<<  <  >  >>

The new regula-

engage in such questionable policies. For

vate companies already observe. That pro-

example, the USPS is not subject to Title 5,

posed legislation would allow citizens who

tions on CMRAs

chapter 7 of the U.S. Code, which grants citi-

believe postal regulations are unfair to take

and private box

zens an appeal process for actions that are

complaints to a reconstituted Postal Rate

holders constitute

"arbitrary and capricious."

Commission, which could issue binding rul-

In addition, the Postal Service does not

ings. In the case of private mailboxes, the com-

an unwarranted

have to observe the Paperwork Reduction Act,

mission might rule that the Postal Service

invasion of

which was enacted in 1995 as a means to cut

must subject its own P.O. boxes to the same

privacy and an

unnecessary government red tape. Under that

regulations as private companies or that the

act the new USPS private mailbox regulations

regulations are not valid and should not take

expansion of the

would have been subject to review by the

effect.

Postal Service's

Office of Management and Budget.

There are means by which the new regula-

powers.

Conclusion

tions might be blocked. For instance, in 1996

Congress passed the Congressional Review

Act, which created an expedited procedure for

The new regulations on CMRAs and pri-

members to use to block questionable rules. If

vate box holders constitute an unwarranted

a member objects to a new rule, he or she can

invasion of privacy and an expansion of the

have it sent straight to the appropriate com-

Postal Service's powers. The result will be a

mittee for consideration without amend-

financial burden to box holders, especially

ments. That process also allows for a 60-day

small businesses, and at least $1 billion in

moratorium on implementing the rule.

direct costs. Worse, if the USPS refuses to

H.J.R. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection

deliver mail without the PMB address, there

Act, introduced in the House of Represen-

will be serious disruption of delivery. Further-

tatives by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is much more

more, the Postal Service will set the precedent

direct. It states simply that

of refusing to deliver mail unless specific con-

ditions are met. (That is ironic, since the Postal

Congress disapproves the rule sub-

Service has traditionally been proud of its

mitted by the United States Postal

commitment to guaranteed universal service.)

Service relating to delivery of mail to a

The U.S. Postal Service, which has a legal

commercial mail receiving agency (as

monopoly on the delivery of first- and third-

published in the Federal Register on

class mail, and which is exempt from federal,

March 25, 1999), and such rule shall

state, and local sales taxes and most govern-

have no force or effect.

ment regulations, has come under fire in

recent years for competing unfairly with the

Paul noted, "It is ironic that this regulation

private sector by offering goods and services

comes at a time when the Post Office is getting

outside its core functions and for using its reg-

into an ever increasing number of enterprises

ulatory authority against competitors. The

not directly related to mail delivery. So, while

new restrictions on privacy contained in the

the Postal Service uses its monopoly on first-

Postal Service's regulations of CMRAs and pri-

class mail to compete with the private sector, it

vate box holders demonstrate why an effective

works to make life more difficult for its com-

communications and delivery system in this

petitors in the field of mail delivery."17 Repres-

country, as well as protection of privacy, can

come only from the private sector.

entative Paul is considering having that pro-

posal introduced under the Congressional

Review Act.

Notes

H.R. 22, the Postal Modernization Act of

1999, introduced by Rep. John McHugh

1. Federal Register 64, no. 57 (March 25, 1999):

(R-N.Y.), would make the Postal Service sub-

14,385.

ject to most of the regulations that other pri-

12