[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3857-3859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1668]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 265


Release of Information

AGENCY:  Postal Service.

ACTION:  Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Postal Service regulations that 
govern the disclosure of information contained in PS Form 1093, 
Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, and PS Form 1583, 
Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent. The recorded business 
name, address, and telephone number of a post office box used for doing 
or soliciting business with the public will no longer be provided to 
the general public upon request. Disclosure to the public of 
information contained in Form 1583 will continue to be prohibited. In 
addition, information from both Forms 1093 and 1583 will no longer be 
made available in response to an oral request from a law enforcement 
agency engaged in a criminal investigation. Disclosure of information 
from either form also will be prohibited, except pursuant to the order 
of a court of competent jurisdiction, when the individual customer has 
presented the Postal Service with an appropriate court order of 
protection.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Lawrence Maxwell, (202) 268-5015.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This final rule adopts the change to the 
regulation governing disclosure of names and addresses of post office 
boxholders that was published as a proposed rule on August 26, 1999 (64 
FR 46630). This change repeals the provision that authorized disclosure 
to the general public, upon request, of the name, address, and 
telephone number of the holder of a post office box being used for the 
purpose of doing or soliciting business with the public. The purpose of 
the change is to provide a greater degree of privacy and security to 
the growing number of small-business owners who operate out of the 
home. The background for this rulemaking was provided in the August 26 
notice and will not be repeated here.
    After consideration of the comments made on the August 26 proposal, 
which are discussed below, the Postal Service has decided to adopt as 
part of this final rule two additional changes to the regulations 
governing disclosure of information about post office boxholders and 
the customers of commercial mail receiving agencies (CMRAs). In 
response to concerns for the safety of battered individuals and their 
children, stalking victims, and other persons who consider themselves 
at risk of harm if their physical location is not kept private, the 
Postal Service will further restrict disclosure of the names and 
addresses of post office boxholders and CMRA customers in the following 
ways.
    First, the existing provision that authorizes disclosure in 
response to oral requests of law enforcement agencies for criminal 
investigations, when made through the Inspection Service, is made 
inapplicable to information concerning post office boxholders and CMRA 
customers.
    Second, when the individual boxholder has presented to the Postal 
Service a protective court order, information from neither Form 1093 
nor Form 1583 will be made available under the existing provision that 
authorizes disclosure to federal, state, or local government agencies 
upon written request. In such a case, the government agency seeking the 
information must furnish to the Postal Service an order of a court of 
competent jurisdiction that requires disclosure to the agency. The 
Postal Service has already reserved the right to withhold information 
about a particular individual's address, including a boxholder's 
address, for sufficient reasons of personal safety, and has provided 
for the submission of protective court orders to block access of the 
general public in such situations. The present rule change respecting 
post office boxholders and CMRA customers will block access not just of 
the public but also of government agencies, including law enforcement 
agencies, when there is a protective order on file, unless the agency 
obtains a countervailing court order that requires the Postal Service 
to release the information.
    As revised by this rule, the regulations that govern the disclosure 
of information contained in Form 1093 and 1583 may be summarized as 
follows. Information provided by a post office boxholder on Form 1093 
will not generally be available to the public. It will be disclosed 
only to a government agency upon written certification of official 
need; to an appropriate person when needed for the service of process; 
and in compliance with a subpoena, when appropriate, or a court order. 
When the boxholder is an individual, as opposed to a business or 
organization, a subpoena will not be honored--a court order signed by a 
judge will be required. In addition, copies of the 1093 will not be 
disclosed except when requested by a government agency upon written 
certification of official need or in compliance with a subpoena or 
court order. When the boxholder has submitted a court order of 
protection, the Postal Service will not disclose the boxholder's name, 
address, or telephone number pursuant to any of the foregoing 
provisions, nor make available a copy of the form, unless the requester 
has obtained an order of a court of competent jurisdiction that 
requires the disclosure notwithstanding the existence of the 
boxholder's protective order.
    Information provided by a CMRA customer on Form 1583 will not be 
available to the public. It will be disclosed only to a government 
agency upon written certification of official need or pursuant to a 
subpoena (only if the CMRA customer is not an individual) or to a court 
order. When the customer has submitted a court order of protection, 
however, the Postal Service will not disclose the customer's name or 
address pursuant to these provisions, unless the requester obtains a 
court order as provided in the foregoing paragraph.

