BILLING PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mar 12 09 10: 03a San 9uin C 209952" 9 p. 3 Memorandum to Ron Baldwin May 8, 2000 Page Two These two definitions comprise the entire definition of a "business" for purposes of the Act: Section 25501.4 was added in 1988. It broadened the definition of a "business" to include the federal government as well as state governmental entities. By enacting this section, the Legislature found it necessary to provide specific language whereby certain public entities would be included within the definition of"business." Since the USPS is considered to be a federal agency, but excluded from the EPCRA as an independent establishment, it is my opinion they are then considered a federal agency subject to local requirements. The independent nature and intent of Congress in such designation is illustrated in Beneficial Finance Co. of New Your, Inc. v. Dallas, C.A.N.Y. 1978, 571 F.2d 125 which stated that, "Congressional purposes in establishing USPS was to permit Service to operate in "business-like" fashion; to such end, Congress removed Service from political sphere and authorized it to act as an independent establishment with powers equivalent to private business enterprise, such as power to make contracts, keep accounts and to acquire and lease property. In several instances,the USPS is subject to State law. In Powers v.U.S. Postal Service C.A. 7 (Ind.) 1982, 671 F.2d 104, the Court found, "State law, rather than federal common law, was applicable in deciding dispute between United States Postal Service,as tenant,and a private landlord concerning the landlord's right to terminate the lease for ncnpay rent of rent." Interestingly, the USPS admits in its letter that Congress has not specifically waived the federal government's sovereign immunity from local regulation in regard to hazardous material releases and reporting requirements in the emergency planing and community right- to-know area. Several cases illustrate that the broad sovereign immunity granted the postal service's predecessor was not given to the current USPS in other areas as well. It appears that as an independent establishment which is part of the executive branch, the USPS has been given the authority to act as a local private employer. Just by the mere fact that they are excluded from the EPCRA is indicative of this point. It is my opinion that if they hold themselves out as an independent establishment of the executive branch,a federal agency not subject to EPCRA,then they are subject to the fees imposed by Chapter 6.95 as the federal government. If they're independent establishment status and waiver from EPCRA is because they have been given "private business-like" independence, they are subject to State law as a business and employer. Based on the above analysis, it is my opinion that the USPS is subject to the fees established by the administering agency pursuant to Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code either as an employer, pursuant to section 25501(d) or as the federal government pursuant to section 25501.4(a).