[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32082]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 29, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 265
Release of Information
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Postal Service, after considering the comments submitted
on its interim amendments to the rules governing disclosure of
individuals' address change filings, is adopting the interim rule on a
permanent basis. The rule has eliminated a service in which any person
could acquire the new address from an address change filed by any other
individual, by paying a $3.00 charge.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Selnick, Address Management,
(202) 268-3519.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 11, 1994, the Postal Service
published in the Federal Register (59 FR 11549-11550) a document
adopting interim amendments to its regulations on disclosure of
information from change of address orders (PS Form 3575). The amendment
repealed provisions in 39 CFR 265.6(d)(1) that had offered a service
that enabled any person to obtain for a $3.00 charge the new address of
any individual during the 18-month period while a change of address
order remains on file with the Postal Service. Minor conforming changes
were made to 39 CFR 265.6(d) and 265.9(g).
The amendment has not affected the availability of address change
information from change of address orders filed by organizations, as
opposed to individuals. Furthermore, information from individuals'
address changes continues to be made available, on proper written
application, (1) to federal, state, or local government agencies for
official purposes; (2) to persons legally empowered to serve legal
process, for the exclusive purpose of serving such process; and (3)
when necessary to comply with a court order. Such information is also
available to a criminal law enforcement agency by oral request through
the Postal Inspection Service. Finally, the amendment does not affect
the Postal Service's largely computerized address and list correction
services, which assist mailers to maintain current addresses on their
correspondents.
The purpose of the amendment, as stated in the interim rule
document, was to reflect ``a growing concern among some members of the
public regarding the privacy of address information'' and,
specifically, the desire to keep private ``information of one's
physical whereabouts.'' The Postal Service was concerned that ``no
postal interest is served by furnishing the information to persons who
are seeking it for reasons unrelated to the use of the mails.'' The
objective of the Postal Service for providing the service has been ``to
assist persons who wish to correspond with each other through the
mails.'' Given the evolution of ``a variety of address correction
services that serve that need,'' the Postal Service considered that the
$3.00 service ``no longer seems necessary to the Postal Service's
legitimate objectives.''
The Postal Service received about 300 letters commenting on the
matters raised in the interim rule. Overwhelmingly, the Postal Service
heard from users of the service who oppose its repeal, at least as
applied to the writer's needs. These comments have confirmed that the
$3.00 service had come to be used primarily as a quick, almost
immediate, way to discover the physical whereabouts of individuals,
rather than for the purpose of correcting mailing addresses in order to
communicate by mail. The comments made a very powerful case that a
prompt and efficient means to discover the physical whereabouts of an
individual who has moved can in some situations be a key to achieving
socially desirable ends. Primarily, the objective cited was the
collection of lawful debts. Various other legitimate objectives were
also represented, such as to locate other defendants or potential
witnesses in legal disputes, potential interviewees for the press,
persons involved in ongoing medical monitoring, or relatives for a
reunion. Some commenters argued that crime, fraud, and debt evasion are
out of control and must be attacked with all available means. Most of
these commenters argued, at least implicitly, that society's need for
protection against fugitives and debt evaders outweighs any privacy
interest that these individuals, or even law-abiding citizens, might
have in keeping their whereabouts undisclosed.
The Postal Service is not persuaded that it has the warrant to
perform the role that these commenters wish the Postal Service to play.
Congress has not given the Postal Service the function of serving as a
national registration point for the physical whereabouts of
individuals. The Postal Service understands the concerns of the private
investigators, attorneys, financial and insurance companies, other
businesses, news organizations, and others who wrote to explain why
they had come to depend on the $3.00 service to help them perform
socially valuable functions, many of them under government license or
regulation. The task of the Postal Service, however, is to provide a
postal system that is as efficient, economical, and responsive to
American mailing needs as possible. If, as the comments seemingly have
confirmed, the $3.00 service was not used primarily for the efficient
transmission of the mails, then the Postal Service has no clear
business providing that service. Postal Service address correction
services should be tailored to ease the process of mailing within the
postal system, not for other purposes. Present address and list
correction services, now automated or substantially automated, are
designed to promote efficient mailing practices, hold costs down, and
reduce misaddressed mail.
Some of the commenters misconceived that the $3.00 service that
they formerly received was obtained under the Freedom of Information
Act. This is not the case. Congress has expressly provided that the
Freedom of Information Act ``shall not require the disclosure of . . .
the name or address, past or present, of any postal patron.'' 39 U.S.C.
410(c)(1). One commenter argued that the amendment to the rule reverses
a long tradition by taking information out of the public domain.