Analysis of Comments Received

    A total of 318 written comments were received in response to the 
August 26 proposed rule. Nineteen of these were from state agencies, 
four were from members of Congress, two were from public-interest 
organizations, and the bulk of the remainder were from CMRA customers 
and operators. Only one commenter objected to the proposal to

[[Page 3858]]

repeal the provision that authorizes disclosure of information 
concerning a post office boxholder who uses the box to do or solicit 
business with the public. This comment came from an asset recovery firm 
that routinely relies on the provision to arrange for the return of 
assets to boxholders.
    Twenty-five commenters stated their unqualified approval of the 
proposal. Nineteen others limited their comments to approval of the 
existing regulations as they authorize disclosure to government 
agencies. These latter comments were provided by the Attorneys General 
for 18 states and one state agency for workforce development. The 
comments of the states' Attorneys General stressed the need of state 
law enforcement agencies (and those state agencies that work with them) 
for the information in connection with the investigation and 
prosecution of fraud, including consumer and charities fraud. They 
stated that it is ``critical'' that these investigatory agencies have 
access to the 1583s.
    Twenty-four comments were limited to objections to the underlying 
CMRA regulations and so are not within the scope of the present 
rulemaking. While most of the remaining 80 percent of the commenters 
stated approval of the repeal of the provision allowing disclosure of 
information about post office boxholders doing business with the 
public, none discussed that provision; instead, they focused their 
attention on objections to various provisions relating to CMRA 
customers. Overall, these latter comments revealed widespread 
misinformation about the existing regulations and the limited nature of 
the current proposal. Only a few of those providing negative comments 
appeared to understand that no new disclosure was proposed in the 
August 26 notice. A number of comments revealed a fundamental 
misunderstanding of this rulemaking by complaining that the new rule 
would allow the release of private boxholder information when the box 
is being used to conduct business with the public. The Postal Service 
withdrew its proposal to make such a provision applicable to CMRA 
customers in the August 26 notice, and, in the same notice, proposed to 
eliminate the existing parallel provision respecting post office 
boxholders.
    A national nonprofit organization interested in the prevention of 
domestic violence objected to the release of information from the Form 
1583 to government agencies, including law enforcement agencies, 
without a warrant. The organization stated that it is ``imperative'' 
that no one obtain the address of a battered women's shelter without a 
warrant. The commenter expressed concern that disclosure to law 
enforcement would increase the possibility of unwitting release to the 
public, to a person impersonating a law enforcement officer, or to a 
law enforcement officer engaging in misconduct. Several other 
individual commenters objected to release of information in response to 
oral law enforcement requests made through the Inspection Service, 
because they thought that this would produce no ``paper trail'' and 
thus encourage abuse.
    The national organization also objected to disclosure to government 
agencies in general as an expansion of the categories of persons having 
access to the information. This latter comment suggests a 
misunderstanding of what the current regulation permits. Postal 
regulations have authorized the disclosure of information from Form 
1583 to government agencies, including law enforcement, in appropriate 
circumstances for as long as the Postal Service has used the form. This 
is not something newly proposed in one of the recent notices of 
