Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05356/USCOURTS-caDC-97-05356-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 20, 1998 Decided August 6, 1999

No. 97-5356

Public Citizen, et al.,

Appellees

v.

John Carlin, Archivist of the United States, et al.,

Appellants

Consolidated with

98-5173

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 96cv02840)

Matthew M. Collette, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 1 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas N.

Letter, Appellate Litigation Counsel, and Miriam Nisbet,

Special Counsel for Information Policy, National Archives and

Records Administration.

Michael E. Tankersley argued the cause for appellees.

With him on the brief was Alan B. Morrison.

Before: Silberman, Williams, and Ginsburg, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Ginsburg.

Ginsburg, Circuit Judge: In 1995 the Archivist of the

United States promulgated General Records Schedule 20

pursuant to his authority under the Records Disposal Act.

See 44 U.S.C. s 3303a(d). GRS 20 requires each federal

agency to which the RDA applies to dispose of word processing and electronic mail files located in personal computers

once it has copied them to a paper or an electronic recordkeeping system. See General Records Schedule 20; Disposition of Electronic Records, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,643 (1995).

Public Citizen and others sued the Archivist, the Executive

Office of the President, and two components of the EOP

(hereinafter collectively referred to as the Archivist) under

the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that GRS 20

violates the RDA and is arbitrary and capricious. The district court agreed and, on cross-motions for summary judgment, entered a declaratory judgment holding the schedule

invalid. See Public Citizen v. Carlin, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.

1997) (Carlin I).

The Archivist now appeals. We hold that GRS 20 is valid

and therefore reverse the judgment of the district court.

Because we uphold GRS 20, we need not decide whether, as

the Archivist maintains, the Executive Office of the President

may not properly be sued as an "executive agency" subject to

the Federal Records Act, see id. at 8-9, nor whether the

district court lacked the power to enter an injunction ordering

the Archivist to comply with its declaratory judgment holding

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 2 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the schedule invalid. See Public Citizen v. Carlin, 2 F. Supp.

2d 18, 20 (D.D.C. 1998) (Carlin II).

I. Background

The Federal Records Act is a collection of statutes governing the creation, management, and disposal of records by

federal agencies. See 44 U.S.C. ss 2101-18, 2901-09,

3101-07, 3301-24. The RDA portion of the FRA establishes

the exclusive means by which records subject to the FRA

may be discarded. See id. s 3314; see also id. s 3301

(defining "records").

The RDA requires an agency to get the approval of the

Archivist before disposing of any record. See Armstrong v.

EOP, 1 F.3d 1274, 1279 (D.C. Cir. 1993). This is ordinarily

done in either of two ways. In one the agency submits to the

Archivist a list or schedule of records it proposes to discard,

see s 3303, which the Archivist may approve only if he

determines that the records "do not, or will not after the

lapse of the period specified, have sufficient administrative,

legal, research, or other value to warrant their continued

preservation by the Government." s 3303a(a). In the other

the Archivist promulgates a schedule listing types of records

held by multiple agencies, which he has determined pursuant

to the same standard of value should be discarded. See

s 3303a(d). Whether the agency or the Archivist initiates the

process, however, for the Archivist to authorize the disposal

of a record is to order its disposal. See s 3303a(b). If the

Archivist errs in authorizing disposal, therefore, valuable

federal records could be lost forever.

Items 13 and 14, the only parts of GRS 20 challenged here,

authorize the disposal of word processing and electronic mail

files that have been copied to an agency recordkeeping system from a personal computer (whether stand-alone or networked). See GRS 20, 60 Fed. Reg. at 44,649/1.* In the

__________

* The challenged items provide:

13. Word Processing Files

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 3 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

preamble to GRS 20 the Archivist explained that a federal

agency needs the authority to delete files from personal

computers in order "to avoid system overload and to ensure

effective records management." Id. at 44,644/2. He also

explained that for

records to be useful they must be accessible to all

authorized staff, and must be maintained in recordkeeping systems that have the capability to group similar

records and provide the necessary context to connect the

record with the relevant agency function or transaction.