Section 410(c)(1) seems as plain a statement as could be provided that
an individual does not place his or her address in the public domain
for all purposes by filing it with the Postal Service. Moreover, given
growing concerns about privacy in a changing world, the Postal Service
does not think that tradition alone is enough to justify maintaining
the $3.00 locator service.
Many commenters sought to bring themselves within the rationale
underlying 39 CFR 265.9(g)(5), which provides access to address change
information by government agencies or exclusively for service of legal
process. As suggested by the waiver of charges for information under
this provision, it reflects a need for comity between governmental
functions rather than a service to the public. Attorneys, licensed
private investigators, insurance companies, banks, a stock exchange, a
foreign embassy, and others pointed out that their functions and needs,
too, are integral to successful enforcement of laws, and that they are
hired or licensed or regulated in the performance of their functions by
governmental authority. The Postal Service does not dispute that this
is so, or that, in particular cases, some of these commenters may be
able to do more societal good with an address change than some
government requesters or process servers may do in particular cases. It
remains necessary for the Postal Service to draw an administrable line,
however, between governmental functions that are afforded this comity
and private activities that are not. The line chosen is a relatively
clean one, which postal employees have experience in applying under 39
CFR 265.9(g)(5). The Postal Service is not persuaded that access to
address change information can be readily expanded to accommodate other
activity only sponsored, licensed, or regulated by the government.
Indeed, one of the commenters supporting the elimination of the $3.00
service, from a national nonprofit organization interested in the
prevention of domestic violence, stated that the exception for serving
legal process is too broad. The Postal Service has not been persuaded
that the traditional form of that exception should be changed, but
neither does the Postal Service wish to expand the governmental comity
provisions to extend further into the regulated private sector.
Some commenters urged that the Postal Service establish its own
licensing or registration system, enabling a licensed private
investigator, law firm, corporation, or other legitimate professional
or business organization to establish its credentials with the local
post office in advance so that its address change information requests
would subsequently be honored. This type of system would divert local
resources and attention from providing postal services to administering
a relatively inefficient, manually driven locator service. Such a
system would not further the central purpose of the Postal Service to
link Americans with one another and with the world by mail.
Other commenters recognized that on-demand addresses could be used
for malicious or improper purposes, but these commenters suggested that
the Postal Service could protect individuals who have legitimate
reasons to fear disclosure of their whereabouts by allowing them to opt
for secrecy of their addresses (some said for a fee) so that everyone
else's address changes could remain immediately accessible to all
applicants. The Postal Service reserves the right to withhold
information about a particular individual's address for sufficient
reasons of personal safety. In this final rule, the amended language of
39 CFR 265.6(d)(4)(ii) states that individuals who have obtained a
protective court order against another individual may file a copy of
that order with the Postal Service to be filed along with their change
of address order, in which case the individual's address will be
released only pursuant to another court order or to a government
agency. The Postal Service has also taken steps in an endeavor to make
it possible to block out from disclosure through address or list
correction services the addresses of individuals who have filed a
protective court order with the Postal Service. Such special measures
on behalf of individuals who have sought judicial protection against
physical abuse do not fully resolve the basic difficulty that the
Postal Service has with continuing the $3.00 service. As the comments
in this rulemaking make clear, that service is not primarily of benefit
as a facilitation for mailing but as a way of obtaining access to
someone's physical location. Other address correction services more
efficiently and economically serve the requirements of mailers of all
descriptions who need, for mailing purposes, to update their mailing
lists or to correct a single address. Under those circumstances, the
Postal Service is not justified in diverting the attention and efforts
of its personnel at the window or elsewhere from mail services to
providing a locator service on demand.
A few commenters suggested a broader opt-out provision, either
dividing address change records at the submitter's option into (1)
those freely disclosable to all and (2) those not disclosable at all,
or else preserving some disclosure from the opt-out category for
service of legal process. In general, however, this rulemaking has not
attracted much participation from those who would either support or
oppose a generalized system for allowing ``unlisted'' addresses, so
that the issues involved have not been well explored. The view of the
Postal Service continues to be that comprehensive address and mailing
list correction services are needed for both the public and the
business mailing community to be able to use the postal system
efficiently.
Some commenters misunderstood what the Postal Service address and
list correction services provide. For example, several commenters
apparently thought that after the 12-month period of free forwarding,
the $3.00 service had been the only way to obtain an address correction
before a change of address order is purged at 18 months. That is not
the case. Address correction service for mailings extends through the
full 18-month period.
