Dismiss, July 15, 2015, at 15 (Order No. 2585). 

11See, e.g., Order No. 6428 at 6; Docket No. 

C2015–1, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, March 

4, 2015, at 6–7 (Order No. 2377). 

economies of scale. Id. at 12. 

Complainants request that the 

Commission initiate proceedings, 

including a public hearing and 

settlement negotiations, that would 

ultimately lead to regulatory 

amendments to the International Mail 

Manual (IMM) and Domestic Mail 

Manual (DMM). Id. at 32–41. 

In its Motion to Dismiss, the Postal 

Service classifies Complainants’ 

allegations as four separate claims, 

summarized as follows: (1) a claim 

asserting that the Postal Service 

improperly failed to categorize blind 

mail as a standalone class of mail; (2) a 

claim that the Postal Service’s treatment 

of blind mail violates international 

treaty law; (3) a claim that the Postal 

Service discriminates against customers 

with blindness in violation of the 

Rehabilitation Act and 39 U.S.C. 403(c); 

and (4) a claim that the Postal Service 

has committed Constitutional 

violations. Motion to Dismiss at 1–2. 

According to the Postal Service, the 

international treaty, discrimination, and 

Constitutional claims should be 

dismissed because they do not fall 

within the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

Id. at 4–14, 17–20.4 The Postal Service 

states that the claim relating to mail 

classification fails because both logic 

and Congressional intent suggest that 

blind mail need not be its own class. Id. 

at 20–22. 

Complainants respond that the 

Complaint provides adequate legal and 

factual grounds to deny the Motion to 

Dismiss.5 Complainants also argue that 

the Postal Service has refused to confer 

with them and that such a referral 

should result in sanctions against the 

Postal Service.6

III. Commission Analysis 

At present, the determinative issue is 

whether the Complaint raises genuine 

issues of material fact or law within the 

Commission’s jurisdiction. The 

Commission has jurisdiction over 

complaints that meet the statutory 

requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3662(a). 

Within 90 days after receiving a 

complaint under section 3662(a), the 

Commission must either (1) begin 

proceedings on the complaint upon 

finding that such complaint raises 

material issues of fact or law; or (2) 

issue an order dismissing the 

complaint.7 The Commission must issue 

a written statement setting forth the 

bases of its determination. 39 U.S.C. 

3662(b)(1)(B). 

Section 3662(a) permits any interested 

person to file a complaint with the 

Commission if they believe the Postal 

Service is not operating in conformance 

with the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 

chapter 36; 39 U.S.C. 101(d), 401(2), 

403(c), 404a, or 601; or any regulations 

promulgated under any of those 

provisions.8 In turn: section 101(d) 

requires postal rates to be established to 

apportion the costs of all postal 

operations to mail users on a fair and 

equitable basis; section 401(2) permits 

the Postal Service to adopt, amend, and 

repeal rules and regulations not 

inconsistent with title 39 as may be 

necessary to execute its functions under 

title 39 ‘‘and such other functions as 

may be assigned to the Postal Service 

under any provisions of law outside of’’ 

title 39; section 403(c) prohibits the 

Postal Service, except as specifically 

authorized under title 39, from making 

any undue or unreasonable 

discrimination among mail users when 

providing services and establishing 

classifications, rates, and fees until title 

39, as well as granting any undue or 

unreasonable preferences to any mail 

user; section 404a, except as specifically 

authorized by law, prohibits the Postal 

Service from establishing rules or 

regulations that create unfair 

competition; compel the disclosure, 

transfer, or licensing of intellectual 

property to any third party; and offer 

services based on confidential 

information, without consent, unless 

substantially the same information is 

obtainable from an independent source; 

section 601 governs the carriage of 

letters out of the mails. 