Storage of electronic mail or word processing records on

electronic information systems that do not have these

attributes will not satisfy the needs of the agency or the

needs of future researchers.

Id. at 44,644/1.

II. Analysis

Public Citizen argues that in promulgating GRS 20 the

Archivist exceeded his statutory authority in two respects:

__________

Documents such as letters, memoranda, reports, handbooks,

directives, and manuals recorded on electronic media such as

hard disks or floppy diskettes after they have been copied to an

electronic recordkeeping system, paper, or microform for

recordkeeping purposes.

Delete from the word processing system when no longer

needed for updating or revision.

14. Electronic Mail Records

Senders' and recipients' versions of electronic mail messages

that meet the definition of Federal records, and any attachments to the record messages after they have been copied to an

electronic recordkeeping system, paper or microform for

recordkeeping purposes.

Delete from the e-mail system after copying to a recordkeeping system.

(Note: Along with the message text, the recordkeeping system

must capture the names of sender and recipients and date

(transmission data for recordkeeping purposes) and any receipt

data when required.)

first, by applying the schedule to so-called "program" records,

as opposed to "housekeeping" or administrative records, and

second, by failing to set a specific time period for the retention of records before their disposal. Public Citizen also

challenges as arbitrary and capricious the Archivist's determination that electronic mail and word processing files lack

sufficient value to warrant continued preservation after they

have been copied and placed in an agency recordkeeping

system.

A. Statutory Authority

Because the Archivist, as head of the National Archives and

Records Administration, is charged with administering the

RDA, see 44 U.S.C. s 3302, we review his interpretation of

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 4 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the Act under the two-step analysis of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.

NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under step one, we ask "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at

issue." Id. at 842. If so, "that is the end of the matter; for

the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the

unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Id. at 842-43.

If, however, the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to

the specific issue, then at step two we "must defer to the

agency's interpretation so long as it is reasonable, consistent

with the statutory purpose, and not in conflict with the

statute's plain language." OSG Bulk Ships, Inc. v. United

States, 132 F.3d 808, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

1. Housekeeping versus program records

According to Public Citizen, "GRS 20 is contrary to law

because it ... authorizes destruction of all types of word

processing and electronic mail records without regard to

content." More specifically, Public Citizen claims s 3303a(d)

applies only to an agency's "housekeeping" records--that is,

records that relate to routine administrative chores such as

personnel and procurement--and that the Archivist exceeded

his statutory authority by promulgating a general records

schedule covering "program" records, which document an

agency's substantive functions.

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 5 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

a. Chevron step one

We begin the interpretive enterprise, as always, with the

text of the statute. See Republican Nat'l Comm. v. FEC, 76

F.3d 400, 405 (D.C. Cir. 1996). As the Archivist observes,

s 3303a(d) makes no reference either to program or to housekeeping records; rather, it authorizes him to schedule for

disposal "records of a specified form or character." Because

this term is nowhere defined in the RDA, "our task is to

construe it in accord with its ordinary or natural meaning."

Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Pgms., Dep't of Labor v.

Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 272 (1994). And

s 3303a(d) is naturally read to authorize the Archivist to

schedule records in the "form" of word processing and electronic mail files. See Webster's New Int'l Dictionary Unabridged 992 (2d ed. 1942) ("In general, form is the aspect

under which a thing appears, esp. as distinguished from

substance" (emphasis in original)). Moreover, as the Archivist observes, elsewhere in the RDA "form" is used to describe the physical attributes of a record rather than its

content. See s 3301 (" 'records' includes all books, papers,

maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other

documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics"). Indeed, we notice that in 1976 the Congress

amended s 3301 to provide that "records" may be in the

"form" of "machine readable materials." Federal Records

Management Amendments of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-575,

s 4(c)(2), 90 Stat. 2723, 2727.

