From: dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.freedom.of.information.act,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: RESOURCE: FOIA KIT part 2
Date: 26 Feb 92 01:54:50 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL



---------------------------FOIA-KIT part 2----------------------------


<5> FOIA Addresses of selected Federal Agencies 

FUND FOR OPEN INFORMATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY, INC.  P.O.  BOX  O2
2397, BROOKLYN, NY 11202-0050 

FOIA/PA ADDRESSES FOR SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Administrative  Office  of the U.S. Courts Washington, D.C. 20544
(202) 633-6117 

Bureau of Prisons 320 1st St., NW Washington,  D.C.  20534  (202)
724-3198 

Central  Intelligence  Agency Information and Privacy Coordinator
Washington, D.C. 20505 

Civil Service Commission Appropriate Bureau (Bureau of  Personnel
Investigation, Bureau of Personnel Information Systems, etc.) 

Civil  Service  Commission  1900  E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
20415 (202) 632-4431 

Commission on Civil Rights General Counsel,  U.S.  Commission  on
Civil  Rights  1121  Vermont Ave., N.W., Rm. 600 Washington, D.C.
20405 (202) 376-8177 

Consumer  Producet  Safety  Commission  1111   18th   St.,   N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20207 (301) 492-6580 

Defense   Intelligence   Agency  The  Pentagon  Washington,  D.C.
20301-6111 (202) 697-8844 

Department of Defense/Department of  the  Air  Force  Freedom  of
Information  Manager  Headquarters,  USAF/DADF  Washington,  D.C.
20330-5025 (202) 545-6700 

Department of Defense/Department  of  the  Army  General  Counsel
Secretary  of  the  Army The Pentagon, Rm. 2E727 Washington, D.C.
20310 (202) 545-6700 

Department of Defense/ Marine  Corps  Commandant  of  the  Marine
Corps   Department   of   the  Navy  Headquarters,  Marine  Corps

Washington, D.C. 20380-0001 (202) 694-2500 

Department  of  Defense/  Dept.  of  the  Navy  Chief  of   Naval
Operations  OP  09  B30  Pentagon,  Rm.  5E521  Washington,  D.C.
20350-2000 (202) 545-6700 

Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave.,  S.W.    Washington,
D.C. 20585 (202) 252-5000 

Department  of  Justice/  General  Administration (includes Civil
Rights Division, Antitrust  Division,  Drug  Enforcement  Admin.,
Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service) FOIA/ Privacy Act Unit
(of the appropriate division) 
 Department  of  Justice  Constitution  Ave.  &  10th  St.,  N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530 (202)633-2000 

Department of Labor 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.  Washington, D.C.
20210 (202) 523-8165 

Department  of  State Director, Freedom of Information Bureau for
Public Administration Department of State, Rm  239  2201  C  St.,
N.W.  Washington, D.C. 20520 (202) 647-3411 

Department   of   the  Treasury  Internal  Revenue  Service  1111
Constitution Ave., N.W.  Washington, D.C.  20224  (202)  566-5000
(Consult phone book for regional offices) 

Environmental  Protection  Agency  Freedom  of Information Office
A101 Room 1132 West Tower 401 M St., S.W.  Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4048 

Equal Employment Opportunities Comm.  Office  of  Legal  Services
2401  E  St.,  N.W., Rm. 214 Washington, D.C. 20507 Attn. Richard
Roscio, Assc. Legal Counsel (202) 634-6922 

Federal Communications Commission 1919 M St., N.W.    Washington,
D.C. 20554 (202) 254-7674 

Food  and  Drug  Administration  5600  Fishers Lane Rockville, MD
20857 (301) 443-1544 

Health  and  Human   Services   200   Independence   Ave.,   S.W.
Washington,  D.C. 20201 Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh
St., S.W.  Washington, D.C. 20410 (202) 755-6420 

National Aeronautics & Space  Administration  400  Maryland  Ave,
S.W.  Washington, D.C. 20546 (202) 453-1000 

National  Archives  and  Records Service Pennsylvania Ave. at 8th
St., N.W.  Washington, D.C. 20408 (202) 523-3130 