Chapter 36 contains provisions in title 

39 relating to rates, classes, and 

services.9 The Commission has 

consistently held that its complaint 

jurisdiction is limited to complaints 

filed against the Postal Service that 

involve alleged violations of these five 

specific sections (or subsections) of title 

39 or the provisions contained in 

chapter 36.10 Lacking jurisdiction over a 

given complaint, the Commission must 

dismiss the complaint.11

A. As a Matter of Law, the Postal Service 

Has No Obligation To Create a 

Standalone Class for Blind Mail 

Complainants allege that the Postal 

Service has ‘‘illegally’’ failed to classify 

blind mail as a separate and distinct 

class of mail. Complaint at 15. In 

response, the Postal Service asserts that 

this allegation fails to state a claim on 

which relief can be granted. Motion to 

Dismiss at 20. The Postal Service argues 

that the purpose of ‘‘classes’’ in the 

pricing system is to administer the price 

cap for market dominant products and 

that, because blind mail is shipped free, 

it is illogical to treat it as a separate 

class. Id. Indeed, the Postal Service 

explains that splitting blind mail into a 

distinct class would make it difficult for 

Congress to reimburse the Postal Service 

because the easiest way to calculate 

reimbursement is ‘‘through reference to 

published rates, which are themselves 

subject to the applicable price cap of the 

underlying analog class.’’ Id. at 20–21. 

Further, the Postal Service notes that 

Congress did not see fit to designate 

blind mail as a separate product offering 

in its initial regulatory structure. Id. at 

21. 

The Commission agrees that 

Complainants have failed to state a 

claim entitling them to relief. Though 

Complainants assert that the Postal 

Service must categorize blind mail as its 

own mail class, they do not identify any 

statute or regulation requiring such 

categorization. See Complaint at 15. As 

such, Complainants fail to affirmatively 

allege that ‘‘the Postal Service is not 

operating in conformance with the 

requirements of the provisions of 

sections 101(d), 401(2), 403(c), 404a, or 

601, or [chapter 39] (or regulations 

promulgated under any of those 

provisions),’’ as required to state a claim 

under section 3662(a). As such, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
76876 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Notices 

12See, e.g., Order No. 6428 at 1 (dismissing 

complaint on grounds that it fails to state a claim 

for which relief can be granted). As mentioned 

above, Complainants maintain that the Postal 

Service’s arguments for dismissal rely on Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12 which, they assert, do not apply to 

Commission proceedings. See Opposition at 4 n.11. 

However, the Commission does not interpret the 

Postal Service’s Motion to Dismiss as being based 

upon that Rule and Complainants have failed to cite 

any specific instances of such reliance. 

13 Docket No. C2023–11, Order Granting Motion 

to Dismiss in Part and Denying Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction, December 19, 2023, at 10 

(Order No. 6880). 

14This interpretation accords with prior 

Commission precedent that the Department of State, 

rather than the Commission, ‘‘is responsible for 

interpreting international law generally and the 

UPU Constitution and Acts specifically.’’ Docket 

No. R2018–1, Order on Price Adjustments for FirstClass Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, Periodicals, 

Package Services, and Special Services Products 

and Related Mail Classification Changes, November 

9, 2017, at 18 (Order No. 4215). 

15 McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 

539 F.3d 485, 489 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Medellin v. 

Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 506 n.3 (2008)). 

16See Motion to Dismiss at 15, n.52 (citing UPU 

Constitution art. 3[2]; UPU General Regulations art. 

154); see also Hye Ja Choi v. United States Postal 

Serv., No. CV 18–00051 SOM/RLP, 2019 WL 

1063363, at *4 (D. Haw. Mar. 6, 2019) (holding that, 

under the Universal Postal Union’s Acts of 

Congress, there is no private right of action for a 

violation). 

17See 39 U.S.C. 3662(a); see also City & Cnty. of 

San Francisco v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. C 09–01964 

JSW, 2009 WL 3756005, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 

2009) (noting that constitutional claims do not fall 

under the Commission’s section 3662 jurisdiction); 

Docket No. C2011–2, Order Addressing Complaint 

and Authorizing Settlement Negotiations, August 

16, 2011, at 3 (Order No. 808) (noting that federal 

court retained constitutional claims while 

dismissing regulatory issues as within the 

Commission’s jurisdiction). 