Although Public Citizen would have us read s 3303a(d) so

as not to authorize the Archivist to schedule a record in the

form of a word processing or electronic mail file if its content

relates to a program function of the agency, it offers no

interpretation of the statutory term "form." On the contrary,

Public Citizen concedes that the "phrase ['of a specified form

or character'] in isolation includes program records." Apparently, then, it means to suggest either that the term "form"

really means "content" or that it should be ignored. We can

not accept either suggestion. See Edison Elec. Inst. v. EPA,

996 F.2d 326, 335 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (elementary canon of

construction that court will not read word out of statute).

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 6 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Public Citizen tries to overcome the plain meaning of the

statute--which seems to reject rather than to compel the

proffered distinction between program and housekeeping records--exclusively by resort to the legislative history of the

RDA. As Judge Easterbrook has explained, however:

The political branches adopt texts through prescribed

procedures; what ensues is the law. Legislative history

may show the meaning of the texts--may show, indeed,

that a text "plain" at first reading has a strikingly

different meaning--but may not be used to show an

"intent" at variance with the meaning of the text.

In re Sinclair, 870 F.2d 1340, 1344 (7th Cir. 1989) (enforcing

statute prohibiting conversion of bankruptcy case from chapter 11 to chapter 12 despite conference report saying conversion possible and describing circumstances in which it should

occur); see also Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Theory of Legal

Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 419 (1899) ("We do not

inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the

statute means").

In any case, we do not think the passages in the legislative

history to which Public Citizen refers us suggest that the

Congress intended only housekeeping records to be subject to

disposal under the RDA. The primary concern of the Congress was to reduce the unnecessary retention of records.

Agencies were retaining too many records, not too few, and it

is unsurprising that the Congress especially contemplated the

disposal of many housekeeping records. See H.R. Rep. No.

79-361, at 1 (1945) ("The primary purpose of this bill is to

prevent the United States Government from incurring large

and unnecessary expenses resulting from the failure of many

agencies to schedule for disposal routine 'housekeeping' records such as those relating to the hiring of personnel, procurement of supplies, and fiscal management, that are common to many or all agencies"); S. Rep. No. 79-447, at 1 (1945)

(same). As the Supreme Court has observed, however, statutes "often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably

comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our

laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 7 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

which we are governed." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore

Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998) (holding prohibition of

discrimination "because of sex" in Title VII of Civil Rights

Act of 1964 applies to same-sex harassment, though that "was

assuredly not the principal evil [with which] Congress was

concerned").

Public Citizen also notes that in 1978, when the Congress

made the Archivist's use of general records schedules binding

upon agencies subject to the RDA, see Pub. L. No. 95-440, 92

Stat. 1063, 1063 (codified as amended at s 3303a(b)), the

committee reports not only expressed concern with the unnecessary retention of housekeeping records, but also stated

that if "the records are unique to an agency, rather than

simply of a general nature, they would not be affected by this

bill." H.R. Rep. No. 95-1263 at 2 (1978), reprinted in 1978

U.S.C.C.A.N. 2623, 2624; S. Rep. No. 95-711 at 2 (1978).

Public Citizen claims the 1978 amendment thus reaffirmed

the limitation of s 3303a(d) to housekeeping records originally evinced in the 1945 committee reports, inasmuch as program records could be of a type unique to the agency that

administers the particular program. As the Archivist points

out, however, the amendment made the use of general records schedules mandatory by substituting a new s 3303a(b)

so providing, but did not in any way change s 3303a(d). If

the latter section did not mean what Public Citizen claims it

meant in 1945, then it still does not because nothing in the

1978 amendment changed its meaning. Even if, however, we

were to assume the statement in the 1978 reports demonstrates the committees' understanding that s 3303a(d) had

been limited from the outset to housekeeping records, we

would be reluctant to rely upon it; "the views of one Congress as to the meaning of an Act passed by an earlier

Congress are not ordinarily of great weight." United States

v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 77 n.6 (1994); see also

Republican Nat'l Comm., 76 F.3d at 405 (holding that where

subsequent legislation merely carried over earlier provision

"without substantial change, the House report is essentially

post-enactment history, carrying little probative weight").

