May 25, 2007

Eugenia Zacks-Carney

Attorney and Counselor at Law

4555 Marlborough

Okemos, MI 48864

Re: FOIA Appeal dated April 23, 2007

Dear Ms. Zacks-Carney:

On March 20, 2000, you made a two-part Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for: 1) complaints and investigations regarding the cancellation
and/or termination of life insurance policies offered to credit union
members by Michigan State University Federal Credit Union; and 2) fee
income generated by the credit union since January 1, 1982 in relation
to its marketing and offering of life insurance policies to members.
Staff attorney Linda Dent responded to your request on April 20, 2007.
She identified 47 pages of documents responsive to your request. All
documents were withheld pursuant to exemptions 5, 6, and 8 of the FOIA.
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), (6), & (8). We note that all of the documents
withheld were responsive to the first part of your request (complaints
and investigations). There were no documents found on fee income. NCUA
does not generally collect this type of information.

We received your April 23, 2007, FOIA appeal on April 27^th^. You do not
believe that documents should have been withheld pursuant to exemptions
5 and 8 of the FOIA. With regard to exemption 6 (the personal privacy
exemption) you state that you did not seek identification of any person
in your FOIA request. You believe that NCUA should have redacted any
personal information and released the documents. Your appeal is granted
in part and denied in part. Enclosed are approximately 40 pages of
responsive documents. Most of the pages have had some information
redacted pursuant to exemption 6 of the FOIA. Four pages are withheld in
full, 3 pursuant to exemption 5 and one pursuant to exemption 6. We also
note that 3 of the original 47 responsive pages were duplicate pages,
reducing the total number of responsive pages to approximately 44. An
explanation of exemptions 5 and 6 follows.

# Exemption 5

Internal memoranda, drafts of NCUA documents and notes were withheld
pursuant to exemption 5. Exemption 5 of the FOIA protects "inter-agency
or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by
law to a party ... in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5).
Included within exemption 5 is information subject to the deliberative
process privilege. The purpose of the deliberative process privilege is
"to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions." [NLRB v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co.]{.underline}, 421 U.S. 132, 151 (1975). Any one of the
following three policy purposes have been held to constitute a basis for
the deliberative process privilege: (1) to encourage open, frank
discussions on matters of policy between subordinates and superiors; (2)
to protect against

premature disclosure of proposed policies before they are finally
adopted; and (3) to protect against public confusion that might result
from disclosure of reasons and rationales that were not in fact
ultimately the grounds for an agency's action. [Russell v. Department of
the Air Force]{.underline}, 682 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1982). The first
and third policies enumerated in [Russell]{.underline} apply to the
documents withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege of
exemption 5.

# Exemption 6

Personal identifying and confidential financial information, and home
addresses and telephone numbers were withheld pursuant to exemption 6.
Exemption 6 protects information about an individual in "personnel and
medical files and similar files" where the disclosure of such
information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy." 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6). The courts have held that all information
that applies to a particular individual meets the threshold requirement
for privacy protection. [United States Department of State v. Washington
Post Co.]{.underline}, 456 U.S. 595 (1982). Once a privacy interest is
established, application of exemption 6 requires a balancing of the
public's right to disclosure against the individual's right to privacy.
[Department of the Air Force v. Rose]{.underline}, 425 U.S. 352, 372
(1976). The withheld information meets the requirement for exemption 6
protection. There is minimal, if any, public interest in disclosing this
personal information. The individuals' privacy interests outweigh any
public interest in disclosure. The personal information continues to be
withheld pursuant to exemption 6.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) of the FOIA, you may seek judicial
review of this determination by filing suit against the NCUA. Such a
suit may be filed in the United States District Court where you reside,
where your principal place of business is located, the District of
Columbia, or where the documents are located (the Eastern District of
Virginia).

Sincerely,

/S/

Robert M. Fenner

General Counsel

Enclosures

GC/HMU:bhs

07-0501

07-FOI-00104

2007-APP-00003