18Complaint at 17. Complainants do not specify 

what they mean by ‘‘human rights’’ or how they 

differ from the discrimination claims under section 

403(c). Therefore, the Commission will treat both 

the human rights and discrimination claims as 

allegations of violations of section 403(c). 

claim related to the classification of 

blind mail must be dismissed.12

B. The Commission Does Not Have 

Jurisdiction Over the UPC Claims and 

the UPC Does Not Create a Private Right 

of Action 

As explained above, Complainants 

allege that the Postal Service’s treatment 

of blind mail violates the UPC in 

numerous ways (for instance, by 

restricting its definition of who can 

receive free blind mail to exclude 

partially-sighted individuals, by 

restricting the weight for free blind mail, 

and by restricting free blind mail only 

to reading material). See Complaint at 

22–31. In response, the Postal Service 

asserts that the Commission does not 

have jurisdiction to hear allegations that 

the Postal Service has violated 

international treaty law and, moreover, 

that the UPC does not create a private 

right of action for alleged treaty 

violations. Motion to Dismiss at 6. 

Specifically, the Postal Service argues 

that violations of the UPC do not fall 

within the Commission’s jurisdiction 

under section 401(2) (specifying that the 

Postal Service may adopt rules ‘‘not 

inconsistent with [title 39]’’) because the 

UPC is not affirmatively codified in title 

39; rather, the statutes related to blind 

mail in title 39 are consistent with the 

rules laid out in the IMM. Id. at 5–14. 

The Postal Service is correct that 

Complainants have not alleged any 

violations of section 401(2) (or 

otherwise) sufficient to raise 

Commission jurisdiction over its UPC 

Claims. As the Commission has 

previously stated, a claim falls within 

section 401(2) ‘‘only if the Postal 

Service adopted, amended, or repealed 

rules or regulations inconsistent with 

title 39.’’ Order No. 2377 at 6. ‘‘Section 

401(2) is not a ‘catch all’ provision over 

which the Commission enjoys unlimited 

jurisdiction pursuant to 39 U.S.C. [] 

3662(a).’’ 13 Here, Complainants alleged 

that the Postal Service violated the 

UPC—a separate and distinct set of rules 

not captured by section 401(2). As such, 

the Commission does not have 

jurisdiction to hear the UPC claims.14

Even assuming for the sake of 

argument that the Commission could 

appropriately hear the UPC claims, they 

would necessarily fail because the UPC 

provides no private right of action for its 

violation. Unless the text of an 

international treaty explicitly states 

otherwise, the presumption is that 

‘‘international agreements, even those 

directly benefiting private persons, 

generally do not create private rights or 

provide for a private cause of action in 

domestic courts.’’ 15 Here, nothing in the 

text of the UPC provides for a cause of 

action in favor of private citizens. On 

the contrary, as the Postal Service notes, 

the Universal Postal Union (UPU) 

instead contemplates resolution 

disputes between countries (the parties 

to the UPU itself).16 As such, 

Complainants do not have the ability to 

bring a cause of action to the 

Commission for an alleged Postal 

Service violation of the UPC. 

C. The Discrimination and 

Constitutional Claims Fail for Lack of 

Jurisdiction 

1. Constitutional Claims 

Complainants assert that the Postal 

Service is infringing on their First and 

Fourth Amendment rights by 

prohibiting free blind mail from 

containing advertisements or being used 

for ‘‘a profit-making transaction’’ and by 

opening blind mail to determine its 

eligibility. Complaint at 19–21. In 

response, the Postal Service asserts that 

nonconformance with the U.S. 

