Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3857

§ 254.8 May I appeal decisions under this

part?

See 30 CFR part 290 for instructions

on how to appeal any order or decision

that we issue under this part.

PART 282—OPERATIONS IN THE

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF FOR

MINERALS OTHER THAN OIL, GAS,

AND SULPHUR

5. The authority citation for part 282

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.

§ 282.50 [Amended]

6. Section 282.50 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 282.50 Appeals.

See 30 CFR part 290 for instructions

on how to appeal any order or decision

that we issue under this part.

Dated: January 11, 2000.

E.P. Danenberger,

Chief, Engineering and Operations Division.

[FR Doc. 00–1675 Filed 1–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–U

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

3858 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 ‘‘overcollection 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:

§ 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