proposed rules. While the Postal Service is unaware of any instance in 
which disclosure of this information to a government agency or law 
enforcement officer has resulted in harm to a boxholder or other 
individual, it is nonetheless sympathetic to the concern expressed in 
these comments. Because of the potential for abuse, it has decided to 
eliminate the longstanding rule that authorizes disclosure in response 
to oral requests of law enforcement agencies when conducting criminal 
investigations. The Postal Service is not, however, persuaded of the 
necessity to require government agencies to obtain a warrant as a 
precondition to access in all cases. This would place an undue burden 
on an agency's performance of legitimate law enforcement or other 
governmental functions. In the absence of any history of abuse of the 
provision, the Postal Service believes that the requirement that the 
requester certify in writing on agency letterhead that the information 
is required for the performance of official duties provides a 
reasonable amount of protection against unwarranted invasions of the 
privacy of most boxholders. For those boxholders who are in particular 
risk of danger if located, the Postal Service believes that it is not 
an unreasonable burden for them to obtain an appropriate protective 
order to be placed on file with the 1093 or the 1583, thus requiring 
the requesting agency to first obtain a court order.
    This commenter also urged the need for security measures to govern 
the maintenance of Forms 1583 at the local post office and the need for 
a method by which a victim of abuse could confirm with local postal 
officials whether the information had been released. The Postal Service 
already has procedures in place, mandated by the Privacy Act of 1974, 
that address these last two concerns.
    One private corporation claiming to comment ``on behalf of the 
several million American citizens that choose to receive their mail at 
private and P.O. boxes'' stated that the underlying CMRA revisions made 
final on March 25, 1999, ``are in fact the only issue.'' Those 
revisions are not at issue, however, in the present rulemaking. 
Principal among its comments regarding the present rule is an objection 
to the ``changes'' in the August 26 notice that would allow release of 
information about private or post office boxholders to anyone without a 
warrant, subpoena, or court order. These ``changes,'' the commenter 
states, are in conflict with the safeguards of the Privacy Act and 
violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against warrantless 
searches and seizures. The commenter's references to ``changes,'' 
supposedly made by the August 26 notice, indicate a basic 
misunderstanding of the Postal Service's regulations in this area. The 
regulations have long authorized disclosure to government agencies upon 
written certification and to law enforcement when oral requests are 
made through the Inspection Service. These objections, therefore, are 
to regulations that have been in effect for a long time, and not to any 
recently proposed changes. The Postal Service, moreover, is not 
persuaded that its regulations are in conflict with the Privacy Act or 
violate the Fourth Amendment. The Postal Service's routine uses provide 
sufficient authorization for disclosure of information on Form 1583 to 
government agencies, consistent with the requirements of the Privacy 
Act. The safeguards required by the Act have long since been 
implemented by the Postal Service with respect to the information 
contained in the 1583. Further, the Postal Service is not aware that 
any court has extended the protection of the Fourth Amendment to an 
individual's name or address. The commenter also states that the 
Privacy Act statement on Form 1583 is ``defective'' because it does not 
inform the customer how the information will be used or released. The 
Postal Service intends to amend the statement to bring

