HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaacou0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCUM~ENT RESUM
03139 - rA24135391 wtr f~f
rsurvey of Pelease of Mailing L5.sts by Federal Government
Agenciesi.. LCD-77-112; B-169272. August 25, 1977. 8 pp.
Report to Rep. Charles A. Vanik; by Robert F. Keller, Acting
Comptroller General.
issue Area: Federal Records Management (1400).
Contact: Logistics and Communications Div.
Budget Function: General Government: General Property and
Records Management (804I).
Organization Concerned: Department of the Treasury; Department
of Commerce; Department of Defense; Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare; Department of Justice; Department of
transportation; General Services Administration; Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; Postal Service; Veterans
Administration.
congressional Relevance: Rep. Charles X. Vanik.
Authority: Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 592). Privacy
Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). 40 Fed. Reg. 28951. 27 C.F.R.
240.540 et seg. Getman v. National Labor Rclations Board,
450 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Robles v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 484 F.2d 843 (4th Ci.- 1973). Department
of +he Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976).
A review of the policies and practices of 11 Federal
lepartments, agencies, or commissions on releasing mailing lists
outside the Government showed that the agencier were generally
aware of the personal privacy issue as it related to the release
of mailing lists and that they have addressed it in their
policies. Findings/Conclusions: Many inconsistencies exist in
the present policies on mailing lists. Court Aecisions do not
provide any definitive guidelines to igencies, and the
distinct.ons made in the law are not sufficiently clear to allow
satisfactory answers to all questions that arise. Generally,
lists of business names and addresses are releusable under the
Freedom of information Act. The rules governing the release of
individual names and iddresses are not as clear. Tn addition,
the Privacy Act serves to limit the release of individual
nonbusiness names and addresses. Mailing lists containing
addresses of both businesses and individuals present difficult
definitional problems. Tf the activity giving rise to the
mailing list is substantially personal and not directly business
oriented, tnen release of the list, even though it contains
addresses of both businesses and individuals, may be
qu-stionablep Because conb_]erable discretion must be exercised
in these matters, an agpncy's decision on releasing such a mixel
list should be accepted if no proof exis+s showing arbitrary
disregard of the evidence by the agency. (SC)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaacou0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)