June 29, 2005
In the Matter of the Petition by
JOHN HINZ
P. O. Box 8422
Long Beach,
CA 90808-0422[1]
Determination to Terminate Post Office Box Service for
Post Office Box 8422, Long Beach, CA
90808-0422
P.S. Docket No. POB 05-11
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
John Hinz
P. O. Box 8422
Long Beach, CA 90808-0422
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-1135
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
Petitioner, John Hinz, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and upholding the determination to terminate Petitioner’s post office box service at P.O. Box 8422, Long Beach, CA 90808-0422. Respondent, the United States Postal Service, did not file a response to the appeal as permitted under 39 C.F.R. §958.10.
Background
Petitioner has rented P.O. Box 8422 since January 28, 1976. In November 2004, Petitioner was asked to update his PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, as required by §D910.2.1 of the Domestic Mail Manual.[2] Petitioner did not respond to the request and by letter dated December 27, 2004, he was advised that service to his post office box was being terminated. Petitioner filed a timely appeal from the determination to terminate service to his post office box.
Discussion
It is undisputed that the information on Petitioner’s original PS Form 1093 was inaccurate in November 2004, and that Petitioner failed to update the form as required by Postal Service regulations. Although Petitioner argues that the Postal Service’s post office box regulations exceed its statutory authority because the requirement for updated information is unnecessary and unreasonable, he has not shown that the regulations or the required information are not a legitimate exercise of the powers granted to the Postal Service for the performance of its functions[3] under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.[4] The Postal Service has a right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the use of post office boxes and review in post office box proceedings by the presiding Administrative Law Judge and the Judicial Officer is limited to determining whether the Postal Service has properly administered those rules and regulations and whether applicants or current box holders have fully complied with the applicable requirements.[5] The record does not reflect any impropriety in the application of the post office box rules by the responsible Postal Service officials, but it is clear that Petitioner has failed to comply with those rules and that termination of his post office box service is appropriate.[6]
Accordingly, Petitioner’s appeal is denied and the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Decision upholding the termination of service to Petitioner’s post office box is affirmed.
James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer
[1] The caption on this decision has been modified to
reflect Petitioner’s current mailing address.
[2] The Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) has been reconfigured
since the issuance of the letter requesting that Petitioner update his
application. The new DMM section, DMM §508.4.3.1(d),
and the other sections cited in the Postal Service’s request are substantively
the same as the prior provisions.
[3]
See, e.g., 39 U.S.C.
§§3003 (Mail bearing a fictitious name or address), 3004 (Delivery of mail to
persons not residents of the place of address), and 3005 (False
representations; lotteries).
[5] Janet Stone, P.S. Docket No. POB 02-52 (P.S.D.
Aug. 9, 2002).
[6] Michael D. Tomsyck, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-168
(P.S.D. Sept. 22, 1998).