*Pages 1--4 from  Microsoft Word - 11338.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  244 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 JEFFREY  W.  HANSON 
 On  Request  for  Inspection  of 
 Records 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 FOIA  Control  No.  20-  254 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  August  24,  2001  Released:  September  5,  2001 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  The  Commission  has  before  it  five  applications  for  review  filed  by  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson 
 (Hanson)  concerning  the  handling  of  his  Freedom  of  Information  Act  (FOIA)  and  Privacy  Act  (PA) 
 requests  for  information  concerning  himself  and  a  complaint  he  filed  with  the  Commission.  Two  of  the 
 applications  for  review  are  dismissed  and  three  others  are  dismissed  in  part  and  otherwise  denied. 


 2.  Mr.  Hansons  FOIA  and  Privacy  Act  request,  dated  August  11,  2000,  sought  records 
 concerning  Hanson  and  a  complaint  he  had  filed  with  the  Commission  concerning  the  billing  practices  of 
 AT&  T  Corporation  (AT&  T),  referred  to  as  Complaint  Number  IC-  2000009671.  1  His  PA/  FOIA  Request 
 provided  his  name,  social  security  number,  and  date  of  birth.  2  On  September  13,  2000,  when  he  did  not 
 receive  a  response  to  his  PA/  FOIA  Request,  Mr.  Hanson  filed  an  application  for  review.  3  Although  the 
 PA/  FOIA  Request  was  received  by  the  Commissions  mailroom  on  August  15,  2000,  it  did  not  reach  the 
 FOIA  Control  Office  until  September  21,  2000,  when  it  was  logged  in  and  assigned  to  the  Consumer 
 Information  Bureau  (Bureau  or  CIB).  4  On  October  19,  2000,  the  Bureau  provided  Mr.  Hanson  with 
 copies  of  the  contents  of  the  informal  complaint  file  for  Complaint  Number  IC-  2000009672,  the  correct 
 number  for  his  complaint  against  AT&  T,  but  made  no  reference  to  the  Privacy  Act  aspects  of  his  request.  5 


 3.  Subsequently,  Mr.  Hanson  was  contacted  to  determine  whether  his  First  Application  for 
 Review  was  moot  in  light  of  the  FOIA  Decision.  6  Mr.  Hanson  responded  with  a  second  application  for 


 1  Tandem  Privacy  Act/  Freedom  of  Information  Act  Request  Letter  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  Privacy  Act/  FOIA 
 Records  Officer  (Aug.  11,  2000)  (PA/  FOIA  Request). 
 2  Id.  at  2. 


 3  Tandum  [sic]  Freedom  of  Information  Act/  Privacy  Act  Appeal  letter  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  Freedom  of 
 Information  Act/  Privacy  Act  Appeals  Officer  (Sept.  13,  2000)  (First  Application  for  Review)  (stating,  [  b]  ecause  I 
 have  not  received  a  response  in  any  way  or  form  .  .  .  I  consider  my  FOIA/  PA  request  denied.).  Mr.  Hanson  also 
 requested  an  Official  FCC  Complaint  Form  on  which  to  file  a  complaint  concerning  the  handling  of  his  PA/  FOIA 
 Request.  See  electronic  mail  (e-  mail)  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  FOIA@  FCC.  gov  (Sept.  24,  2000);  e-  mail  from 
 Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  FOIA@  FCC.  gov  (Oct.  8,  2000)  (again  inquiring  about  the  lack  of  response  to  his  PA/  FOIA 
 request). 


 4  See  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  461(  e). 


 5  Letter  from  Roderick  K.  Porter,  Acting  Chief,  CIB,  to  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  (Oct.  19,  2000)  (FOIA  Decision). 
 6  See  letter  from  Laurence  H.  Schecker,  Attorney-  Advisor,  Office  of  General  Counsel,  to  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  (Nov. 
 28,  2000).  The  inquiry  noted  that  Mr.  Hanson  had  not  filed  an  application  for  review  of  the  FOIA  Decision  within 
 30  days,  as  required  by  47  C.  F.  R.    0.461(  j). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  244 
 2 
 review  noting  that  the  Bureau  had  not  responded  to  the  Privacy  Act  aspects  of  his  PA/  FOIA  Request.  7 
 The  Bureau  then  responded  to  the  Privacy  Act  portion  of  Mr.  Hansons  PA/  FOIA  Request.  8  As  required 
 by  our  rules,  Mr.  Hanson  was  informed  that  information  about  him  arising  from  his  filing  of  an 
 informal  complaint  was  contained  in  an  FCC  system  of  records.  9  The  Bureau  informed  Mr.  Hanson  that  it  had  provided  all  the  documents  in  his  informal  complaint  file  except  for  the  documents  [he]  had 


