a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate

May 2005 INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT

Freedom of 

Information Act Fee 

and Fee Waiver 

Processing at the 

Department of Energy

GAO-05-405
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-405.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Linda Koontz at 

(202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-405, a report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

the Judiciary, U.S. Senate 

May 2005

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

Freedom of Information Act Fee and Fee 

Waiver Processing at the Department of 

Energy 

In fiscal year 2004, DOE received 2,289 new FOIA cases, of which 31 percent 

(705 of 2,289) were received by the department’s headquarters in 

Washington, D.C., and DOE sites at Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Richland, 

Washington—the sites selected for our review. Generally, very few of the 

requests at these sites involved assessments of fees or requests for waivers 

of possible fees. DOE’s process includes several phases ranging from initial 

processing and acknowledgement to preparing and releasing records to 

requesters. The table shows the disposition of FOIA requests for fiscal year 

2004 at these three DOE sites. 

DOE generally followed FOIA and related guidance when determining fee 

categories for requesters, fee waivers, and actual fees to be charged. All 

three sites we reviewed always made explicit determinations about 

requesters’ fee categories in accordance with guidance. DOE also generally 

adhered to guidance in determining fee waivers by seeking information 

addressing the prescribed criteria for making fee waiver determinations. In 

assessing actual fees to be charged, FOIA offices at all three sites charged 

fees in accordance with guidance. 

DOE’s FOIA offices often did not communicate the specifics of their feerelated decisions to FOIA requesters. For example, while DOE headquarters 

often informed requesters of determinations about their fee category, the 

Richland and Albuquerque offices rarely did. In addition, the three sites 

rarely informed requesters of the outcome of fee waiver determinations. 

Further, when fees were not charged, requesters were rarely informed of the 

reason. Current FOIA guidelines do not require agencies to inform 

requesters of fee-related decisions. However, without being informed of feerelated determinations, requesters could misunderstand agency fee 

determinations and have false expectations for the handling of future FOIA 

requests. 

Fee Disposition of Requests Reviewed 

Request description 

Number of requests 

charged a fee 

Number of requests 

not charged a fee Total

Fee waiver not requested 33 501 534

Fee waiver requested 2 169 171

Fee waiver granted 0 38 38

Fee waiver denied 0 8 8

No record of an explicit fee 

waiver determination a 2 123 125

Source: GAO. 

a

These case files do not contain documentation showing that an explicit fee waiver determination 

was made. According to DOE officials, in most cases this is because they believed, based on their 

knowledge and experience, that the costs incurred would be below DOE’s $15 threshold for 

charging fees and that there was no need to make a fee waiver determination. 

The Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) gives the public the right to 

access information about the 

federal government. In addressing 

requests for information, agencies 

have the authority to assess fees 

for certain categories of requesters 

to cover the costs of locating and 

copying records, as well as 

discretion to waive fees if specific 

criteria are met. GAO was asked to 

determine, for fiscal year 2004, the 

volume and nature of FOIA request 

processing at the Department of 

Energy (DOE), to what extent DOE 

followed the act and related Office 

of Management and Budget and 

Department of Justice guidance in 

processing cases that involve fees, 

and to what extent DOE 

communicated its fee-related 

decisions to requesters. 

What GAO Recommends

To improve FOIA requesters’ 

understanding of agency fee 

decisions, GAO recommends that 

Justice revise its FOIA guidelines 

to require that requesters be 

explicitly informed of all feerelated determinations associated 

with their requests. 

In commenting on a draft of this 

report, DOE clarified its process at 

one field office and stated that it 

is implementing the GAO 

recommendation. Justice stated 

that the recommendation was 

addressed to the wrong agency; 

however, GAO believes Justice is 

the proper addressee because it 

provides guidance and support to 

federal agencies on FOIA issues. 
Page i GAO-05-405 Information Management

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

DOE’s FOIA Requests in Fiscal Year 2004 10

DOE Generally Adhered to FOIA Guidance 11

DOE Did Not Always Inform Requesters About Fee and Fee-Waiver 

Decisions 13

Conclusions 16

Recommendation for Executive Action 16

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 19

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy 22

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Justice 24

Related GAO Products 25

Tables Table 1: FOIA Charges by Category 9

Table 2: Fee Disposition of Requests Reviewed 10

Table 3: Cases in Which Fees Were Charged 13

Table 4: Communication of Fee Category Determinations to 

Requesters 14

Table 5: Communication of Fee Waiver Determinations to 

Requesters 15

Table 6: Communication of Fee Decision When Fees Were Not 

Charged 15

Table 7: Number of Requests Excluded by Location 20

Table 8: Number of Cases Analyzed 21

Figure Figure 1: DOE Headquarters FOIA Process 7
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-405 Information Management

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-405 Information Management

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 27, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Minority Democratic Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Dear Senator Leahy:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides the public with a legal 

right to access government information about the operations and decisions 

of the federal government. Specific requests by the public for information 

through FOIA have led to the disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and 

wrongdoing in the government. The act authorizes agencies to recoup 

certain direct costs associated with processing requests, which may 

include search, duplication, or review, depending on the requester’s fee 

category. It defines three categories for requesters: (1) commercial; 

(2) educational, noncommercial scientific institutions, and representatives 

of the news media; or (3) other. Agencies also have discretion to reduce or 

waive fees under various circumstances.