Constitution is not a basis for 

Commission jurisdiction under section 

3662 and, as such, the Commission 

lacks jurisdiction to hear the 

Complainants’ Constitutional claims. As 

previously discussed, the Postal Service 

is correct in noting that Commission 

jurisdiction is constrained to the five 

specific sections (or subsections) of title 

39 enumerated in section 3662 and that 

Constitutional violations are not 

included therein.17 As such, 

Complainants’ First and Fourth 

Amendment claims must be dismissed. 

2. Discrimination Claims 

Complainants also assert that all of 

their allegations constitute ‘‘human 

rights and disability discrimination’’ in 

violation of section 403(c) and the 

Rehabilitation Act.18 However, 

according to the Postal Service, the 

Complainants’ allegations of disability 

discrimination also fail for lack of 

Commission jurisdiction. Motion to 

Dismiss at 17. Specifically, the Postal 

Service notes that the Complainants 

bring their discrimination claims under 

the Rehabilitation Act, but states that 

the Commission has already held that 

such claims are not proper under 

section 3662(a). Id. at 17–18. Further, 

the Postal Service asserts that 

Complainants have not properly alleged 

a claim of discrimination sufficient to 

invoke jurisdiction under 39 U.S.C. 

403(c). Id. at 18. 

In terms of the Rehabilitation Act 

claim, the Postal Service is correct that 

the Commission does not have 

jurisdiction to hear such claims. In 

Docket No. C2023–11, the Commission 

previously analyzed allegations that the 

Postal Service had violated the 

Rehabilitation Act by discriminating 

against a postal user based on her 

disability. See Order No. 6880 at 10. The 

Commission noted that ‘‘the 

Commission’s complaint jurisdiction is 

limited to hearing allegations that the 

Postal Service is not operating in 

conformance with the requirements of 

39 U.S.C. chapter 36’’ and that ‘‘claims 

related to . . . discrimination 

prohibited by 29 U.S.C. [] 701 et seq. 

[the Rehabilitation Act] . . . are alleged 

violations of statutes not specifically 

enumerated in 39 U.S.C. [] 3662(a).’’ Id. 

Therefore, the Commission dismissed 

such claims. Id. Likewise, the 

Commission does not have jurisdiction 

to hear Complainants’ allegations that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Notices 76877 

19The Postal Service does not appear to argue 

that section 403(c) is inapplicable to issues of 

international law. Indeed, the Postal Service has 

previously stated that ‘‘39 U.S.C[.] 403(c), which 

provides that rates may not be unduly or 

unreasonably discriminatory or preferential,’’ is one 

of the criteria ‘‘that govern the Postal Service’s 

international rate setting authority.’’ 

Implementation of International Customized Mail 

Service, 57 FR 30651–52, July 10, 1992. Similarly, 

the Commission, in advising the Department of 

State related to changes made to the Acts of the 

UPU, previously explained that section 403(c) 

would apply to rates that did not ‘‘fairly apportion 

costs’’ and thus ‘‘grant preferences to . . . foreign 

mailers’’ over domestic ones. Letter from Chairman 

Dan G. Blair to Deputy Assistant Secretary Gerald 

C. Anderson, June 30, 2008, at 2 (attached as exhibit 

to Opposition). 

20 Docket No. R2018–1, U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce Comments on the United States Postal 

Service Notice of Market-Dominant Price 

Adjustment, October 26, 2017, at 2–11. 

21The Postal Service points out that significant 

procedural issues are created when a complainant 

submits multiple errata and addenda to their 

original complaint, rather than file an amended 

complaint. See United States Postal Service 

Response to Complainants’ (1) Notice and Motion 

Requesting Leave to File ‘‘Errata and Addenda’’ to 

the Complaint and (2) Notice and Motion 

Requesting Leave to File ‘‘Second Addendum, July 

8, 2024, at 2–3 (Response to Motions for Leave). The 

Commission appreciates the Postal Service’s 

position regarding this issue. Within the Response 

to Motions for Leave, the Postal Service also states 

that, should the Motion to Dismiss be denied, ‘‘the 

Postal Service requests that the Commission require 

that Complainants first seek the Commission’s leave 

and, if granted, that all of the allegations and claims 

from the original complaint, the Errata and 

Addenda, the Second Addendum, and any new 

matter be consolidated into a single, consolidated, 

superseding, amended complaint.’’ Response to 

Motions for Leave at 4. Accordingly, going forward 

the Commission and all parties to this matter shall 

treat the allegations made in the original complaint 

and the subsequent errata and first and second 

addenda as a consolidated, superseding, amended 

complaint. 

the Postal Service violated the 

Rehabilitation Act and thus such a 

claim must be dismissed. 

