Postal Service responses. The Postal Service presents several arguments in response to its opponents. it argues that it is not contesting the Court’s decision to uphold the Commission’s decision to make the Postal Service’s “ability to adjust” part of the “new normal” framework. Postal Service Reply Comments at 8. Rather, the Postal Service claims it is raising a “factual question…different in kind from the issue the court addressed.” Id. It disavows “contesting that framework here, but is instead disputing the factual finding under one prong of the framework….” Id. The Postal Service also “disagree[s] with the Court that the issue was not squarely presented on appeal…” citing a number of pages from its appellate briefs. Id. at 9. It asserts that the Court’s opinion does not preclude the Commission from considering the “ability to adjust” issue on remand; that administrative agencies necessarily have the power to address issues identified by courts; and that under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission has a duty to consider a “critical factual question” or to explain why it believes no inconsistency exists. Id. at 10-13. Finally, the Postal Service suggests that if more time is needed to resolve the alleged inconsistency, the Commission could bifurcate the remand proceeding. Id. at 14. The Postal Service states that this should allow sufficient time for a decision on the “ability to adjust” issue before the estimated deadline for removing the surcharge arrives during FY 2016. Id. Commission Analysis In this section, the Commission declines to revisit the “new normal” analysis in Order No. 1926 that was affirmed by the ANM Court. The Postal Service has not identified any newly available evidence or other basis for reopening the issue at this late stage of the proceedings. The Commission declines to revise the “new normal” analysis of Order No. 1926 and make the adjustments to the “new normal” cutoff for each class of market dominant mail as advocated by the Postal Service.
[T]he Commission acted well within its discretion in concluding that the “due to” test is concerned with determining the extent of the impact of an extraordinary or exceptional past event. The “reasonable and equitable and necessary” test, by contrast, applies only after exigent causation for a loss has been established and turns on the Postal Service’s current need to get back on its feet in the wake of the now-defined exigency. More specifically, the “reasonable and equitable and necessary” test looks to present conditions to determine what the Postal Service requires “to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.” ANM at *6. The Postal Service’s argument that the “due to” and “necessary” analyses in Order No. 1926 are inconsistent does not account for the fact that the “necessary” analysis is distinct from and subordinate to the “due to” analysis. In fact, in Order No. 1926, the Commission clearly delineated the difference between the two inquiries, stating that “[q]uantification of...volume losses is independent of how the Postal Service has reacted to the volume loss in terms of shedding mail capacity or how it should adjust its network to the new normal, although those factors might be relevant to the ‘necessary’ analysis.” Order No. 1926 at 98. Turning to the alleged inconsistency itself, as part of No. 1926’s “necessary” analysis, the Commission addressed section 3622(d)(1)(E)’s “best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management” standard. In conjunction with that analysis, the Commission acknowledged that “the unique framework within which the Postal Service must operate is a relevant consideration in determining what constitutes best practices.” Id. at 127. As such, the Commission found that because the Postal Service “is charged with providing postal services as a public service,” the “best practices” standard “means something more than attempting to maximize retained earnings.” Id. For example, concerning its ability to cut costs, the Commission acknowledged that “[u]nlike a private enterprise, the Postal Service must consider the impact of its cost-cutting activities on its ability to continue to provide postal services consistent with the policies of title 39….” Id. at 131. The Commission’s recognition of the limitations and obligations the law imposes
Association, Envelope Manufacturers Association, EpiComm, Major Mailers Association, National Newspaper Association and Saturation Mailers Coalition (PostCom et al.) Mailers, Direct Marketing Association, Inc., American Catalog Mailers Association, Envelope Manufacturers Association, EpiComm, Major Mailers Association, National Newspaper Association and Saturation Mailers Coalition on Remand (PostCom et al. Reply Comments) Greeting Card Association and the National Postal Policy Council (GCA/NPPC) Comments of the Greeting Card Association and the National Postal Policy Council (GCA/NPPC Comments) June 26, 2015 Greeting Card Association and the National Postal Policy Council (GCA/NPPC) Reply Comments of the Greeting Card Association and the National Postal Policy Council (GCA/NPPC Comments) July 6, 2015 Greeting Card Association and the National Postal Policy Council (GCA/NPPC) Greeting Card Association and National Postal Policy Council Notice of Filing of Library Reference (Library Reference GCA/NPPC-LR1 R2013-11R) July 6, 2015 National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC) Initial Comment of the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC Comments) June 24, 2015 National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC) Reply Comment of the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC Comments) July 6, 2015 Newspaper Association of America (NAA) Reply Comments of the Newspaper Association of America (NAA Reply Comments) July 6, 2015
Public Representative (PR) Public Representative Comments Concerning Methodological Approach for Accounting for Volume Losses Due to the Recession (PR Comments) June 26, 2015 Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) Comments of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA Reply Comments) July 7, 2015 United States Postal Service (Postal Service) Initial Comments of the United States Postal Service in Response to Commission Order No. 2540 (Postal Service Comments) June 26, 2015 United States Postal Service (Postal Service) Reply Comments of the United States Postal Service in Response to Commission Order No. 2540 (Postal Service Comments) July 6, 2015 Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. (Valpak) Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. Initial Comments in Response to Order No. 2540 (Valpak Comments) June 26, 2015 Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. (Valpak) Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. Reply Comments in Response to Order No. 2540 (Valpak Reply Comments) July 6, 2015 Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. (Valpak) Reply Comments Tables.xlsx (Valpak July 6, 2015