National Labor  Relations  Board  1717  Pennsylvania  Ave.,  N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20570 (202) 632-4950 

National Security Agency Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000 (301)
688-6311 

National Security   Council   Old   Executive   Bldg.     17th  &
Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.   Washington,  D.C.  20506  Attn.  Brenda
Reger (202) 395-3103 

Nuclear  Regulatory Commission Director, Office of Administration
Washingto n, D.C. 20555 (202) 492-7715 

Secret Service U.S. Secret Service 1800 G St., N.W.   Washington,
D.C. 20223 Attn. FOIA/ Privacy Office (202) 634-5798 

Securities and Exchange Commission 450 5th St., N.W.  Washington,
D.C. 20549 (202) 272-2650 

U.S. Customs  Service  1301  Constitution Ave., N.W.  Washington,
D.C. 20229 (202) 566-8195 

U.S. Agency for International Development  320  21st.  St.,  N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20532 (202) 632-1850 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E St., N.W.  Washington,
D.C. 20415 (202) 632-5491 

U.S.  Postal  Service  Records  Office  475  L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20260-5010 (202) 245-5568 

Veterans Administration 810 Vermont Ave., N.W.  Washington,  D.C.
20420 (202) 389-2741 

<6> FBI Addresses & phone numbers nationwide


2/88
DIVISION            ADDRESS                                TELEPHONE
Albany, NY 12207      502 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse  518-465-7551
Albuquerque, NM 87102 301 Grand Ave. NE                    505-247-1555
Alexandria, VA 22314  300 N. Lee St                        703-683-2680
Anchorage, AK 99513   701 C St                             907-276-4441
Atlanta, GA 30302     275 Peachtree St. NE                 404-521-3900
Baltimore, MD 21207   7142 Ambassador Rd                   301-265-8080
Birmingham, AL 35203  Room 1400, 2121 Bldg                 205-252-7705
Boston, MA 02203      John F. Kennedy Federal Office Bldg  617-742-5533
Buffalo, NY 14202     111 W. Huron St                      716-856-7800
Butte, MT 59702       U.S. Courthouse and Federal Bldg     406-792-2304
Charlotte, NC 28210   6010 Kenley Lane                     704-529-1030
Chicago, IL 60604     219 S. Dearborn St                   312-431-1333
Cincinnati, OH 45205  50 Main St                           513-421-4310
Cleveland, OH 44199   1240 E. 9th St                       216-522-1400
Columbia, SC 29201    1529 Hampton St                      803-254-3011
Dallas, TX 75202      1801 N. Lamar                        214-741-1851
Denver, CO 80202      Federal Office Bldg                  303-629-7171
Detroit, MI 48226     477 Michigan Ave                     313-965-2323
El Paso, TX 79901     202 U.S. Courthouse Bldg             915-533-7451
Honolulu, HI 96850    300 Ala Moana Blvd                   808-521-1411
Houston, TX 77002     515 Rusk Ave                         713-224-1511
Indianapolis, IN 46204 575 N. Pennsylvania St              317-639-3301
Jackson, MS 39264     100 W. Capitol St                    601-948-5000
Jackonsville, FL 32211 7820 Arlington Expressway           904-721-1211
Kansas City, MO 64106 300 U.S. Courthouse Bldg             816-221-6100
Knoxville, TN 37919   1111 Northshore Dr                   615-588-8571
Las Vegas, NV 89101   Las Vegas Blvd. S                    702-385-1281
Little Rock, AR 72201 215 U.S. Post Office Bldg            501-372-7211
Los Angeles, CA 90024 11000 Wilshire Blvd                  213-477-6565
Louisville, KY 40202  600 Federal Pl                       502-583-3941
Memphis, TN 38103     67 N. Main St                        901-525-7373
Miami, FL 33137       3801 Biscayne Blvd                   305-573-3333
Milwaukee, WI 53202   517 E. Wisconsin Ave                 414-276-4684
Minneapolis, MN 55401 392 Federal Bldg                     612-339-7861
Mobile, AL 36602      113 St. Joseph St                    205-438-3674
Newark, NJ 07102      Gateway 1, Market St                 201-622-5613
New Haven, CT 06510   150 Court St                         203-777-6311
New Orleans, LA 70112 1250 Poydras St., Suite 2200         504-522-4670
New York, NY 10278    26 Federal Plaza                     212-553-2700
Norfolk, VA 23510     200 Granby Mall                      804-623-3111
Oklahoma City, OK 73118 50 Penn Pl                         405-842-7471
Omaha, NE 68102       215 N. 17th St                       402-348-1210
Philadelphia, PA      600 Arch St                          215-629-0800
Phoenix, AZ 85012     201 E. Indianola                     602-279-5511
Pittsburgh, PA        1000 Liberty Ave                     412-471-2000
Portland, OR 97201    1500 SW 1st Ave                      503-224-4181
Quantico, VA 22135    FBI Academy                          703-640-6131
Richmond, VA 23220    200 W. Grace St                      804-644-2631
Sacramento, CA 95825  2800 Cottage Way                     916-481-9110
St. Louis, MO 63103   1520 Market St                       314-241-5357
Salt Lake City, UT 84138   125 S. State St                 801-355-8584
San Antonio, TX 78206 615 E. Houston                       512-225-6741
San Diego, CA 92188   880 Front St                         619-231-1122
San Francisco, CA 94102 450 Golden Gate Ave                415-552-2155
San Juan, PE 00918    Hato Rey, PR                         809-754-6000
Savannah, GA 31405    5401 Paulsen St                      912-354-9911
Seattle, WA 98174     915 2nd Ave                          206-622-0460
Springfield, IL 62702 535 W. Jefferson St                  217-522-9675
Tampa, FL 33602       500 Zack St                          813-228-7661
Washington, DC 20401  1900 Half St. SW                     202-324-3000

