The US Postal Service yesterday filed its reply brief in the END Plant Consolidation case being considered by the Postal Rate Commission. The agency repeated its contention that “The Commission is not tasked by § 3661 to second-guess the judgment of postal management in proposing the service changes in question. Nor is it the Commission’s task under § 3661 to determine whether some alternative objectives would be “better” for the Postal Service to pursue.”, and argued that any opinion the PRC renders will be “advisory only”.

Best line in the brief has to be the footnote on page 3. After pointing out the many layers of existing oversight the USPS operates under, the brief notes that ‘At page 74, the OCA [Office of the Consumer Advocate] refers to a need for “continued surveillance” of postal management.’ The footnote asks “Can postal rendition be far behind?”

USPS N2006-1 Reply Brief
USPS N2006-1 Initial Brief
Complete Listing of Briefs filed

This entry was posted on Friday, October 27th, 2006 at 6:31 am and is filed under PRC, plant consolidations, postal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.