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 to adjust” part of “ability the normal” framework. Postal Service Reply Comments at 8. Rather, the Postal “new Service claims it is raising a question…different in kind from the issue the court “factual addressed.” Id. It disavows that framework here, but is instead disputing “contesting the factual finding under one prong of the framework….” Id. The Postal Service also with the Court that the issue was not “disagree[s] 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 to adjust” issue on remand; that administrative agencies “ability 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 factual “critical 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 to adjust” issue before the estimated deadline for removing the surcharge “ability arrives during FY 2016. Id. Commission Analysis In this section, the Commission declines to revisit the normal” analysis in “new 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 normal” analysis “new of Order No. 1926 and make the adjustments to the normal” cutoff for each class “new of market dominant mail as advocated by the Postal Service.
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.
Order%20No.%202623.docx