(a) Grants of requests. Once a component makes a determination to grant a request in whole or in part, it shall notify the requester in writing and include a statement alerting the requester of his or her right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison. The component also shall inform the requester of any fees charged under § 265.9 and shall disclose the requested records to the requester promptly upon payment of any applicable fees.
(b) Adverse determinations of requests. A component making an adverse determination denying a request in any respect shall notify the requester of that determination in writing. Adverse determinations, or denials of requests, include decisions that: the requested record is exempt, in whole or in part; the request does not reasonably describe the records sought; the information requested is not a record subject to the FOIA; the requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or the requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester. Adverse determinations also include denials involving fees or fee waiver matters or denials of requests for expedited processing.
(c) Content of denial. The denial shall include, to the extent applicable:
(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;
(2) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by the component in denying the request;
(3) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption; and
(4) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 265.8, and a description of the requirements set forth therein.
(5) A statement notifying the requester of his or her right to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services.
(d) Markings on released documents. Markings on released documents must be clearly visible to the requester. Records disclosed in part shall be marked to show the amount of information deleted and the exemption under which the deletion was made unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption. The location of the information deleted shall also be indicated on the record, if technically feasible.
(e) Use of record exclusions. (1) In the event that a component identifies records that may be subject to exclusion from the requirements of the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c), the component must confer with Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP), to obtain approval to apply the exclusion.
(2) Any component invoking an exclusion must maintain an administrative record of the process of invocation and approval of exclusion by OIP.
[81 FR 86271, Nov. 30, 2016, as amended at 83 FR 48235, Sept. 24, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Carlson v. US Postal Serv., 504 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 5× “While the district court recognized that “post office names, locations, and hours of operation are not intrinsically commercial information,” it looked to USPS regulations, 39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (b)(3)(vi) & (vii), which identify two categories of information subject to § 410(c)(2):…”
Wickwire Gavin, P.C. v. United States Postal Serv., 356 F.3d 588 (4th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “On August 29, 2001, USPS denied access to items four and five, citing 39 C.F.R. §§ 265.6 (b)(3), 265.6(b)(5). On November 26, 2001, USPS denied WG’s administrative appeal.”
Caplash v. Johnson, 230 F. Supp. 3d 128 (W.D.N.Y. 2017).
· cites it 2× “While the Court does not rule on what additional steps categorically would or would not have fulfilled this obligation, an inquiry to the USPS, as suggested by Plaintiff, under 39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (d)(5)(i) 16 may have been a good place to start.”
Fitzgerald v. State, 599 P.2d 572 (Wyo. 1979).
· cites it 2× “39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (1978), states, among other things: "(4) The business name and address of the holder of a post office box being used for the purpose of doing or soliciting business with the public, and any person applying for a box in behalf of a holder, will be furnished to…”
Pi Elec. Corp. v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 279 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
“, 39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (b)(2) (2002) (exempting trade secrets from mandatory disclosure *290 under Freedom of Information Act); 39 C.”
Banks v. Dep't of Just., 813 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2011).
“” 39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (b)(6). “Investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes, whether or not considered closed, are exempt .”
Nat'l W. Life Ins. v. United States, 512 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1980).
“Postal Service regulations do not define what is to be “information of a commercial nature,” but 39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (b)(3) lists certain kinds of information that is not to be disclosed: Information of a commercial nature including trade secrets, whether or not obtained from a…”
Am. Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 742 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2010).
· cites it 2× “39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (b)(3)(vi). Under § 410(c)(2) and its accompanying regulation, courts have allowed the Postal Service to withhold various types of information using Exemption 3.”
Church of Scientology of California v. United States Postal Serv., 633 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1980).
“The district court was also instructed that if it determined that section 410(c)(6) was such an exempting statute, it should then decide whether the Postal Service had complied with its own regulation, found at 39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (c), 5 and whether the documents were properly…”
Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 1288 (D. Kan. 1997).
“) 39 C.F.R. § 265.6 (d)(4). In her affidavit, Postal Inspector Moneca Mills states that she obtained plaintiffs address for Agent Hillman because Agent Hillman “indicated he was handling a civil rights investigation for the FBI.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.