 attached  to  the  FOIA  request  (and  therefore  already  had  in  [his]  possession).  10  Mr.  Hanson  was 
 informed  of  his  right  to  request  correction  or  amendment  of  the  records  in  the  system  of  records,  11  and  his 
 right  to  seek  review  of  the  PA  Decision.  12  If  he  did  seek  review,  Mr.  Hanson  was  requested  to  specify 
 what  records  he  believed  were  not  provided  to  him.  13 


 4.  Mr.  Hanson  was  additionally  notified  that  the  Commission  had  provided  him  with  all 
 documents  responsive  to  his  PA/  FOIA  Request  in  response  to  a  congressional  inquiry  on  his  behalf.  14 


 5.  On  December  28,  2000,  Mr.  Hanson  filed  a  third  application  for  review  indicating  his 
 belief  that  records  had  been  withheld  from  him.  15  He  also  sent  an  e-  mail  complaining  about  the  poor 
 responsiveness  he  had  received  regarding  his  many  letters  to  the  Commission.  16  In  response  to  this 
 correspondence,  it  was  noted  to  Mr.  Hanson  that  he  had  received  three  letters  responsive  to  his  requests 
 tendering  him  all  documents  in  the  Commissions  possession  responsive  to  his  PA/  FOIA  Request.  17  He 
 was  also  informed  that  reason  for  the  delay  in  responding  to  his  PA/  FOIA  Request  resulted  from  the 
 incorrect  informal  complaint  number  he  had  originally  provided.  18  Mr.  Hanson  was  requested  to  inform 
 the  Commission  what  else  could  be  done  to  satisfy  his  inquiries.  19 


 6.  On  June  24,  2001,  Mr.  Hanson  filed  a  fourth  application  for  review.  20  Mr.  Hanson 
 continues  to  believe  the  Commission  has  withheld  records  in  response  to  his  original  PA/  FOIA  Request.  21 
 He  also  challenges  the  decision  not  to  provide  [him  his]  FOIA/  PA  records  in  the  time  allotted  by  the 
 [FOIA],  and  the  Commissions  refusal  to  contact  [him]  directly  as  requested  in  his  many  letters 
 regarding  [his]  informal  complaint.  22  Mr.  Hanson  followed  this  pleading  with  a  fifth  application  for 


 7  Second  Tandem  Freedom  of  Information  Act/  Privacy  Act  Appeal,  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  FOIA/  PA  Appeal 
 Officer  (Dec.  3,  2000)  (Second  Application  for  Review). 
 8  Letter  from  Roderick  K.  Porter,  Acting  Chief,  CIB,  to  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  (Dec.  5,  2000)  (PA  Decision) 


 9  Id.  at  1,  citing  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  554(  a)  and  FCC/  CIB-  1,  Informal  Complaints  and  Inquiries  File  (Broadcast,  Common 
 Carrier,  and  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Radio  Services,  65  Fed.  Reg.  63468,  63480  (Oct.  23,  2000). 
 10  Id.  at  1-  2. 