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 8 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In sum, we cannot accept Public Citizen's invitation to use

legislative history to supplant rather than to interpret the

statute.

b. Chevron step two

We now proceed under step two of Chevron to examine

whether the Archivist's interpretation "is reasonable in light

of the language, legislative history, and policies of the statute." Republican Nat'l Comm., 76 F.3d at 406. Public

Citizen asserts that it would be irrational to construe

s 3303a(d) in such a way as "to give the Archivist the power

to authorize the destruction of all records stored on a given

medium or created by a given technology, without regard to

the records' purposes [or] content."

This argument is based upon a misunderstanding of GRS

20 and the Archivist's rationale for adopting it. Under

s 3303a(d) the Archivist must assess the "administrative,

legal, research, or other value" of a record before authorizing

its disposal--which is inherently a content-based judgment.

As the district court reasoned, there must be "a relationship

between the commonality of records covered by a general

schedule and their diminished value." Carlin I, 2 F. Supp. 2d

at 12. We agree, for if there were little or no relation

between the features common to a set of records and their

value, then they could not be scheduled for disposal pursuant

to a general records schedule because no categorical assessment could logically be made of their value.

The district court concluded from this that the "common

feature of the records scheduled under GRS 20--the fact that

they have been generated by electronic technology--has no

relation to each record's value." Id. That captures only half

the matter, however. GRS 20 does not authorize disposal of

electronic records per se; rather, such records may be discarded only after they have been copied into an agency

recordkeeping system.* Therefore, GRS 20 seems to us to

__________

* One might say, tracking the statute, that the records share both

the "form" of being electronic and the "character" of having been

duplicated and placed in an agency recordkeeping system.

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 9 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

embody a reasoned approach to accomplishing the potentially

conflicting goals of the Congress: "[j]udicious preservation

and disposal of records." s 2902(5).

We note also that in a neighboring part of the RDA the

Congress codified the very approach that Public Citizen

claims it prohibited in s 3303a(d). Section 3303(1) requires

the head of each agency to submit to the Archivist

lists of any records in the custody of the agency that

have been photographed or microphotographed under

the regulations and that, as a consequence, do not appear

to have sufficient value to warrant their further preservation by the Government.

Analogously, GRS 20 authorizes disposal of electronic mail

and word processing files that have been copied to a recordkeeping system and, "as a consequence," id., lack sufficient

value to warrant their continued preservation. The technology of duplication may be different but the principle is the

same. We think this provision highly persuasive in demonstrating that the Archivist's approach in GRS 20 does not

reflect an unreasonable interpretation of the statute.

Public Citizen also claims that "the Archivist's unexplained

departure from prior statements that general schedules are

limited to administrative records ... requires that [GRS 20]

be set aside." The prior statements to which Public Citizen

refers, however, apparently concerned authorizations to discard the only extant version of a record, not a record that had

been copied to a recordkeeping system; at the least, Public

Citizen has directed our attention to no prior statement of the

Archivist concerning an approach analogous to that in GRS

20. Moreover, the Archivist claims, and Public Citizen does

not dispute, that GRS 23, the predecessor to GRS 20, applied

to program records at the same time Public Citizen claims the

Archivist's policy limited general schedules to housekeeping

records. See GRS 20, 60 Fed. Reg. at 44,644/1 ("The GRS 23

that was approved in 1988 authorized deletion of word processing and e-mail records from [personal computers] after

they had been copied to paper or microform. This authority

has now been moved to GRS 20 and is extended to authorize

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 10 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

deletion of [such records] after they have been copied to an

electronic recordkeeping system"). When a general schedule

authorizes disposal of an uncopied record, it is obvious why

the Archivist would wish to exclude program records, for an

error means the loss of a record; when a record is discarded

pursuant to GRS 20, however, it has already been copied to

the agency's recordkeeping system, and there is no risk that

information will be lost to future users. We conclude, therefore, that Public Citizen has identified no policy of the Archivist with which GRS 20 is inconsistent. See Bush-Quayle '92

Primary Comm. v. FEC, 104 F.3d 448, 454 (D.C. Cir. 1997)

("We may permit agency action to stand without elaborate

explanation where distinctions between the case under review

and the asserted precedent are so plain that no inconsistency

appears").

