In Jefferson Township, 828 A.2d 475, 479 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), the Court addressed whether the Somerset County Tax Claim Bureau was required to exhaust all "efforts" listed in Section 607.1 of the RETSL, 72 P.S. 5860.607a, in addition to the mailing, posting, and publication notices under Section 602 of the RETSL, 72 P.S. 5860.602(a): The trial court rejected M. Susan Ruffner's contentions that the Bureau failed to take additional reasonable efforts as required by Section 607.1 of Law RETSL to locate her whereabouts upon not receiving any signed receipt confirming the delivery of the notices sent to her by the Bureau. . . . The requirement of due process was explained by this Court in Farro v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe County, 704 A.2d 1137, 1142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 555 Pa. 722, 724 A.2d 936 (1998), as requiring the taxing bureau to conduct a reasonable investigation to ascertain the identity and whereabouts of the latest owners of record of property subject to an upset sale for the purposes of providing notice to that party. A taxing bureau's duty to investigate such matters is confined to determining the owners of record and then to use ordinary common sense business practices to ascertain proper addresses where notice of the tax sale maybe given. . . . Where notice is obviously not effectively reaching the owners of record, the taxing bureau must go beyond the mere ceremonial act of notice by certified mail. . . . However, due process does not require the taxing bureau to perform the equivalent of a title search or to make decisions to quiet title. . . . Our review of the record in this case reveals that the trial court did not err in dismissing Ruffner's exceptions to the sale of her property. As found by the trial court, proper notice was sent to Ruffner by the Bureau by certified mail, return receipt requested but Ruffner chose not to claim the mail from the postal authorities. In addition, proper first class mail notice was forwarded to Ruffner at her proper mailing address and was not returned to the Bureau. Finally, reasonable efforts were made by the Bureau to determine whether there was any other address at which Ruffner could have been served. As correctly stated by the trial court, Section 607.1 only requires the Bureau to check the telephone directories in the county where the property is located. Moreover, even though the address on file with the Bureau for Ruffner was outside Somerset County, Section 607.1 does not impose an obligation on the Bureau to check directories outside the county particularly where the Bureau checked the assessment records and determined that Ruffner's correct address in Allegheny County was already on file . . . . In addition, there is nothing in the record to indicate that there was an alternate address or phone number in the Bureau's files at which the Bureau had made contact with Ruffner. We also agree with the trial court that the Bureau was not required to conduct an internet search for Ruffner's office address and phone number. Section 607.1 of the Law RETSL does not require the Bureau to surf the web for an owner's alternative address or phone number, particularly where the Bureau is satisfied through other efforts that it has the owner's correct address on file. . . . As stated by the trial court, while the Bureau did not check the county's recorder of deeds and prothonotary offices, nothing in the record suggests that such a search would have revealed anything other than the address to which the notices were mailed. . . . As found by the trial court, Ruffner simply chose not to go to the post office to retrieve her certified mail and the subsequent notice sent to Ruffner at her correct address by first class mail was not returned. Id. at 477-80. In Jefferson Township, the Somerset County Tax Claim Bureau only checked the county assessment records listed in Section 607.1 of the RETSL to determine whether Ruffner's address was correct. The Court determined that this additional notification effort was sufficient and no further "efforts", i.e. a search of current telephone directories, dockets and indices of the recorder of deeds and prothonotary offices, and previous contacts made to a different address or telephone number contained in the property file, under Section 607.1 of the RETSL were necessary.