Today we filed comments on behalf of Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Franchise Association with the Postal Regulatory Commission (“PRC”). These comments related to the Postal Service’s Annual Compliance Report, filed each year. After considering those comments, the PRC issues its Annual Compliance Determination, which is expected by the end of March 2017.
On behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, we filed Initial Comments in Postal Regulatory Commission Docket No. PI2008 4 requesting that the Commission make no change to the cooperative mail rule (CMR) in the Postal Service’s regulations that was revised by the Postal Service in 2003. The Commission is reviewing the CMR pursuant to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. 109 435, Section 711. FSC supports the Postal Service’s 2003 change to the CMR that created a fundraising exception which enables nonprofits to use nonprofit Standard Mail postage rates without unnecessary burdens imposed by the Postal Service.
Today, on behalf of Gun Owners of American and Gun Owners Foundation, we filed comments opposing the United States Postal Service’s “Proposed New Standards Prohibit the Mailing of Replica or Inert Munitions.” (See 73 Fed. Reg. 12321.) The new rule proposes to declare nonmailable “[r]eplica or inert munitions.”
On behalf of the Association of Priority Mail Users, Inc., our firm filed Comments on Regulations Establishing a System of Ratemaking (PRC Docket No. RM2007-1) in response to Postal Regulatory Commission Order No. 26. This is the fourth filing of comments by APMU in this most important docket. We are attempting to fend off efforts to impose too high an overhead burden on competitive products, including Priority Mail.
On behalf of the Association of Priority Mail Users, Inc., our firm filed reply comments in Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) Docket No. RM2007-1 in response to PRC Order No. 15. The APMU comments respond to the UPS comments filed on June 18, 2007, in which UPS suggested that the PRC require that competitive products recover an additional amount above attributable and above institutional costs to account for the Postal Service’s “advantages.” APMU is opposed to any surcharge on competitive products.
On behalf of the Association of Priority Mail Users, Inc., our firm filed comments with the Postal Regulatory Commission in Docket No. RM2007-1 opposing either the attribution or assignment of assumed federal income taxes to specific competitive products and urging that they be treated as institutional costs of the Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (“PAEA”), P.L. 109-435 requires that assumed federal taxes on “competitive products” be calculated and paid annually into a fund to benefit “market dominant products.”
On behalf of the Association of Priority Mail Users, Inc., our firm filed comments with the Postal Regulatory Commission addressing some of the problems associated with implementing the new Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (“PAEA”), P.L. 109-435, which changes the manner in which rates are set for Priority Mail and other types of mail now classified by Congress as “competitive products.”
We filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Citizens United Foundation, and Downsize DC Foundation in support of United Seniors Association’s (USA) petition for a writ of certiorari.
Our firm submitted comments to the U.S. Postal Service regarding its five-year strategic plan, on behalf of the Coalition for Postal Worksharing, suggesting that, as part of the Postal Service’s long-term strategic planning, it should set a course aimed toward eliminating the current overcharging of workshared mail to the benefit of nonworkshared mail.
Our firm submitted final comments to the President’s Commission on the U.S. Postal Service, on behalf of the Coalition for Postal Worksharing, urging the Commission to endorse worksharing and private sector competition by: (i) requiring the Postal Service to charge separate rates for workshared services that are sufficient to cover the cost of providing those services; and (ii) subjecting the Postal Service to the laws that govern competition in the private sector.
Our firm submitted comments to the President’s Commission on the U.S. Postal Service, on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc., addressing (i) the Postal Service’s belief that it is the final authority with respect to most of its administrative decisions, refusing to have those decisions reviewed by anyone, even by a federal court, and (ii) the danger of granting governmental powers to an agency that is not under the authority of the President of the United States.
Our firm filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Free Speech Defense and Education Fund focusing on the lack of procedural due process that inexorably attaches to the Postal Service’s interpretation of 39 U.S.C. section 3626(j)(1)(B) that its decisions as to who can mail what at nonprofit rates are not reviewable in federal court. Our constitutional analysis supplies the court with an additional reason for construing 39 U.S.C. section 410(a) narrowly.