A sample article from Our Right To Know - From FOIA, Inc.
---------------   cut here   -------------------------------------
 O   U   R      R   I   G   H   T      T   O      K   N   O   W  
 A Publication of the Fund for Open Information & Accountability, Inc.
P.O. Box 02 2397, Brooklyn, NY 11202-0050 Tel: (212) 477-3188
Subscriptions: ORTK is published quarterly. Print: $12 per year
Electronic: $10 per year
Autumn 1988
Washington Update on Information Policy by Donna Demac
 
Sample from the current edition of OUR RIGHT TO KNOW
(Autumn 1988)
Copyright 1988, FOIA, Inc.
WASHINGTON UPDATE ON INFORMATION POLICY
By Donna Demac

"Facts  are  stupid things," blurted out President Reagan not too
long ago.   He  apparently  feels  the  same  way  about  rights,
including the  right  to know.  During this last year of Reagan's
reign, the executive branch as well as Congress have adopted  yet
more policies  that  weaken  public  access to information.  What
follows is a summary of recent developments in Washington  and  a
look  ahead  to  those  issues  that  are  germane  to government
accountability and information policy in the coming year.  

A trend to keep an eye on is the proposed adoption  of  increased
restrictions covering  unclassified  information.  In some cases,
though not all, such proposals explicitly exempt information from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. An early example
of this was a 1983 amendment  to  the  Atomic  Energy  Act  which
allows   the  Department  of  Energy  to  restrict  "unclassified
controlled nuclear information."   This  broadly-worded  standard
encompasses,  among  other  things,  information about the health
effects on humans from past and present nuclear testing.  

In the Department of Defense authorization bill for 1987, DOD was
given a green light to withhold "sensitive, technical information
whether classified or  unclassified."    Important  here  is  the
extraordinary  amount of research funded by DOD and the seemingly
limitless  number  of  publications  that  could  potentially  be
restricted.   Even  before  this exemption was passed, there were
complaints about DOD's rulings on research that could  be  shared
at   scientific   conferences,  and  DOD's  classifying  research
projects midway-- projects that started out unclassified.  

