UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268-0001
Postal Rate and Fee ChangesDocket No. R97-1
PRESIDING OFFICER’S NOTICE CONCERNING
EMERY’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF
PRESIDING OFFICER’S RULING NO. R97-1/62
(Issued December 3, 1997)
In Presiding Officer’s Ruling R97-1/62, issued November 17, I addressed the most recent procedural developments in a long-standing controversy between the Postal Service and United Parcel Service concerning access to the Priority Mail Processing Center (PMPC) contract between the Service and Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. In that ruling, I granted in part a UPS motion to compel production of certain information related to the contract, and prescribed protective conditions for the release of some of the responsive materials.
On November 26, Emery Worldwide, which is not a party to this proceeding but earlier submitted comments regarding this controversy, filed a request for clarification of P. O. Ruling No. 62. Specifically, Emery asks that a procedure be adopted whereby any person seeking access to information subject to protective conditions be required to notify the Postal Service and Emery five days before receiving access, thereby allowing them an opportunity to object before such information is released.[1] Emery states that the requested notice-and-possible-objection mechanism would minimize the possibility that a person could obtain access to protected material based on an incorrect interpretation of the “competitive decision-making” restriction on eligibility for access, and that the benefits of a short notice period would outweigh its costs in the form of delay and inconvenience. The premise of Emery’s request is that the procedure ordered in Ruling No. 62, which it characterizes as “self-certification,” is insufficient to prevent unauthorized access to its commercially sensitive information.
I decline to order implementation of the new mechanism sought by Emery, and wish to allay its concerns that the Commission’s established procedures for disclosing sensitive information under protective conditions could be abused or circumvented to result in improper access to its confidential business information. Inasmuch as the requested procedure could become a medium for potentially open-ended arguments concerning proper application of the “competitive decision-making” restriction, it would be ill-suited to the requirements of an expedited proceeding.
More importantly, the requested procedure is unnecessary to protect Emery’s interests. Established procedures for access to materials under protective conditions have served the parties who provide them, participants who request them, and the Commission well in past proceedings, and to my knowledge there has never been a breach of the confidentiality the procedures were designed to preserve. Furthermore, it has been at least implicit in such circumstances that any participant seeking access to the protected materials vouches for the eligibility of every employee, agent or contractor it authorizes to receive them. However, to make this condition explicit, I have directed the Secretary of the Commission to limit access to the materials contained in Library Reference H-311 to individuals who produce a written certification executed by a participant’s counsel or other principal representative to the effect that the individual is fully eligible for access under the protective conditions specified in Ruling No. 62.
Edward J. Gleiman
Presiding Officer
[1] In a pleading filed on December 1, the Posta