In the Matter of the Petition by:                               )
                                                                               )
CHARLES P. PAGE, President                                )
PAGE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION                 )
P. O. Box 6294                                                       )
Venice, FL 34292-0894                                         )
                                                                               )
Notice of Intent to Close P. O. Box                         )
7227 at Nashua, NH                                               ) P. S. Docket No. 39/33

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Charles P. Page, President
                                                                               Page International Corporation
                                                                               P. O. Box 6294
                                                                               Venice, FL 34292-0894

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                       H. Richard Hefner, Esq.
                                                                              Consumer Protection Division
                                                                              Law Department
                                                                              United States Postal Service
                                                                              Washington, DC 20260-1144

INITIAL DECISION

The Postal Service has moved for summary judgment in this matter, pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 958.3(2). Petitioner's response to the motion (a handwritten note, dated 4/20/92, at the bottom of a copy of the order dated April 14 which directed a response to the motion) offers no valid objection thereto. The petition and answer present no genuine or material issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing. Disposition of the case pursuant to § 958.3(2) is, therefore, appropriate.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Since January 1985, Petitioner, a New Hampshire corporation, has rented P. O. Box 7227 at Nashua, NH 03060.

2. Commencing September 1, 1990, Petitioner filed the following temporary changes of address for mail addressed to it at Box 7227:

1) September 1, 1990 through August 19, 1991 forward from:PO Box 7227 to:

80 Plank Hill Road Simsbury CT 06070-2105

2) August 20, 1991 through December 31, 1991 forward from:PO Box 7227 to:

PO Box 6294 Venice FL 34292-0894

3) February 1, 1992 through July 31, 1992 forward from:PO Box 7227 to:

80 Plank Hill Road Simsbury CT 06070-2105 to: PO Box 6294 Venice FL 34292-0894

3. In a letter to Petitioner dated February 4, 1992, the Superintendent, Window Services, at the Nashua Post Office stated that Petitioner appears to be using P. O. Box 7227, by filing change of address orders, solely for the purpose of having mail forwarded to another address by the Postal Service free of charge (referring to Domestic Mail Manual § 951.164 ^1/) and that if this is true, box renewal would have to be denied.

4. Petitioner's response to the above described letter was a letter dated February 11, 1992, from its president, Charles P. Page, denying that Petitioner uses the box for the purpose of free forwarding of mail, rejecting the proposal of a permanent change of address, asserting that Box 7227 is a vital part of Petitioner's operational plan to revive the dying economy of New Hampshire, and complaining that denial of renewal would constitute an impediment and hindrance to such plan. The balance of the letter is devoted to explaining the importance to Petitioner of mail forwarding, particularly first class mail and mail from government agencies, complaining about failures of the Nashua Post Office to forward certain mail promptly, and claiming that no other postmaster in any state has ever failed to "expeditiously protect, forward, and perform [mail forwarding] for this NH Corporation in 10+ years of operation."

5. By letter dated February 21, 1992, the Postmaster at Nashua,based on the temporary address changes set forth in finding no. 2, above, and Petitioner's letter dated February 11 (finding no. 4, above), determined that Petitioner is violating the regulations and/or conditions relating to the use of Box 7227 in that, by means of filing change of address orders, it uses such box solely for the purpose of having mail forwarded or transferred to another address by the Postal Service, free of charge.

6. In a response, dated March 2 to the Postmaster's February 21 determination letter, Petitioner took strong exception to his "accusation" of violation of the regulations but did not deny that it uses the box solely to have mail forwarded to another address free of charge. This use is reflected in the following statement contained in both the February 11 and March 2 letters:

The Agencies, DOD and RTC in particular, send periodic communications to that permanent address [P.O. Box 7227]. However, when we are communicating with them from an operational site (such as CT, MA, or FL) it is sent direct for speed. Thus, -- the only forwarding which Harold Street [Nashua Post Office] has been asked to do is for First Class and GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, already paid, easily forwarded, and for which the US Postal Service has a recognized forwarding system. The junk mail, unsolicited, can be destroyed -- we do it periodically, too."

7. The Postmaster properly treated Petitioner's March 2 letter as a petition opposing his determination, forwarding it to the Recorder pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 958.3.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The statements made in Petitioner's February 11 and March 2 letters quoted in Finding No. 6, above, in effect admit Petitioner's use of P. O. Box 7227 solely for the purpose of having mail forwarded to other addresses free of charge. It is concluded, therefore, that Petitioner is using the box in violation of DMM § 951.164 and that the Postmaster properly determined to close the box for that reason.^2/ The determination is sustained.

The violation is not avoided or excused by Petitioner's direction that junk mail need not be forwarded and its representation concerning its use of the box as part of an operational plan to stimulate and revive the New Hampshire economy.

Quentin E. Grant
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1/ 951.164 Forwarding. Boxes may not be used when the sole purpose is, by subsequently filing change-of-address orders, to have mail forwarded or transferred to another address by the Postal Service, free of charge.

2/ [DMM § ] 951.82. Termination of Service.

A postmaster may close a post office box when the box customer has

* * * * *

c. violated any regulation or condition relating to the care or use of the box.