However, Complainants’ 

discrimination claim under 39 U.S.C. 

403(c) must be analyzed differently. 

Citing to the Commission’s decision in 

Docket No. C2020–2, the Postal Service 

correctly notes that in order to state a 

claim for violation of 39 U.S.C. 403(c), 

a complainant must allege that ‘‘(1) the 

complainant is receiving less favorable 

services than those provided to one or 

more other postal customers, (2) the 

complainant is similarly situated to 

those postal customers receiving more 

favorable service, and (3) there is no 

rational or legitimate basis for denying 

the complainant the more favorable 

service currently being provided to 

those similarly situated postal 

customers.’’ Motion to Dismiss at 18 

(citing Order No. 6880 at 13–14). In 

turn, the Postal Service asserts that: 

the FMFTB regulations confer benefits in 

favor of ‘blind and other handicapped 

persons’ relative to the rest of the mailer 

population. The allegation that Complainants 

cannot send or receive advertisements free of 

charge just like all other mail users 

effectively defeats a section 403(c) claim 

since Complainants admit that they are not 

receiving less favorable services. 

Id. n.66. 

The Postal Service is correct that, had 

Complainants alleged that blind mailers 

are being discriminated against in 

relation to the larger mailing population 

as a whole, such a claim would 

necessarily fail. However, taken in the 

light most favorable to them, 

Complainants’ allegations are instead 

that blind mail users outside of the 

United States are subject to less 

favorable (i.e., more expensive) services 

than those located inside the United 

States (and that such treatment is 

illegitimate). See Complaint at 11, 13. 

For instance, the Complainants allege 

that, based on the IMM, they were 

prevented from using free blind mail to 

send and receive repaired canes from 

their U.S.-based manufacturer—a 

service they would have been able to 

take advantage of had they been located 

in the United States. Id. at 11. Similarly, 

they explain that if they ‘‘want 

something new, unusual, or bespoke, 

which [they] could get shipped to 

[them] for free in the US (and which the 

UPC requires be shipped to [them] for 

free in the UK too), [they] can’t get it at 

all (or not without layers of 

intermediation, months of delay, and 

substantially increased costs).’’ Id. at 13. 

Therefore, Complainants have raised 

plausible allegations that the Postal 

Service has implemented rates that 

unfairly discriminate against foreign 

blind mailers.19

This conclusion conforms with 

previous Commission precedent. In 

Docket No. R2018–1—a general Market 

Dominant rate case—the Chamber of 

Commerce argued that by setting 

mailing rates lower for foreign mailers 

than for American mailers, the Postal 

Service was violating section 403(c) by 

unreasonably discriminating against 

American mailers.20 The Commission 

determined that such concerns should 

instead be brought ‘‘under section 

3662(a) of title 39 of the United States 

Code, which provides that any 

interested person who believes that the 

Postal Service is not operating in 

conformance with section 403(c) may 

lodge a complaint with the Commission 

in such form or manner that the 

Commission prescribes.’’ Order No. 

4215 at 18. Here, Complainants have in 

fact brought their claims that the Postal 

Service is unfairly discriminating 

against them based on country of 

residence properly in a section 3662(a) 

proceeding. 