Other agencies began  seeking  the  same  privilege  to  restrict
unclassified information.    In  1988  legislation was introduced
that would allow the Nuclear Regulatory  Commission  to  withhold
"certain  sensitive  generic  safeguards information" which could
"negate or compromise site specific security measures."   Another
bill  permitted  NASA  to  withhold from disclosure any technical
data that could not be  exported  without  a  license  under  the
Export Administration Act of 1979. 

This  link to export controls broadens considerably the volume of
information NASA could restrict if this bill were enacted.  Since
the late seventies, government concern over the appropriation  of
scientific  and  technical  information  by foreign countries has
resulted in the use of export regulations that previously applied
to hardware to limit the flow of information.  In one  well-known
instance,  the Atomic Energy Act was used in 1979 to prohibit the
publication of an article entitled "The H-Bomb: How  We  Got  It,
Why  We're  Telling It," in The Progressive magazine, even though
all  the  information  contained  in  that  article  was  readily
accessible.  

>From  the outset, the Reagan administration has aggressively used
export regulations to stop what it calls a  "massive  hemorrhage"
of  sensitive information to the Soviets. As a result, scientists
and researchers are required to submit their  writing  for  prior
review  by  their government sponsors, foreign students have been
barred from certain courses in U.S. universities and, in  several
instances,  attendance at scientific conferences has been limited
to U.S. citizens.  

Yet another  expansive  rationale  for  restricting  unclassified
information has  appeared  on  the  scene.   This one is aimed at
limiting  the  dissemination  of  technological  and   scientific
information  on the grounds that unfettered access could harm the
"economic competitiveness of the U.S." The underlying concern  is
that  laboratory  research in this country is not being turned to
commercial advantage fast enough to compete with  foreign  firms.
The    Superconductivity    Competitiveness    Act,    a    White
House-sponsored bill, incorporated this reasoning and received  a
considerable amount  of  attention this year.  Although defeated,
if it had been passed, this legislation would have exempted  from
release  under  the FOIA certain commercially valuable scientific
and technical information  if  it:  (1)  had  been  generated  in
government  laboratories;  (2)  had  commercial  value;  and  (3)
disclosure could "be reasonably expected to  cause  harm  to  the
economic competitiveness of the United States." 

At  a  hearing  last  spring  on the bill, industry witnesses and
research scientists opposed the legislation.  Robert Park of  the
American  Physical Society said the bill "reeks of chauvinism and
ignores the international character of  the  research."    Others
argued  that  contrary  to what the proponents' stated intentions
were--that secrecy would  result  in  the  strengthening  of  the
economic  competitiveness of the U.S.--it is the open exchange of
information that increases the  odds  of  remaining  competitive.
Nonetheless,  it's  clear  that strong competition from abroad is
generating  greater  support  in  Congress  for  controlling  the
international flow   of   technical   information.     After  the
superconductivity bill was defeated, similar language appeared in
another piece of legislation that  would  have  allowed  national
laboratories   to   withhold   technological   information   from
universities and  private  industry.    Known  as  the   National
Laboratories  Competitiveness  Act,  this bill too, was defeated.
Yet FOIA supporters should remain on the alert for future  agency
attempts  to  use  a  commercial  value  test  as a rationale for
exempting material under FOIA. 

Indeed, the close nexus between government and  industry  in  the
development  of  superconductors  and  other  advanced technology
suggests  that  we  will  see  the  institutionalization  of  the
commercial  value  test rationale with research contracts as well
as administrative regulation.  Scientists  and  industry  leaders
concerned  with  excessive  secrecy  say  that  support  for  the
development of new superconductors--a technology  that  has  both
military  and  civilian applications--is already dominated by the
military.  One of  the  principal  recommendations  of  a  report
issued in October to the DOD on the national economy was that the
Pentagon  should  take  a  more  active  role  in heading off "an
increasing loss of technological leadership to  both  our  allies
and adversaries."  

FOIA  supporters  face  two  other  important challenges in 1989.
First,  we  must  become  actively  involved  in   hearings   and
legislation to correct the way in which executive branch agencies
have interpreted the fee waiver provisions adopted in the Freedom
of  Information  Reform  Act of 1986. Both the Justice Department
and the Office on Management and Budget issued regulations  which
make  it  more difficult, and in many cases cost prohibitive, for
researchers, freelance  journalists  and  others  to  obtain  fee
waivers.  