In sum, we hold under Chevron step one that s 3303a(d)

does not preclude the Archivist from including program records in a general schedule because the statutory source of his

authority draws no distinction between program and housekeeping records. Under Chevron step two we hold that the

Archivist permissibly construed the statute to allow the disposal of program records the contents of which have been

preserved in a recordkeeping system. Accordingly, we uphold the Archivist's interpretation against this challenge.

2. Time specified for disposal of records

The Archivist may authorize the disposal of records under

a general schedule "after the lapse of specified periods of

time," if such records will not then have sufficient value to

warrant their preservation. s 3303a(d). In GRS 20 he instructed agencies to delete word processing and electronic

mail files after their transfer to a recordkeeping system,

although word processing files may be retained until "no

longer needed for updating or revision." GRS 20, 60 Fed.

Reg. at 44,649/1.

Public Citizen argues that GRS 20 contravenes s 3303a(d)

because the Archivist did not "specif[y] periods of time" in

months or years for the retention of records. The Archivist

responds that the statute does not require him to specify the

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 11 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

time at which records may be discarded in months or years,

and that he did specify the time for disposal of such records

by reference to a condition subsequent, namely, the placement of the records in a recordkeeping system. We agree.

As to Chevron step one, we do not see how the phrase

"specified periods of time" can be said unambiguously to

require the Archivist to select a period in terms of months or

years. Whether the period to elapse before a record may be

discarded is expressed rigidly in terms of months or years, or

more flexibly in terms of when a record has been transferred

to a recordkeeping system, a precise moment has been specified. Similarly, under Chevron step two, if the Archivist is to

make the best determination of when records of a certain

type will cease to have sufficient value to warrant their

retention, then it is eminently sensible that he be able to rest

that determination upon a future condition the occurrence of

which will diminish the value of the records, without requiring

that he predict precisely when that will occur.*

Public Citizen argues next that the Archivist's approach

defeats the purpose of the RDA because the event that

triggers the agency's obligation to discard a record is within

the control of the agency, not that of the Archivist, and that

GRS 20 thus removes the Archivist as a check upon an

agency's disposal of records. This point is not well taken for,

as the Archivist explains, he "has not provided an open-ended

grant of authority for agencies to delete records at their

leisure." Before an agency may discard electronic mail or

word processing files, pursuant to GRS 20 it must first copy

them to a recordkeeping system; an agency's control over the

__________

* Although Public Citizen claims the Archivist failed to make this

argument to the district court, we see that the Archivist reasoned

both in his reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment and in GRS 20 itself that the statute authorizes him

to order disposal of records "after they have been copied to [a]

recordkeeping system." GRS 20, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,649/1 (items 13 &

14); see National R.R. Pass. Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503

U.S. 407, 420 (1992) ("we defer to an interpretation which was a

necessary presupposition of the [agency's] decision").

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 12 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

timing of that decision is irrelevant to the result that the

record is preserved, and therefore that the Archivist has

indeed placed a critical check upon an agency's disposal of

electronic records.

We therefore uphold the Archivist's interpretation of

s 3303a(d) as permitting him to base the time for disposal of

records upon their having been copied and placed in a recordkeeping system.

