Release of Information

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repealed provisions in 39 CFR 265.6(d)(1) that had offered a service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