[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57630-57631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19707]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. MC2004-3; Order No. 1444]


Petition To Reopen Record

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Notice and order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that a petition 
seeking to reopen the record in the Commission's pending 
reconsideration of the Bank One negotiated service agreement has been 
filed. It notes that the petition, if granted, could expand the scope 
of reconsideration. It also notes that a companion notice of inquiry 
has been issued and identifies several new or revised comment 
deadlines.

DATES: 1. October 14, 2005: Deadline for filing comments to Notice of 
Inquiry No. 1.
    2. October 24, 2005: Deadline for reply comments to Notice of 
Inquiry No. 1.
    3. October 31, 2005: Revised deadline for participants to reply to 
Petition of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. to Reopen Record (previously 
September 29, 2005).

ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing 
Online system at http://www.prc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel, 
at 202-789-6818.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Procedural History

    69 FR 39520 (June 30, 2004).
    69 FR 41311 (July 8, 2004).
    70 FR 13551 (March 21, 2005).

II. Background

    On September 14, 2005, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (Chase) filed a 
petition to reopen the record in this docket so that it can provide 
supplemental information for the Commission's reconsideration of the 
Bank One Opinion and Recommended Decision Approving Negotiated Service 
Agreement issued December 17, 2004.\1\ Chase argues that it has been 
denied due process, and unless it has a timely opportunity to 
supplement the record, a profound injustice will result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petition of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. to Reopen Record, 
September 14, 2005 (Chase Petition). Bank One Corporation, the 
original party in this case, merged with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. on 
July 1, 2004. The merged entity now refers to itself as J.P. Morgan 
Chase & Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission grants the Chase Petition, issues potentially may 
be considered related to negotiated service agreements based solely on 
pure volume-based discounts. These novel issues may not have been fully 
considered or litigated under the original Bank One Request.\2\ The 
Bank One Request was filed as a request to consider a negotiated 
service agreement functionally equivalent to the Capital One negotiated 
service agreement based on a declining block rate volume discount 
element and an address correction cost savings element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Request of the United States Postal Service for a 
Recommended Decision on Classifications, Rates and Fees to Implement 
Functionally Equivalent Negotiated Service Agreement with Bank One 
Corporation, June 21, 2004 (Bank One Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 27, 2005, the Commission issued Notice of Inquiry No. 
1 Regarding Status of Settlement Agreement (NOI) seeking comments as to 
the status of the settlement agreement signed by a majority of the 
participants in the Bank One case, and seeking further background 
information

[[Page 57631]]

necessary to evaluate the Chase Petition. Two of the questions posed in 
the NOI, pertaining to adequacy of notice, and to the use of the Bank 
One record for setting standards for negotiated service agreements 
predicated on pure volume-based discounts, may be of interest to 
interested persons who have not intervened in the Bank One case. The 
Commission invites both participants and interested persons who have 
not intervened in the Bank One case to comment on these or any other 
questions posed in the NOI. Comments may be submitted on or before 
October 14, 2005. Reply comments may be submitted on or before October 
24, 2005.
    NOI questions 6 and 7 may be of interest to interested persons who 
have not intervened in the Bank One case, and are repeated below.
    NOI question 6: The Commission has noted, in PRC Order No. 1443, 
that adequacy of notice is an extremely important issue especially 
where a request has been filed under expedited rules for functionally 
equivalent agreements. The functionally equivalent rules are meant to 
send a clear signal that no new major issues are present in the 
request. Reopening the record opens the possibility for consideration 
of novel issues related to pure volume-based discount negotiated 
service agreements. Interested persons who have not intervened in this 
docket potentially may allege that inadequate notice has been provided 
to alert them to the existence of novel and precedent setting issues. 
How should the Commission view this potential problem, and what 
possible steps can the Commission take to alleviate this situation?
    NOI question 7: The Bank One negotiated service agreement is based 
on a declining block rate volume discount element and an address 
correction cost savings element. The Bank One negotiated service 
agreement request was filed as an agreement functionally equivalent to 
the Capital One negotiated service agreement, which also included 
volume discount and cost savings elements. The Bank One record was 
developed considering both elements. Reopening the Bank One record 
potentially will lead to the consideration of issues directly related 
to negotiated service agreements based solely on pure volume-based 
discounts. Given this potential, both participants and interested 
persons who have not intervened in this docket are invited to comment 
on the use of the Bank One docket to potentially decide issues related 
to negotiated service agreements based solely on pure volume-based 
discounts.

IV. Revised Deadline for Comments on Chase Petition

    Presiding Officer's Ruling Granting the Postal Service Motion for a 
Stay and Establishing a Date for Replies to the J.P. Morgan Chase 
Petition was issued on September 15, 2005 (P.O. Ruling No. MC2004-3/9). 
This ruling established a September 29, 2005 date for participants to 
provide responses to the Chase Petition. It also stayed previously 
scheduled dates for comments and reply comments in regard to the 
Commission's reconsideration of the Bank One decision. In light of the 
Commission's need to obtain more information before issuing a ruling on 
the Chase Petition, the date for responses to the Chase Petition shall 
be extended until October 31, 2005.
    The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and 
order in the Federal Register.

III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:
    1. Comments in response to Notice of Inquiry No. 1 Regarding Status 
of Settlement Agreement, issued September 27, 2005, may be submitted on 
or before October 14, 2005. Reply comments may be submitted on or 
before October 24, 2005. Interested persons who have chosen not to 
intervene in the Bank One case also are invited to provide comments.
    2. The date for participants to reply to the Petition of J.P. 
Morgan Chase & Co. to Reopen Record previously established by P.O. 
Ruling No. MC2004-3/9 shall be extended until October 31, 2005.
    3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and 
order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19707 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P