B. Arbitrary and Capricious Challenge

Recall that under s 3303a(d) the Archivist may promulgate

general records schedules authorizing the disposal of records

only if he determines that "such records will not, at the end of

the periods specified, have sufficient administrative, legal,

research, or other value to warrant their further preservation." Public Citizen claims the Archivist made no such

determination of value in GRS 20. Curiously, it then concedes he implicitly (and, Public Citizen argues, erroneously)

determined that once a copy of such a record is placed in a

paper or electronic recordkeeping system, the original lacks

sufficient value to warrant its further preservation. We

accept Public Citizen's concession that the Archivist made a

determination of value, though we think it explicit rather than

implicit: The Archivist explained--in a discussion entitled

"Value of Electronic Records," see GRS 20, 60 Fed. Reg. at

44,643/3 to 44,645/2--that records located in personal computers cannot adequately be searched and are therefore "of

limited use to both the originating agency and to future

researchers." Id. at 44,645/2. The question we must now

decide is whether the Archivist's determination of value is

arbitrary and capricious.

We first note that Public Citizen does not contest the

permissibility of discarding the electronic original of a record

that has been fully copied to an electronic recordkeeping

system. Instead, Public Citizen "stresse[s] that hard copy

[i.e., paper] records are not satisfactory replacements for

records in electronic format[, citing] the well-known advantages of electronic records for future research." GRS 20, 60

Fed. Reg. at 44,643/3. Our focus, therefore, is upon whether

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 13 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the Archivist acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining

that a paper copy in a paper recordkeeping system is an

adequate substitute for the electronic original, that is, to the

point that the original lacks sufficient value to warrant its

continued preservation. Two considerations inform this inquiry: (1) the superiority of electronic records for searching,

manipulating, and indexing information, and (2) the completeness of the information copied to a paper recordkeeping

system.

1. Superiority

Public Citizen argues the Archivist acted arbitrarily and

capriciously when he authorized (and thereby required) disposal of the original electronic records after they have been

printed and placed in a paper recordkeeping system; as the

Archivist himself recognized, records in electronic form can

be searched, manipulated, and indexed in ways that paper

records cannot. See, e.g., id. The Archivist explained his

decision on the ground that these admitted benefits accrue to

any significant degree only for electronic records that are

maintained in an electronic recordkeeping system:

For records to be useful they must be accessible to all

authorized staff, and must be maintained in recordkeeping systems that have the capability to group similar

records and provide the necessary context to connect the

record with the relevant agency function or transaction.

Storage of electronic mail or word processing records on

electronic information systems that do not have these

attributes will not satisfy the needs of the agency or the

needs of future researchers.

Search capability and context would be severely limited if records are stored in disparate electronic files

maintained by individuals rather than in agencycontrolled recordkeeping systems. Furthermore, if electronic records are stored in electronic information systems without records management functionality, permanent records may not be readily accessible for research.

Unless the records are adequately indexed, searches,

even full-text searches, may fail to find all documents

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 14 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

relevant to the subject of the query. In addition, numerous irrelevant temporary records, that would be segregable in systems with records management functionality,

may be found. Agency records can be managed only if

they are in agency recordkeeping systems.

Id. at 44,644/1-2.

Public Citizen's argument ignores this obviously material

difference between the value of records that are part of an

agency's centralized recordkeeping system and the value of

those that are accessible only by searching a particular

personal computer. We do not think the Archivist acted

unreasonably in discounting the comparative value of "disparate electronic files maintained by individuals rather than in

agency-controlled recordkeeping systems." Id.; see also id.

at 44,646/1 ("Even accessible network word processing directories are inadequate if they are part of information systems

that lack records management functionality").

Public Citizen next claims that many agencies either are

now or will in the foreseeable future be capable of managing

their records in electronic form on an agency-wide basis.

This point, too, the Archivist addressed in promulgating GRS

20, as follows:

Agencies must maintain their records in organized files

that are designed for their operational needs. Agencies

that currently have traditional paper files print their

electronic mail records, word processing records, spreadsheets, and data base reports so that their files are

complete, comprehensible, and in context with related

records. Agency functions that have not been automated

must be supported by hard copy files, even when some

types of related records are generated electronically.

