September 7, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by GEORGE J. DEVOS P.O. Box 3063 Apple Valley, CA 92307-0058 Appeal of Termination of Group E Post Office Box Service P.S. Docket No. POB 01-111 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: George J. DeVos P. O. Box 3063 Apple Valley, CA 92307-0058 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Catherine A. Green, Esq. Corporate Law Section United States Postal Service 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6403 Washington, DC 20260-1135
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
On June 18, 2001, an Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision upholding the Apple Valley, CA Postmaster's decision to change Petitioner’s post office box service from a Group E (free) rate to a fee-paid rate. Although no appeal from the Initial Decision has been filed, the Initial Decision cannot become the final decision under 39 C.F.R. §958.9 because neither the Judicial Officer nor the Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction to determine the applicability of Group E rates.1
The scope of the rules in Part 958 is limited to "cases in which a postmaster has issued a Determination denying an application for post office box or caller service, or terminating the box or caller service being provided to a customer."2 The undisputed facts establish that, although the postmaster found Petitioner ineligible for a Group E box, his post office box service was not terminated.3 Under such circumstances, the Postmaster was not required to issue, and did not in fact issue, a Determination which could be appealed to the Judicial Officer.4 Even if a Determination had been issued, neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Judicial Officer has jurisdiction over disputes concerning a customer’s qualification for a Group E (free) post office box.5
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is vacated6 and the Petition is dismissed.
James A. Cohen Judicial Officer
2 39 C.F.R. §958.2.
3 Petitioner's box was initially closed, but reopened when he paid the fee under protest. Initial Decision (ID), Finding of Fact 2.
4 A postmaster is only required to issue a Determination when an application is denied for the reasons provided in DMM §D910.8.1 or box service is terminated for reasons provided in DMM §D910.8.2. See Cyrus Cardan a/k/a Cyrus Azami, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-37 (P.S.D. Aug. 27, 1998).
5 See DMM §D910.8.3 and 39 C.F.R. §958.3.
6 In reaching his decision, the Administrative Law Judge deferred to the Postmaster's interpretation of the rules, stating that the postmaster's "interpretation of the applicable rules and his decision are entitled to some deference." ID at 4. While courts normally give deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations, it is the responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge initially, and the Judicial Officer as the agency, to interpret the agency's regulations and no deference is to be accorded to one postmaster's understanding of a Postal Service wide regulation. Cf. Alaska Professional Hunters Ass'n, Inc. v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579, 587 (D.C. Cir. 1997).