Several commenters reported problems in using address correction
services or in getting postal employees to apply the interim rule
properly. The Postal Service has no doubt that mistakes are made and
improvements are needed. The need for simplification and for full
understanding of rules by the employees administering them and, in
general, the need for focus on eliminating errors and providing good
postal services are further reasons why the Postal Service should not
retain the $3.00 manually driven address disclosure service or amend it
to attempt to filter legitimate from non-legitimate applications for
immediate access to address changes.
A number of comments from process servers and law enforcement
officers suggested that the changes made by the Postal Service were
hindering the performance of their functions. Some of these commenters
attributed the problems to overly cautious administration by postal
employees. Others of these commenters objected to the requirement for a
written application for the information, preferring to obtain it by
telephone once they are known to local postal employees. While the
requirement for a written application by law enforcement officers
(except through the Inspection Service) is a preexisting requirement,
some officers apparently had reached understandings with local postal
officials under which telephone requests had been honored until the
attention generated by the amendment to the rule led the postal
employees to resume enforcing the requirement as written. The Postal
Service recognizes that a visit to the post office to turn in a written
request can be more cumbersome than a telephone call, but it is
reasonable to expect that an individual's address information will not
be made so casually accessible as to be disclosed to a caller over the
telephone, and that a written record will be made showing who is
requesting the address and indicating that it is needed for official
purposes.
Accordingly, the Postal Service is preserving the interim rule with
the minor change noted above and an update of the format provided for
requests by process servers.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 265
Disclosure of information, Postal Service.
For the reasons set out in this notice, part 265, as amended on an
interim basis, is further amended as follows:
PART 265--RELEASE OF INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 265 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401; 5 U.S.C. 552; Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended), 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
2. Paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of Sec. 265.6 are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 265.6 Availability of records.
* * * * *
(d) Disclosure of names and addresses of customers. Upon request,
the addresses of specifically identified postal customers will be made
available only as follows:
(1) Change of address. The new address of any specific customer who
has filed a permanent or temporary change of address order (by
submitting PS Form 3575, a hand-written order, or an electronically
communicated order) will be furnished to any person upon payment of the
fee prescribed in Sec. 265.9 (e)(3) and (g)(5), except that the new
address of a specific customer who has indicated on the order that the
address change is for an individual or an entire family will be
furnished only in those circumstances stated at paragraph (d)(4) of
this section. Disclosure will be limited to the address of the
specifically identified individual about whom the information is
requested (not other family members or individuals whose names may also
appear on the change of address order). The Postal Service reserves the
right not to disclose the address of an individual for the protection
of the individual's personal safety. Other information on PS Form 3575
or copies of the form will not be furnished except in those
circumstances stated at paragraphs (d)(4)(i), (d)(4(iii), or (d)(4)(iv)
of this section. The fee is waived for providing information under the
circumstances listed at paragraph (d)(4) of this section. See
Sec. 265.9(g)(5).
* * * * *
3. Paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of Sec. 265.6 is revised to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Exceptions. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations,
names or addresses of postal customers will be furnished only as
follows:
* * * * *
(ii) To a person empowered by law to serve legal process, or the
attorney for a party in whose behalf service will be made, or a party
who is acting pro se, upon receipt of written information that
specifically includes all of the following: (A) A certification that
the name or address is needed and will be used solely for service of
legal process in connection with actual or prospective litigation; (B)
a citation to the statute or regulation that empowers the requester to
serve process, if the requester is other than the attorney for a party
in whose behalf service will be made, or a party who is acting pro se;
(C) the names of all known parties to the litigation; (D) the court in
which the case has been or will be commenced; (E) the docket or other
identifying number, if one has been issued; and (F) the capacity in
which the boxholder is to be served, e.g., defendant or witness. By
submitting such information, the requester certifies that it is true.
The address of an individual who files with the postmaster a copy of a
protective court order will not be disclosed except as provided under
paragraphs (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(iii), or (d)(4)(iv) of this section.
The Postal Service suggests use of the standard format appearing at
the end of this section when requesting information under this
paragraph. When using the standard format on the submitter's own
letterhead, the standard format must be used in its entirety. The
warning statement and certification specifically must be included
immediately before the signature block. If the request lacks any of the
required information or a proper signature, the postmaster will return
it to the requester specifying the deficiency.
Note: The term pro se means that a party is not represented by
an attorney but by himself or herself.
4. The first exhibit following paragraph (g) of Sec. 265.6 is
revised to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
TR29DE94.003
BILLING CODE 7710-12-C
5. In the heading of the second exhibit following paragraph (g) of
Sec. 265.6, the reference to ``Paragraph 265.6(d)(8)'' is changed to
read ``Paragraph 265.6(d)(6).''
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 94-32082 Filed 12-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P