Agencies that decide to maintain their records in electronic recordkeeping systems do so for compelling operational needs, not for future researchers. In some cases

... agencies create automated indexes to hard-copy records rather than digitizing all of the records themselves.

In any case, the decision must be based on an analysis of

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 15 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the needs of and benefits to the agency, balanced against

available resources.

Id. at 44,645/1.

According to Public Citizen this explanation, which permits

each agency to decide whether to retain records in electronic

form or to transfer them to paper based solely upon the

agency's operational needs, i.e., the "administrative" value of

the records, fails adequately to consider the "research" value

of the records. s 3303a(d). Public Citizen also relies upon

the following statement in the preamble to another final rule

promulgated the same day as GRS 20, in which the Archivist

set standards whereby an agency may establish a recordkeeping system for electronic mail:

Electronic recordkeeping systems may be the best means

to preserve the content, structure, and context of electronic records. In addition, an automated system may

be more easily searched and manipulated than paper

records. The electronic format may also allow simultaneous use by multiple staff members and may provide a

more efficient method to store records. Furthermore,

when they are no longer needed by the creating agency,

access by future researchers to permanently valuable

electronic records would be enhanced by electronic preservation.

Final Rule: Electronic Mail Systems, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,634,

44,639/1-2 (1995).

Contrary to Public Citizen, we think it plain that the

Archivist adequately weighed not only the "administrative"

but also the "legal, research, and other value" of records in

arriving at his decision. s 3303a(d). In the Electronic Mail

Systems rule upon which Public Citizen relies, the Archivist

explained that "neither the standards [in that rule] nor the

Federal Records Act require[s] electronic recordkeeping," 60

Fed. Reg. at 44,634/3. He conceded that electronic records

will be of greater use for research if maintained in electronic

recordkeeping systems and even encouraged agencies to deUSCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 16 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

velop those systems where practicable. But he also explained

that

the prospective interests of future researchers cannot be

used to force agencies to do the impossible nor can these

interests dictate to agencies how they should preserve

their records for their own use. Agencies must create

and maintain records to conduct Government business

and account for their activities. Only the agency can

determine what format best serves these purposes.

Some agencies, or components of agencies, may determine that paper recordkeeping will continue to be adequate and cost-effective for the documentation of their

transactions.

Id. at 44,638/1-2.

Public Citizen's argument that the Archivist failed to consider the research value of electronic records, therefore,

reduces to the assertion that it is arbitrary and capricious for

the Archivist not to require all agencies that create electronic

mail or word processing records either to establish electronic

recordkeeping systems immediately or to retain their electronic records until such time as they have electronic recordkeeping systems. In view of the Archivist's explanations in

both GRS 20 and the Electronic Mail Systems Rule, however,

we think his decision to permit agencies to maintain their

recordkeeping systems in the form most appropriate to the

business of the agency is reasonable. Nor does Public Citizen claim that agencies have a legal duty to establish electronic recordkeeping systems.

We agree with Public Citizen that electronic recordkeeping

has advantages over paper recordkeeping, but our duty as a

reviewing court is to ask only whether the Archivist's policy

choice is arbitrary or capricious; manifestly it is not. All

agencies by now, we presume, use personal computers to

generate electronic mail and word processing documents, but

not all have taken the next step of establishing electronic

recordkeeping systems in which to preserve those records.

It may well be time for them to do so, but that is a question

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 17 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

for the Congress or the Executive, not the Judiciary, to

decide.

In sum, we do not think the Archivist must, under the

RDA, require agencies to establish electronic recordkeeping

systems. Nor do we think it unreasonable for the Archivist

to permit each agency to choose, based upon its own operational needs, whether to use electronic or paper recordkeeping systems. The Archivist's finding that electronic records

are of limited use unless maintained in a recordkeeping

system is reasonable as well. Consequently, we uphold his

ultimate determination that a record in electronic form lacks

sufficient value to warrant preservation once it is transferred

intact to a paper recordkeeping system.