The Postal Service may very well 

have a rational reason for treating 

international mailers differently than 

domestic mailers in terms of blind mail, 

but that is a material issue of fact not 

before the Commission on a motion to 

dismiss. At this juncture, the Complaint 

has raised a genuine issue of material 

fact and law—namely, whether the 

Postal Service’s treatment of blind mail 

unreasonably discriminates against 

foreign mailers in violation of section 

403(c).21 As such, the Commission shall 

begin proceedings on the Complaint. 

See 39 U.S.C. 3662(b)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant 

to 39 CFR 3022.12(b) and 3022.14, the 

Postal Service is directed to file an 

answer to Complainants’ Complaint, 

‘‘Errata & Addenda,’’ and Second 

Addendum (consolidated as one 

superseding, amended complaint) 

within 10 days of this Order. 

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.106, the 

Commission appoints Joseph K. Press to 

serve as presiding officer to ascertain 

the outstanding issues of material fact 

and law in this matter. Parties may 

request that the presiding officer obtain 

specific discovery but may not 

independently propound discovery. The 

presiding officer shall examine the 

disputed issues identified above and 

provide a public, written intermediate 

decision including findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on the issues raised 

in this proceeding. 39 CFR 3010.335. 

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3022.30(c), John 

Avila is designated as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission finds that the 

Complaint regarding blind mail, filed 

June 17, 2024, raises material issues of 

fact. 

2. The United States Postal Service’s 

Motion to Dismiss, filed July 8, 2024, is 

granted on all grounds except for the 

claim related to the alleged violation of 

39 U.S.C. 403(c) as enumerated above. 

3. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3022.12(b) and 

3022.14, the Postal Service is directed to 

file an answer to Complainants’ 

Complaint, ‘‘Errata & Addenda,’’ and 

Second Addendum (consolidated as one 

superseding, amended complaint) 

within 10 days of this Order. 

4. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.106, the 

Commission appoints Joseph K. Press as 

a presiding officer in this proceeding. 

5. Parties may request that the 

presiding officer obtain specific 

discovery but may not independently 

propound discovery. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
76878 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2024 / Notices 

6. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3022.30(c), 

John Avila is designated as an officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

7. The presiding officer shall, 

pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.335, provide a 

public written intermediate decision 

including findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on the issues raised 

in this proceeding. 

8. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21271 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail 

Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 

Ground Advantage® Negotiated 

Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of required notice: 

September 19, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean C. Robinson, 202–268–8405. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 4, 

2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission a USPS Request to Add 

Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 

USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 292 

to Competitive Product List. Documents 

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket 

Nos. MC2024–611, CP2024–619. 

Sean C. Robinson, 

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21305 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail and 

USPS Ground Advantage® Negotiated 

Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of required notice: 

September 19, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Robinson, 202–268–8405. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 

2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission a USPS Request to Add 

Priority Mail & USPS Ground 

Advantage® Contract 339 to 

Competitive Product List. Documents 

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket 

Nos. MC2024–646, CP2024–655. 

Sean Robinson, 

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21356 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail and 

USPS Ground Advantage® Negotiated 

Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of required notice: 

September 19, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Robinson, 202–268–8405. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 

2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission a USPS Request to Add 

Priority Mail & USPS Ground 

Advantage® Contract 349 to 

Competitive Product List. Documents 

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket 

Nos. MC2024–682, CP2024–691. 

Sean Robinson, 

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21383 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail and 

USPS Ground Advantage® Negotiated 

Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of required notice: 

September 19, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Robinson, 202–268–8405. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 9, 

2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission a USPS Request to Add 

Priority Mail & USPS Ground 

Advantage® Contract 337 to 

Competitive Product List. Documents 

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket 

Nos. MC2024–641, CP2024–650. 

Sean Robinson, 

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. 

[FR Doc. 2024–21328 Filed 9–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail 

Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 

Ground Advantage® Negotiated 

Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of required notice: 

September 19, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean C. Robinson, 202–268–8405. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 

2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission a USPS Request to Add 

Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & 

USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 337 

to Competitive Product List. Documents 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1