[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76874-76878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21271]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Complaint 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.
    \2\ See 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 Sec.  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.
    \3\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 76875]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Postal Service also states that Complainants have no 
private right of action under the UPC. Id. at 14-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Opposition 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.
    \6\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \11\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 76876]]

claim related to the classification of blind mail must be 
dismissed.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \14\ This 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 First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, 
Periodicals, Package Services, and Special Services Products and 
Related Mail Classification Changes, November 9, 2017, at 18 (Order 
No. 4215).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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)).
    \16\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Complaint 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 76877]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 76878]]

    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