 11  Id.  at  2,  citing  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  556. 
 12  Id.  citing  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  555(  e)(  1)  and  (2). 
 13  Id. 
 14  See  letter  to  Senator  Trent  Lott  from  Roderick  K.  Porter,  Acting  Chief,  CIB  (Dec.  15,  2000)  (Lott  Letter). 
 15  Letter  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  FOIA/  PA  Appeal  Officer  (Dec.  28,  2000)  (Third  Application  for  Review). 
 16  See  e-  mail  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  Laurence  H.  Schecker  (Dec.  28,  2000). 
 17  See  e-  mail  from  Laurence  H.  Schecker  to  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  (Dec.  28,  2000)  (Dec.  28  e-  mail). 
 18  Id.  See  paragraph  2,  supra. 
 19  Id. 
 20  Letter  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  FOIA/  PA  Appeals  Officer  (June  24,  2001)  (Fourth  Application  for  Review). 
 21  Id.  at  1. 
 22  Id.  at  2. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  244 
 3 
 review  that  repeated  the  assertions  contained  in  the  Fourth  Application  for  Review.  23 
 7.  Mr.  Hansons  five  applications  for  review  are  either  dismissed  or  denied,  as  we  now 
 discuss.  His  First  Application  for  Review  was  filed  when  he  did  not  receive  a  response  to  his  PA/  FOIA 
 Request  within  20  working  days,  as  required  by  the  FOIA  and  our  regulations.  24  However,  the  time  for 
 responding  to  his  PA/  FOIA  Request  commenced  when  the  request  was  received  and  logged  in  by  the 
 FOIA  Control  Officer  on  September  21,  2000.  25  The  Commission  strives  to  promptly  route  FOIA 
 requests  to  the  FOIA  Control  Officer  and  the  custodian  of  the  records,  but  delays  sometimes  do  occur.  As 
 Mr.  Hanson  was  informed,  further  delays  occurred  because  he  had  misidentified  the  control  number  for 
 his  informal  complaint  against  AT&  T.  26  In  this  instance,  the  Bureaus  FOIA  Decision  of  October  19, 
 2000,  was  issued  within  the  20  working  days  of  the  receipt  of  the  PA/  FOIA  Request  by  the  FOIA  Control 
 Officer,  as  prescribed  by  the  FOIA. 


 8.  The  Second  Application  for  Review  challenged  the  lack  of  response  to  the  Privacy  Act 
 aspects  of  his  PA/  FOIA  Request.  The  Bureaus  PA  Decision  fully  responded  to  that  aspect  of  his 
 PA/  FOIA  Request.  With  the  issuance  of  the  FOIA  Decision  and  the  PA  Decision,  Mr.  Hansons  First  and 
 Second  Applications  for  Review  are  properly  dismissed  as  moot.  27 


 9.  The  Third  Application  for  Review,  asserting  that  he  had  not  been  provided  with  all 
 documents  responsive  to  his  PA/  FOIA  Request,  was  filed  on  December  28,  2000.  28  The  Third  Application 
 for  Review  is  untimely  to  the  extent  it  seeks  review  of  the  FOIA  Decision.  29  However,  we  note  that  in 
 this  instance,  the  Bureau  informed  Mr.  Hanson  that  he  had  been  provided  with  all  the  records  located  that 
 were  responsive  to  the  FOIA  portion  of  his  request.  The  Third  Application  for  Review  is  timely  as  to  the 
 PA  Decision.  30  Mr.  Hansons  sole  complaint  is  that  he  was  not  provided  with  all  the  records  he  sought. 
 However,  the  Bureau  informed  Mr.  Hanson  that  he  had  been  provided  with  all  the  records  located  31  and 
 also  had  requested  that  Mr.  Hanson  identify  what  records  he  believed  had  not  been  provided  to  him.  32 
 The  Bureaus  search  for  records  was  also  reasonably  calculated  to  uncover  all  responsive  documents  in 


 23  Letter  from  Jeffrey  W.  Hanson  to  FOIA/  PA  Appeals  Officer  (August  12,  2001)  (Fifth  Application  for  Review). 
 24  See  5  U.  S.  C.    552(  a)(  6)(  A)(  i)  and  47  C.  F.  R.    0.461(  g). 
 25  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  461(  e)  (FOIA  Control  Officer  logs  in  and  date  stamps  FOIA  requests)  and  0.461(  g)  (  The 
 custodian  of  the  records  will  make  every  effort  to  act  on  the  request  within  20  working  days  after  it  is  received  by 
 the  FOIA  Control  Office  (emphasis  supplied)).  See  Church  of  Scientology  of  Cal.  v.  IRS,  792  F.  2d  146,  150  (D.  C. 
 Cir.  1986)  (the  time  period  for  responding  to  a  FOIA  request  does  not  begin  to  run  until  the  request  is  received  by 
 the  appropriate  office  and  officer  in  the  agency  as  set  forth  in  the  agency's  published  regulations);  Brumley  v.  United 
 States  Dep't  of  Labor,  767  F.  2d  444,  445  (8th  Cir.  1985)  (same). 
 26  See  Dec.  28  e-  mail;  paragraph  2,  supra. 