Some  members  of Congress have voiced their dissatisfaction with
these actions.  Representative Glenn English, a  sponsor  of  the
1986  Act,  has  advised agencies which fall under FOIA to ignore
OMB's restrictive definitions of "news  media"  and  "educational
institutions,"   saying   the  agency  went  beyond  its  limited
authority to issue fee schedule guidelines.    Despite  English's
protestations,  the  CIA, DOD and other agencies are beginning to
follow OMB's guidelines.  A  number  of  fee  waivers  have  been
denied  to  individuals and organizations on the grounds that the
information being sought will not be "of current interest to  the
general  public," or that the public will not "ultimately benefit
from  the  information."*  The  question  of   whether   or   not
information  will  be  relevant  or  of interest to the public is
subjective, and difficult to regulate.  One  of  the  dangers  is
that these kinds of decisions could be politically motivated, and
that  agencies  could  begin  to  protect  themselves from public
scrutiny, using a fee waiver rationale.  

Representative Gerald Kleczka has  introduced  legislation  (H.R.
3885)  that  would  improve  the 1986 Act by, among other things,
broadening the categories of requesters entitled to  waivers  and
permitting  judges to penalize agencies which delay disclosure or
withhold information in violation of the law.  

The second task is to push for legislation that will  update  the
FOIA for  the  computer  age.   The Act itself must clearly state
that  it  applies  to  information  collected,  stored  in,   and
disseminated by  computer.    We must monitor those agencies that
deny us access to information on the grounds that  the  requested
information is computerized.  This occurred not long ago when the
Community Environmental Health Center at Hunter College submitted
a  FOIA  request to the Department of Labor for data about health
hazards at some 100 companies in Brooklyn. At  first  the  Center
was  told  that it should request computer tapes; then, that this
would cost $1,000 and no fee waiver would be  granted;  and  then
that the FOIA does not apply to computerized government data.  

Still,  there  have  been a few encouraging rulings at the agency
appellate level, including a dazzling DOE decision,  in  which  a
request  by  the  National Security Archive for a list of limited
access reports held by DOE's Office of Scientific  and  Technical
Information was  upheld.    DOE ruled that agencies are obligated
under the FOIA to do an on-line search for records, stating  that
this "is not, in substance, significantly different from a search
of  a  file  cabinet  for  paper records that are responsive to a
request," and "If the FOIA required anything less it would  allow
agencies  to  conceal information from public scrutiny by placing
it in computerized form."  

Despite this good news, me must remain vigilant.  Until the  FOIA
is  updated  to  include  computerized information, some agencies
will continue to maintain that such information does not  qualify
as  "records"  and therefore does not fall under the Act. We will
have opportunities to voice our opinions on this crucial issue in
the  coming  spring  when   the   House   Government   Operations
Committee's,the   Subcommittee  on  Information  and  the  Senate
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology are expected  to
hold hearings.  

Accountability and open government continues to be jeopardized in
the  executive  branch  of  our  government,  through  the use of
Presidential Directives that make sweeping changes in  government
information policy.    Each  administration  since  1947 has used
Presidential  Directives  for  circulating  decisions   regarding
domestic, foreign  and  military policies.  According to a recent
Government Accounting Office report,  most  of  these  Directives
remain  classified and details about them are largely unavailable
for congressional and public scrutiny.  The Reagan administration
has used National Security Decision Directives to  influence  the
course  of  a  number  of  controversial  issues,  including  the
Strategic Defense Initiative, U.S. policy in Central America, and
government-wide information policy.  

