After the request was filed, 12 parties intervened. The PRC issued its recommended decision to the Governors on September 30, and the Governors approved the NSA on October 27.

5. Complaint of Time-Warner, Inc. et al., Concerning Periodical Rates: Docket No. C2004-1

On January 12, 2004, the PRC received a pleading, styled as a Section 3662 rate complaint. The complaint alleged that the existing Periodicals rates could be improved by adoption of an alternative rate structure which they further alleged would bring Periodicals rates into greater conformity with the policies of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. Their alternative was designed to tighten the relationship between the cost-causing characteristics of a publication and the Periodicals rates paid by the publication. They urged the PRC to hold hearings on their complaint and recommend their proposals to the Governors.

The Postal Service responded on February 11, and opposed the mailers' request for relief on several grounds. First, the Postal Service argued that the mailers failed to allege that the existing rates fail to conform to the policies of the act, which, under both the relevant provisions of the commission's rules and the statutory language of Section 3662, is a prerequisite for initiation of a rate complaint. Second, the Postal Service argued that the mailers' efforts to challenge a rate structure, which they previously had the opportunity to challenge in the most recent omnibus rate case, constituted an improper attempt to circumvent the exclusive review provision of Section 3628. Lastly, the Postal Service noted that even if the filing were treated as a request to initiate a mail classification case without rate consequences, there were ample policy grounds to postpone consideration of the underlying classification issues until a more balanced proposal was available.

On March 26 the PRC went forward with a proceeding but acknowledged its intent to limit any resulting recommendations to the classification structure, obviating the possibility of any rate changes emanating from this docket. In April the complainants filed four pieces of testimony supporting their proposals. In September testimony was filed by a number of parties, including the Postal Service, opposing the complainants' specific classification proposals. The case is still pending.

6. Complaint on Electronic Postmark: Docket No. C2004-2

On February 25, 2004, a complaint proceeding was filed pursuant to 39 USC 3662, on the subject of United States Postal Service Electronic Postmark (EPM). The fundamental basis for the complaint was the allegation that the Postal Service is acting unlawfully by offering this purely electronic service without first submitting to the PRC a request for a recommended decision on classification provisions and rates associated with this service. In its responsive pleadings filed on April 26, the Postal Service argued that complaint proceedings before the PRC were not intended and are not appropriate to resolve issues as to whether the Postal Service is acting beyond its lawful authority.

Since USPS EPM is clearly not a postal service, and since the Commission lacks jurisdiction over "nonpostal" services such as USPS EPM, the Postal Service moved that the complaint should be dismissed on that basis. The Postal Service's motion to dismiss is still pending.

7. Complaint on First-Class Mail Service Standards: Docket No. C2001-3

On May 19, 2001, a complaint was filed with the PRC, pursuant to 39 USC 3662, alleging that in 2000 and 2001 the Postal Service implemented changes in two- and three-day service standards for First-Class Mail service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis without first requesting a PRC advisory opinion pursuant to 39 USC 3661. The complaint also alleged that the First-Class Mail service resulting from these service standard changes did not comply with various policies under the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA). The Postal Service contended that the service standard changes were part of a more extensive realignment plan previously submitted for PRC review in Docket No. N89-1. The Postal Service also did not consider that the service resulting from the changes was inconsistent with any policies of the PRA. In 2004 final testimony was submitted, and briefing was completed. The case is still pending.

8. Complaint on Collection Box Removal: Docket No. C2003-1

On November 21, 2002, a complaint was filed with the PRC, pursuant to 39 USC 3662, alleging that removal of collection boxes had caused a nationwide change in service for which no request for an advisory opinion had been sought pursuant to Section 3661(b) and such removal had resulted in collection service that was inadequate.