ASSOC. THIRD CLASS MAIL USERS v. US POST. SERV., Civ. A. No. 75-1809.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-1809. |
| Citation | 405 F. Supp. 1109 |
| Parties | ASSOCIATED THIRD CLASS MAIL USERS, Plaintiff, and National Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
J. Edward Day, William F. Taylor, Cox, Langford & Brown, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Kenneth Wells Parkinson, Nicholas S. McConnell, Jackson, Parkinson & Jackson, Washington, D.C., for intervenor.
Paul M. Tschirhart, Asst. U. S. Atty., Eugene R. Sullivan, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants.
The parties in the above entitled matter are presently before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. They have submitted memoranda in support of their respective motions and have orally presented their positions in open court.
Plaintiff Associated Third Class Mail Users (hereafter "ATCMU") is a non-profit organization, organized under the corporation laws of the District of Columbia for the purpose of improving the use of third-class mail for its members. Plaintiff-intervenor National Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults (hereafter "Easter Seals") is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio for the purpose of providing a program of direct service, education and research for physically handicapped persons.
Defendant United States Postal Service (hereafter "Postal Service") is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the government, created by statute by Congress to provide postal services for the United States of America. Defendant Postal Rate Commission (hereafter "Rate Commission") is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the government of the United States, created by act of Congress. Defendants Clyde S. DuPont (Chairman), Paul A. Miltich, Kieran O'Doherty, Frank P. Saponaro, and Carlos C. Villarreal are members of the Rate Commission.
On September 4, 1975, a meeting of the Board of Governors of the Postal Service (hereafter "Board") was held. At that meeting the Board was advised by the Assistant Postmasters for Finance and for Rates and Classification that projections of revenues and expenses for fiscal year 1976 showed that the Postal Service would be faced with a deficit if postal rates remained at the current levels.
The Board was further advised that extensive preparation was necessary to permit a filing of a rate request with the Rate Commission in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice; that such preparation had been going on for several months; that significant adjustments would have to be made to what had already been prepared as a result of the latest guidelines issued in the Rate Commission's opinion of August 28, 1975; but that the general outline of what the postal management considered to be appropriate adjustments to the various postal rates was reasonably clear. Specific dollar amounts for the proposed increases for the various classes of mail were not presented to the Board at that meeting. After this presentation by postal officials, the Board directed the Postal Service to complete its preparation of the request and file it with the Rate Commission no later than September 19, 1975. The Postal Service submitted the request for proposed rate increases with the Rate Commission on September 18, 1975.
Also at the meeting of September 4, 1975, the Board discussed the level of fees for various other services, and agreed that the Postal Service should increase these fees as soon as reasonably possible. Based upon this determination by the Board, on September 19, 1975, the Postal Service published a notice in the Federal Register, soliciting comments on proposed increases in fees for these services.
Subsequent to the meeting of the Board on September 4, 1975, the Postal Service announced that it would place into effect new "temporary" postal rate increases as of December 28, 1975, and new fees for various other services to become effective on January 3, 1976.
Plaintiff ATCMU challenges the proposed imposition of the new "temporary" rates, contending that such imposition would be illegal. ATCMU alleges that the purported "request" of the Board filed with the Rate Commission on September 18, 1975, is invalid since the Board failed to approve the request as required by the Postal Reorganization Act and the Rules of the Board. Since, plaintiff contends, a valid request having been made to the Commission is a condition precedent to the imposition of temporary changes in postal rates, and there being no valid request before the Commission at this time, the imposition of temporary rates would be illegal.
Plaintiffs ATCMU and Easter Seals assert that the proposed January 3, 1976 imposition of increased fees for various other services would also be illegal. Plaintiffs contend that it is illegal for the Postal Service to increase fees for special and other services without complying with the procedures set out in Chapter 36 of the Postal Reorganization Act. In particular, plaintiffs state that the Postal Service may not increase such fees without first requesting a recommended decision from the Rate Commission. Since it is uncontested that the Postal Service did not request such a recommendation in this case, plaintiffs argue that the new increases may not legally be imposed.
The first issue, the legality of the temporary rates scheduled to go into effect on December 28, 1975, centers on plaintiff's contention that the rate request submitted by the Postal Service to the Rate Commission on September 18, 1975, was invalid.
It is clear to the Court from a careful reading of the Act that both the authority and the power to request recommendations for changes in postal rates lies with the Board of Governors, and no one else.
Section 202 of the Act, entitled "Board of Governors" states, "(a) The exercise of the power of the Postal Service shall be directed by the Board of Governors . . .." (emphasis added). This section takes on more specific relevance to the instant case when read with Chapter 4 of the Act which delineates the general authority of the Postal Service which the Board is charged with directing. Specifically Section 404 reads, in pertinent part:
In Chapter 36 of the Act we find even more specific language indicating that the Board is charged with the duty to direct the rate-making process and to request recommended decisions from the Rate Commission:
Thus, reading these sections of the Act in relation to each other, §§ 202, 404(2), 3621 and 3622(a), it is apparent, absent a proper delegation of its authority to another party or parties in accordance with the provisions of the statute, that the Board, in directing the exercise of power of the Postal Service, has the sole authority to request a recommended decision from the Rate Commission.
Although there is a general delegation of authority provided in the Act, § 402, which provides that the Board may delegate the authority vested in it to the Postmaster General, it is clear that such a delegation is not applicable in the instant case. The Board, although delegating some power to the Postmaster General through its By-Laws (39 C.F.R. § 3.9), has certainly withheld any delegation of its authority to request recommended decisions by the Commission. The Operating Procedures adopted by the Board provide, in pertinent part:
From this analysis it is obvious that the Board, and they alone, retain the authority to request recommended decisions from the Rate Commission. There is nothing in either the statute or the Board's rules which relieves it of this responsibility.
This being the case, the critical question is whether the Board made a proper, valid, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. U.S. Postal Service
...against State of Maine. 105 On December 19 the Board convened a special meeting to take action in response to the injunction entered in the ATCMU case. After reviewing the "specific rates and fees to be requested" as well as "full supporting data and documentation," the Board directed the P......
-
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. US Postal Service
...604 F.2d 1370 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 2929, 64 L.Ed.2d 815 (1980); Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Service, 405 F.Supp. 1109 (D.D.C.1975), aff'd sub nom., National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service, 569 ......
-
Morris v. Runyon, Civ. A. No. 94-2098 (GK).
...that the absence of a comma between "special" and "nonpostal" was inadvertent. See, e.g., Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Service, 405 F.Supp. 1109, 1117 n. 2 (D.D.C.1975), aff'd, National Ass'n of Greeting Card Publishers v. United States Postal Service, 569 F.2d ......
-
Associated Third Class Mail Users v. U.S. Postal Service
...as now amended, 39 U.S.C.A. §§ 3621-3627 (1978 Supp.).6 See 39 U.S.C. § 3641 (1976).7 See Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Serv., 405 F.Supp. 1109, 1111 (D.D.C.1975).8 Id. at 1111-1118.9 Associated Third Class Mail Users v. United States Postal Serv., No. 75-2227 (D......