U.S. Code » Title 39 » Part PART IV— MAIL MATTER › Chapter CHAPTER 36— POSTAL RATES, CLASSES, AND SERVICES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— POSTAL SERVICES, COMPLAINTS, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

39 U.S.C. § 3662

Rate and service complaints

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 39 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Any interested person (including an officer of the Postal Regulatory Commission representing the interests of the general public) who believes the Postal Service is not operating in conformance with the requirements of the provisions of sections 101(d), 401(2), 403(c), 404a, or 601, or this chapter (or regulations promulgated under any of those provisions) may lodge a complaint with the Postal Regulatory Commission in such form and manner as the Commission may prescribe.(b)Prompt Response Required.—(1)In general.—The Postal Regulatory Commission shall, within 90 days after receiving a complaint under subsection (a)—(A) either—(i) upon a finding that such complaint raises material issues of fact or law, begin proceedings on such complaint; or(ii) issue an order dismissing the complaint; and(B) with respect to any action taken under subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii), issue a written statement setting forth the bases of its determination.(2)Treatment of complaints not timely acted on.—For purposes of section 3663, any complaint under subsection (a) on which the Commission fails to act in the time and manner required by paragraph (1) shall be treated in the same way as if it had been dismissed pursuant to an order issued by the Commission on the last day allowable for the issuance of such order under paragraph (1).(c)Action Required if Complaint Found To Be Justified.—If the Postal Regulatory Commission finds the complaint to be justified, it shall order that the Postal Service take such action as the Commission considers appropriate in order to achieve compliance with the applicable requirements and to remedy the effects of any noncompliance (such as ordering unlawful rates to be adjusted to lawful levels, ordering the cancellation of market tests, ordering the Postal Service to discontinue providing loss-making products, or requiring the Postal Service to make up for revenue shortfalls in competitive products).(d)Authority To Order Fines in Cases of Deliberate Noncompliance.—In addition, in cases of deliberate noncompliance by the Postal Service with the requirements of this title, the Postal Regulatory Commission may order, based on the nature, circumstances, extent, and seriousness of the noncompliance, a fine (in the amount specified by the Commission in its order) for each incidence of noncompliance. Fines resulting from the provision of competitive products shall be paid from the Competitive Products Fund established in section 2011. All receipts from fines imposed under this subsection shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 109–435, title II, § 205, Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3216.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 3662, Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 764, related to rate and service complaints, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–435, title II, § 205, Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3216.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Lance Lemay, on Behalf of Himself & All Others Similarly Situated, & on Behalf of the Gen. Pub. v. United States Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lance Lemay, on Behalf of Himself & All Others Similarly Situated, & on Behalf of the Gen. Pub. v. United States Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “It based this holding on 39 U.S.C. § 3662 , a later PRA section, finding Congress gave exclusive jurisdiction over complaints concerning postal rates and services to the Postal Rate Commission (“PRC”).”
Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp., 549 F. App'x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “Foster’s PAEA claim because 39 U.S.C. § 3662 requires an individual suing under 39 U.”
Naskar v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 319 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 39 U.S.C. § 3662 (2006); LeMay v. United States Postal Serv.”
S. California Edison Co. v. United States Postal Serv., 134 F. Supp. 3d 311 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 4× “MTD/MSJ at 20-21; see also 39 U.S.C. § 3662 (a). While the Court first addresses Defendant’s claim that Section 3662 conveys exclusive jurisdiction over SCE’s claim, it does not stop there.”
Combined Commc'ns Corp. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co., Cross-Appellees v. United States Postal Serv., Cross-Appellant, 891 F.2d 1221 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 6× “See 39 U.S.C. § 3662 . Regardless of the impetus for a recommendation, the Commission may not recommend a decision to the Board until an opportunity for a hearing on the record is held in compliance with §§ 556-557 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Elaine Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, 757 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “at 3216-17 (striking what was then 39 U.S.C. § 3662 and replacing it with new language); id.”
Anatol Zukerman & Charles Krause Reporting, LLC v. U.S. Postal Serv., 220 F. Supp. 3d 27 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 7× “3d at 801 ; see 39 U.S.C. § 3662 (2006), while nevertheless leaving to U.”
Tedesco v. United States Postal Serv., 553 F. Supp. 1387 (W.D. Pa. 1983). · cites it 2× “39 U.S.C. § 3662 . Because the issues raised in this case are clearly outside of subchapter II (subchapter II involves permanent rates and classes of mail), it appears that Congress intended that service complaints of the type advanced by the plaintiffs should be addressed to…”
GameFly, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, 704 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “GameFly filed a complaint under 39 U.S.C. § 3662 (a) with the Postal Regulatory Commission (the “Commission”) accusing the Postal Service of providing preferential rates and terms of service to Netflix in violation of 39 U.”
United Parcel Serv., Inc., a New York Corp., & United Parcel Serv., Inc., & Ohio Corp. v. United States Postal Serv., 604 F.2d 1370 (3rd Cir. 1979). “” Moreover, if the Postal Service abused the limited authority that I believe Congress intended for it to have, the Commission has the power under 39 U.S.C. § 3662 to review and prohibit Postal Service actions that circumvent the policies of the Act.”
John H. Buchanan, Jr. v. United States Postal Serv., Etc., 508 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1975). “39 U.S.C. § 3662 provides: “Interested parties who believe the Postal Service is charging rates which do not conform to the policies set out in this title or who believe that they are not receiving postal service in accordance with the policies of this title may lodge a…”
All. of Nonprofit Mailers v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, 790 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “More specifically, the “reasonable and equitable and necessary” test looks to present conditions to determine what the Postal Service requires “to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States,” 39…”
Show all 49 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.