 27  Cf.  Voinche  v.  FBI,  999  F.  2d  962,  963  (5th  Cir.  1993)  (a  challenge  to  the  tardiness  of  an  agencys  response  to  a 
 FOIA  request  is  rendered  moot  by  a  response  to  the  request);  Fisher  v.  FBI,  94  F.  Supp.  2d  213,  218  and  n.  3  (D. 
 Conn.  2000)  (  Plaintiff  has  been  provided  with  all  relevant  materials,  and,  despite  the  understandable  dismay  at  the 
 delay,  his  case  is  therefore  moot.). 


 28  See  n.  15,  supra. 


 29  See  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  461(  j)  (applications  for  review  of  initial  FOIA  decisions  must  be  filed  within  30  days  of  the  date 
 of  the  written  decision);  Robin  Hardin,  FOIA  Control  No.  99-  61,  FCC  99-  312  (1999);  Michael  C.  Olson,  13  FCC 
 Rcd  20593  (1998). 


 30  See  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  555(  e)(  1)  (permitting  review  of  determinations  denying  individuals  access  to  records  pertaining 


 to  themselves  without  setting  a  time  limit  for  such  applications  for  review). 
 31  See  FOIA  Decision;  PA  Decision;  Lott  Letter;  Dec.  28  e-  mail. 


 32  See  PA  Decision  at  2;  Dec.  28  e-  mail. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  244 
 4 
 light  of  Mr.  Hansons  description  of  the  records  he  sought.  33  The  Third  Application  for  Review  is 
 therefore  denied. 


 10.  Mr.  Hansons  Fourth  Application  for  Review  was  filed  June  24,  2001,  and  his  Fifth 
 Application  for  Review  was  filed  August  12,  2001,  both  far  more  than  30  days  after  the  FOIA  Decision  of 
 October  19,  2000.  They  are  both  therefore  dismissed  as  untimely  as  to  the  FOIA  Decision.  34  Both  the 
 Fourth  Application  for  Review  and  the  Fifth  Application  for  Review  raise  no  new  matters  regarding  the 
 Privacy  Act  aspects  of  Mr.  Hansons  PA/  FOIA  Request,  35  and  are  therefore  denied  for  the  same  reasons 
 expressed  earlier.  36 


 11.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  Mr.  Hansons  First  and  Second  Applications  for 
 Review  are  DISMISSED  AS  MOOT. 


 12.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Mr.  Hansons  Third,  Fourth,  and  Fifth  Applications 
 for  Review  ARE  DISMISSED  IN  PART  AS  UNTIMELY  AND  OTHERWISE  ARE  DENIED.  Mr. 
 Hanson  may  seek  review  of  this  decision  pursuant  to  5  U.  S.  C.    552(  a)(  4)(  B). 


 13.  The  officials  responsible  for  this  action  are  the  following  Commissioners:  Chairman 
 Powell,  Commissioners  Tristani,  Abernathy,  Copps,  and  Martin. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 


 33  See,  e.  g.,  Weisberg  v.  United  States  Dept  of  Justice,  705  F.  2d  1344,  1351  (D.  C.  Cir.  1983). 
 34  See  n.  29,  supra. 
 35  As  noted  above,  there  is  no  deadline  for  filing  for  administrative  review  of  a  request  for  records  under  the  Privacy 
 Act,  see  n.  30,  supra,  and  therefore  we  do  not  dismiss  these  parts  of  the  Fourth  Application  for  Review  and  the  Fifth 
 Application  for  Review  as  untimely. 


 36  The  complaint  in  the  Fourth  Application  for  Review  and  the  Fifth  Application  for  Review  concerning  the  timing 


 of  the  processing  of  Mr.  Hansons  PA/  FOIA  Request  is  discussed  in  paragraph  7,  supra,  and  his  complaint  that  he 
 did  not  receive  all  the  records  requested  is  discussed  in  paragraph  9,  supra. 
4