NSDD 145 on federal telecommunications and automated  information
systems  extended  government  authority to monitor and "protect"
classified and unclassified material stored in or disseminated by
government and commercial communications  and  computer  systems.
NSDD  84,  issued  in  1983  imposes wholesale prior restraint by
requiring government employees to sign  nondisclosure  agreements
and submit  to  polygraph  examinations.    To  date, more than 2
million people have signed these agreements.  An Executive  Order
(E.O.  12600)  issued  in  June  1987 requires agencies to notify
businesses when confidential  information  about  them  has  been
requested  under  FOIA.  Though  agencies  in the past have often
notified businesses before the issuance of this E.O.,  the  Order
makes such third- party consultations official.  

According  to  Harry  Hammitt,  editor of Access Reports, many of
these directives have taken on a quasi-statutory status.  Yet, to
date, opposition to Presidential Orders has concentrated on their
content, while  ignoring  the  way  they  serve  to  protect  the
government   from  public  scrutiny  or,  as  with  the  business
notification order, to amend the FOIA. For example, although NSDD
145  was  challenged  by  industry  leaders,  librarians,  public
groups,  and members of Congress, the legitimacy of the Directive
itself was  never  challenged.    The  time  has   come   for   a
full-fledged critique  of this procedure.  We can no longer allow
the government to issue secret edicts which affect public  access
to government information.  

One final issue.  Declaring its intention not to compete with the
private  sector  and  to  slash  government paperwork, the Reagan
administration has sought to transfer  federal  data  collections
and   publishing  activities  into  the  hands  of  profit-making
enterprises.  A carryover from the Carter years, this  policy  of
"privatization"  has  been  gaining  ground since a 1985 circular
from the OMB required all executive branch  agencies  to  abstain
from  supplying  information  to  programs of interest to private
sector firms.  Information collections at  more  than  two  dozen
agencies,   including   the   Department  of  Housing  and  Urban
Development,  the  Environmental  Protection   Agency   and   the
Department  of  Energy  have  already  been  placed under private
management.  Also,  Congress  has  passed  laws  authorizing  the
creation  of  data-bases that would make information collected by
the government more readily available to companies interested  in
marketing "value-added" services.  

A  provision  in  this  new trade law, for example, calls for the
Commerce Department to  pull  together  information  on  exports,
imports  and  international  economic  competition into a central
depository called  the  National  Trade  Data  Bank.  The  stated
intention  is  to  make  it easier for U.S. companies to research
conditions in foreign markets.  

What is distressing  about  this  privatization  trend  (or  more
accurately    stated,   this   new   hybrid   government-industry
information creation) is that new information programs are  being
created  with  public monies that will have dramatic implications
for the cost and availability of information.  Yet little attempt
has been made to ensure that the wider public benefits.  The  new
ground rules for obtaining access could endanger the integrity of
precious  information collections, and since private entities are
not subject to regulation regarding public access,  privatization
has the potential to further promote government secrecy.  In 1984
the  Patent and Trademark Office signed an agreement with private
companies for the automation of agency records which required the
agency to deny FOIA requests for the records in automated form.  

The good news is that the public presently has  its  first  major
opportunity  to  get  involved  in  the  automation  of an agency
data-base.  Two years ago, Congress passed the Emergency Planning
and  Community  Right-to-Know  Act  of  1986,which  requires  the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a computerized toxic
chemical  inventory  data-base  that should be accessible to "any
person," either electronically, through a personal computer or in
paper form.  By law, the EPA data-base should be activated in the
spring of 1989.  

This is the only federal statute of its kind and  represents  the
first  attempt  to view the automation of agency information as a
means to  widen  public  access   to   that   information.      A
precedent-setting  project,  the  EPA  data-base  will be used to
assess the public's interest, not  only  in  computerized  toxics
information, but  in  utilizing government data-bases.  Among the
issues that require broad-based public comment at this  time  are
how  to  ensure  that the data-base is accessible under the FOIA,
and how it should be designed and maintained so that  people  can
obtain  information  of  relevance  to their needs and particular
geographic concerns.  

[Donna A. Demac is a New York-based attorney and writer, and  the
author  of  "Liberty  Denied:  The  Current Rise of Censorship in
America" (1988), PEN American Center (568  Broadway,  NYC  10012,
212-334-1660)] -- 

----- End Included Message -----

Newsgroups: alt.activism