2. Completeness

In Armstrong we held that a paper printout of an electronic mail record is not an "extra cop[y]" within the meaning of

s 3301 if it does not include transmission data, such as the

names and addresses of both the recipient and the author and

the date the message was sent--the electronic equivalents of

the address, return address, and date on correspondence sent

by conventional mail. See 1 F.3d at 1283. Public Citizen

cites Armstrong for the proposition that electronic records

often contain information that may not be transferred to

paper when printed; its point is that GRS 20 is arbitrary and

capricious because it does not require this information to be

preserved. The Archivist responds that GRS 20 does in fact

require that all such information be preserved in the agency's

recordkeeping system before the electronic original may be

discarded. We agree with the Archivist.

With respect to electronic mail, GRS 20 on its face addresses the concerns raised in Armstrong by requiring the recordkeeping system to capture all relevant transmission data.

See 60 Fed. Reg. at 44,646/3, 44,649/1 (item 14 and Note

thereto). Public Citizen identifies no information that may

not be transferred when the record is copied to paper pursuant to the requirements of GRS 20.

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 18 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

With respect to word processing files, Public Citizen claims,

based upon the capabilities of extant computer software, that

there may be hidden comments or summaries that are not

printed out--the electronic equivalents of a Post-itR note or

an abstract--the preservation of which is not required by

GRS 20. See id. at 44,649/1 (item 13). Although the Archivist claims in his brief that GRS 20, properly interpreted,

does require the preservation of such hidden items in word

processing records, he did not make that point express in

promulgating GRS 20. The Archivist explains that GRS 20

requires retention of all such information, for the preamble to

the schedule requires that a recordkeeping system "preserve[ ] the[ ] content, structure, and context" of a record.

Id. at 44,644/1. In other words, as counsel for the Archivist

put it at oral argument, if the information is part of a record

under the RDA, see s 3301, then it must be preserved. Thus,

the Archivist claims that GRS 20 says precisely what Public

Citizen thinks it should but does not say.

The Archivist's interpretation of his own regulation is

"controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the

regulation." Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997). That

standard is easily met here. We also note that the Archivist's

interpretation is consonant with the requirement in GRS 20

that a word processing file be "copied" to a recordkeeping

system. 60 Fed. Reg. at 44,649/1 (item 13); see Armstrong, 1

F.3d at 1283 (explaining that "unless the paper versions

include all significant material contained in the electronic

records ... the two documents cannot accurately be termed

'copies' "). That the Archivist's interpretation comes for the

first time in litigation does not make it unworthy of deference, as "[t]here is simply no reason to suspect that the

interpretation does not reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question." Auer, 519 U.S. at

462. Considering the substance of that interpretation, we

trust that Public Citizen is not aggrieved by this indulgence.

Lastly, Public Citizen complains that the Archivist improperly relies upon the preamble in his interpretation of the

general schedule. We regularly rely upon the preamble in

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 19 of 20
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

interpreting an agency rule. See National Mining Ass'n v.

EPA, 59 F.3d 1351, 1355 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The purpose of

the preamble, after all, is to explain what follows. See 5

U.S.C. s 553(c) ("After consideration of the relevant matter

presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a

concise general statement of their basis and purpose").

In sum, we reject Public Citizen's claim that GRS 20 fails

to require that all relevant information be transferred to a

paper recordkeeping system before an electronic original may

be discarded.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we uphold GRS 20. We therefore need not decide whether the Executive Office of the

President is a proper party to an action brought under the

RDA, nor whether the district court had the power to enter

an injunction ordering the Archivist to comply with its declaratory judgment holding the schedule invalid. Accordingly,

the judgment of the district court is

Reversed.

USCA Case #97-5356 Document #454810 Filed: 08/06/1999 Page 20 of 20