[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repealed provisions in 39 CFR 265.6(d)(1) that had offered a service 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