[[Page 3859]]

it into conformity with the regulations as revised by this final rule, 
after this rule becomes effective.
    Almost all of the remaining commenters, primarily CMRA customers, 
echoed nearly verbatim the objections discussed in the preceding 
paragraph. A number of these commenters also took the opportunity to 
voice their objections to the underlying CMRA regulations, which will 
not be addressed here.
    A nonprofit organization that is interested in rights and 
responsibilities in the ``electronic world'' objected to the creation 
of a national database of information from Form 1583, because the 
existence of such a database would be a ``boon to identity thieves.'' 
Several other individual commenters stated their concern that the 
Postal Service will use Forms 1583 to create a national database. In 
the August 26 notice, the Postal Service addressed this concern by 
stating that the forms are maintained locally and that it has no 
intention of creating a national database with the information 
contained in them. The nonprofit organization stated that although the 
Postal Service may not intend to create such a database, this will 
necessarily be the result of storage of the forms in a Federal Records 
Center and from the maintenance of the forms at each CMRA and local 
post office. The Postal Service disagrees with this analysis. There is 
a great deal of difference in terms of risk to personal privacy between 
a collection of paper records locally maintained in secure conditions, 
or stored in boxes in a federal records depository, and information 
collected and maintained in a national electronic database. The secure 
storage of paper records simply does not pose the same kind of risk of 
improper data sharing as is posed by maintenance in an electronic 
database. Moreover, the maintenance of these paper forms over many 
years has not resulted in any incidents of identity theft so far as the 
Postal Service is aware. This commenter also complained that the 
proposal ignores the Fair Information Practices of the Federal Trade 
Commission. These guidelines, developed specifically in connection with 
the FTC's work regarding online privacy, are already embedded in the 
procedures required by the Privacy Act of 1974 and so are addressed 
elsewhere in the Postal Service's regulations that implement the Act. 
The regulation at hand is not the appropriate place for their 
inclusion. See the Postal Service's Privacy Act regulations, 39 CFR 
Part 266, and the system notice for the system of records titled USPS 
010.050, Collection and Delivery Records--Delivery of Mail Through 
Agents, last published in full at 54 FR 43660 (October 26, 1989), with 
amendments appearing at 59 FR 22874 (May 3, 1994) and 64 FR 8878 
(February 23, 1999). Finally, this commenter claimed that the Postal 
Service is violating two provisions of the Privacy Act: subsection 
(e)(1) through the ``over-collection of information,'' namely, the ages 
of any children who will receive mail at the CMRA address, and 
subsection (e)(2) by ``coercing'' the CMRA to collect the information 
rather than collecting the information itself. The Postal Service sees 
no merit in either contention. Subsection (e)(1) limits an agency's 
maintenance of information about an individual to that which is 
``relevant and necessary to accomplish a [legally required] purpose of 
the agency.'' The provision permitting the boxholder to list the names 
and addresses of his or her minor children is an exception to the 
general requirement that all individuals receiving mail through a 
private box submit a Form 1583. Ages are necessary to determine when 
the child no longer qualifies for this exception. Subsection (e)(2) 
provides for collection of information ``to the greatest extent 
practicable directly from the subject individual.'' Since the CMRA 
customer is asked to fill out the Form 1583, the Postal Service 
believes that it is in compliance with this provision.
    Finally, a number of commenters stated that the Postal Service has 
no authority to collect information about CMRA customers. Others stated 
that the Postal Service is expressly forbidden to collect the 
information. No reference to an authority for either proposition was 
given, and the Postal Service knows of none. The Postal Service 
believes it has ample authority to require agents for the receipt of 
mail to prove the bona fides of their agency agreements with postal 
customers. This cannot be done without submitting the names and 
addresses of the principals to such agreements.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 265

    Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of 
Information, Government employees, Release of information.


    For the reasons set forth in this document, the Postal Service is 
amending 39 CFR Part 265 as follows:

PART 265--RELEASE OF INFORMATION

    1. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. App. 3; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 
410, 1001, 2601.

    2. Section 265.6(d)(3) and (d)(8) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 265.6  Availability of records.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Post office boxholder information. Information from PS Form 
1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, will be 
provided as follows:
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section, 
information from PS Form 1093 will be provided only in those 
circumstances stated at paragraphs (d)(4)(i) through (d)(4)(iii) of 
this section.
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section, 
copies of PS Form 1093 will be furnished only in those circumstances 
stated at paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (iii) When the boxholder files with the postmaster a copy of a 
protective court order, information from PS Form 1093 will not be 
disclosed except pursuant to the order of a court of competent 
jurisdiction.
* * * * *
    (8) Private mailbox information. Information from PS Form 1583, 
Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent, will be provided as 
follows:
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(8)(iii) of this section, 
information from PS Form 1583 will be provided only in those 
circumstances stated at paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(iii) of this 
section.
    (ii) To the public only for the purpose of identifying a particular 
address as an address of an agent to whom mail is delivered on behalf 
of other persons. No other information, including, but not limited to, 
the identities of persons on whose behalf agents receive mail, may be 
disclosed to the public from PS Form 1583.
    (iii) Information concerning an individual who has filed a 
protective court order with the postmaster will not be disclosed except 
pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 00-1668 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-U