May 22, 1991

In the Matter of the Petition by

EDWARD T. BURNS

P. O. Box 318

Lot # 20 Main St.

at

Rangeley, ME  04970-0318

P.S. Docket No. 37/138

Termination of Post Office Box 318

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

None.

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Jerry Belenker, Esq.

Consumer Protection Division

Law Department

United States Postal Service

Washington, DC  20260-1144

INITIAL DECISION

            Petitioner appeals from the postmaster's determination to close P. O. Box 318 at Rangeley, ME  04970-0318.  The answer of the Postal Service contains a motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the postmaster properly decided to terminate Petitioner's box service and that the petition raises no valid argument in opposition to such determination and no genuine, material issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing.  By order dated March 26, Petitioner was advised that this case appears to be one which should be decided on the written record without an oral hearing.  He was given to April 12 to file with the Recorder a statement setting forth any disagreement he has with the facts stated in the postmaster's letter of intent to terminate P. O. Box 318 and in the Postal Service's answer to the petition beyond what Petitioner has said in his undated letter to the postmaster received by the latter on February 22, 1991.  The March 26 order also advised Petitioner that his failure to file such a statement would be taken to mean that he does not wish to assert additional facts or grounds in opposition to the proposed termination of box service.  The order, sent to Petitioner by certified mail, was not claimed by Petitioner despite two notices placed in Box 318 by the postmaster, one on March 29 and the other on April 5.

            The record presents no genuine, material issues of fact requiring an oral evidentiary hearing.  The matter is, therefore, appropriate for decision on the written record. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner Edward Burns rented Post Office Box 318 at Rangeley, ME  04970 commencing on or about November 23, 1990.  When he rented the box the postmaster furnished him a copy of regulations for use of post office boxes contained in the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM).  The postmaster highlighted the following regulation by circling it:

Boxholders shall promptly remove mail, or have it removed, from their boxes.  Advance arrangements must be specifically made with the postmaster if mail is to be accumulated for more than 30 days and an overflow condition is probable.  (DMM 951.162a)

            2.  The postmaster's semiannual check of overflow mail (PS Form 1532) shows that Box 318 was in an overflow status from January 2, 1991 to January 23, 1991.

            3.  On January 28, the postmaster placed in Box 318 a notice of overflow condition giving Mr. Burns five days in which to respond and to make appropriate arrangements, i.e., change to a larger box or use caller service (DMM 951.162b).  Mr. Burns did not pick up the notice and empty the box until February 13.  He did not thereafter make the required arrangements.

            4.  Thereafter, the postmaster, pursuant to DMM 951.183, issued his determination to terminate Petitioner's box service because of his violation of the regulation set forth in finding no. 1, above.

            5.  By undated letter filed with the Recorder on March 1, 1991, Petitioner opposed the determination, stating that Box 318 was in overflow because of the "junk mail" placed in it which he does not want.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

            Mr. Burns, by acknowledging in his Petition the overflow condition found by the postmaster and his failure to take appropriate action upon notification thereof, admits a violation of DMM 951.162a.  That "junk mail" may have contributed to the overflow does not excuse the violation.

            The postmaster acted properly in issuing his determination to terminate Petitioner's box service because of violation of the regulations relating to use of the box (DMM 951.82).

            The Petition is dismissed.

                                                                        Quentin E. Grant

                                                                        Chief Administrative Law Judge