39 C.F.R. § 266.7

Schedule of fees

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Policy. The purpose of this section is to establish fair and equitable fees to permit duplication of records for subject individuals (or authorized representatives) while recovering the full allowable direct costs incurred by the Postal Service.

(b) Duplication. (1) For duplicating any paper or micrographic record or publication or computer report, the fee is $.15 per page, except that the first 100 pages furnished in response to a particular request must be furnished without charge. See paragraph (c) of this section for fee limitations.

(2) The Postal Service may at its discretion make user-paid copy machines available at any location. In that event, requesters will be given the opportunity to make copies at their own expense.

(3) The Postal Service normally will not furnish more than one copy of any record. If duplicate copies are furnished at the request of the requester; a fee of $0.15 per page is charged for each copy of each duplicate page without regard to whether the requester is eligible for free copies pursuant to § 266.7(b)(1).

(c) Limitations. No fee will be charged to an individual for the process of retrieving, reviewing, or amending a record pertaining to that individual.

(d) Reimbursement. The Postal Service may, at its discretion, require reimbursement of its costs as a condition of participation in a computer matching program or activity with another agency. The agency to be charged is notified in writing of the approximate costs before they are incurred. Costs are calculated in accordance with the schedule of fees set forth at § 265.9.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1983–1983 · leading case: Ross v. United States Postal Serv., 556 F. Supp. 729 (N.D. Ala. 1983).
Ross v. United States Postal Serv., 556 F. Supp. 729 (N.D. Ala. 1983). “§ 522a(d)(3), (g)(1); 39 C.F.R. § 266.7 . In addition to this jurisdictional barrier, the uncontroverted facts reveal that the Postal Service acted no worse than negligently in retaining incorrect and untimely data in plaintiff’s personnel folder.”
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.