This report responds to your request that we conduct a detailed review of 

FOIA request processing at one agency, the Department of Energy (DOE). 

Specifically, as agreed with your office, our objectives were to determine 

for fiscal year 2004

• the volume and nature of FOIA request processing at DOE,

• the extent to which DOE’s process for handling fee assessments and 

waivers was consistent with FOIA and related guidance, and

• the extent to which DOE communicated its fee-related decisions to 

requesters.

To address these objectives, we analyzed FOIA case files from three DOE 

locations, reviewed FOIA and related guidance, and interviewed officials 

from each location. The three DOE locations we assessed were responsible 

for about 77 percent of the fee waiver cases in fiscal year 2004 and 35 

percent of the cases in which fees were charged. Further details on our 

scope and methodology are provided in appendix I. Our work was 

conducted from June 2004 through March 2005, in accordance with 
Page 2 GAO-05-405 Information Management

generally accepted government auditing standards, at Washington, D.C.; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Richland, Washington.

Results in Brief In fiscal year 2004, DOE reported receiving 2289 new FOIA cases and 

closing 2440. Of all new cases received, headquarters, Albuquerque, and 

Richland received 31 percent (705 of 2289). In approximately 5 percent

(35 of 705) of these cases, requesters were charged a fee; most (30 of 35) of 

these cases involved commercial requesters. In total, the three sites 

charged about $4,700 in fees; DOE Headquarters charged requesters about 

$2,200, Albuquerque charged about $1,300, and Richland charged about 

$1,200. Further, of the 705 cases, 24 percent (171 of 705) involved 

requesters formally asking for a fee waiver, and only two of these 

requesters were actually assessed fees.

At the three locations, DOE generally followed FOIA and related guidance 

when assessing fees and determining fee waivers. When DOE determined a 

requester’s fee category, all three locations always made explicit fee 

category determinations. DOE also generally adhered to guidance when 

making fee waiver determinations. Officials at all three locations indicated 

that if they believed, based on their knowledge and experience, that the 

charge for the request was going to be below a predetermined threshold 

specified in guidance, they would not go through the process of making a 

formal fee waiver determination. Lastly, in assessing actual fees to be 

charged, FOIA offices at all three sites charged fees in accordance with 

guidance.

The three DOE locations often did not communicate the specifics of their 

fee-related decisions to requesters. For example, while DOE Headquarters 

often informed requesters of determinations about their fee category, the 

sites at Richland and Albuquerque rarely did. In addition, the three sites 

rarely informed requesters of the outcome of fee waiver determinations. 

When fees were not charged, requesters were rarely informed of the 

reason. However, without understanding what determinations have 

actually been made, requesters could develop false expectations about how 

future requests will be handled. Of the 17 FOIA requesters we interviewed, 

more than half (11) believed they had received fee waivers from DOE, 

when in fact no such waivers had been granted. Without clearer 

communication of fee-related determinations, requesters are likely to not 

fully understand agency fee determinations, which could lead to 

dissatisfaction with the FOIA process in general.
Page 3 GAO-05-405 Information Management

To improve requesters’ understanding of agency fee-related 

determinations, we are recommending that the Attorney General direct the 

co-directors of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information and 

Privacy to revise its guidelines to include a requirement that requesters be 

explicitly informed of all fee-related determinations associated with their 

requests.

We provided a draft of this report to DOE and Justice for their review and 

comment. Copies of DOE’s and Justice’s comments are included in 

appendixes II and III, respectively. DOE reported that it had already taken 

steps to implement our recommendation, although the department noted 

that it was not required to provide requesters with fee-related notifications 

when potential fees would be below the minimum amount for charging. 

Justice stated that our recommendation was addressed to the wrong 

agency, because it did not fall within the jurisdictional purview of the 

department and therefore Justice cannot properly implement the 

recommendation. However, we disagree. Justice is the lead agency for 

providing guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues. To 

confirm that we had appropriately addressed our recommendation to 

Justice rather than the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—which is 

required to issue a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies—we contacted 

the Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, who agreed that the recommendation should be addressed to Justice.

Background FOIA established a legal right of access to government records and 

information, on the basis of the principles of openness and accountability 

in government. Before the act, an individual seeking access to federal 

records had faced the burden of establishing a right to examine them. FOIA 

also established a “right to know” standard for access, instead of a “need to 

know,” and shifted the burden of proof from the individual to the 

government agency seeking to deny access. FOIA was originally enacted in 

1966 and has been amended several times, most recently in 2002.

Citizens are requesting an ever-increasing amount of information from the 

federal government, as reflected in a steadily increasing number of FOIA 

requests. In fiscal year 2003, over 3 million requests were received by 

federal agencies, an increase of 36 percent over the previous year. Further, 

the number of requests closed was also more than 3 million, an increase of 

34 percent compared with the previous year. The number of requests 

closed is, in part, an indicator of the responsiveness of agencies in 
Page 4 GAO-05-405 Information Management

providing the public with requested information and shows that agencies 

are taking steps to respond to the increasing FOIA workload.

FOIA provides the public with access to government information either 

through “affirmative agency disclosure”—publishing information in the 

Federal Register or making it available in reading rooms—or in response to 

public requests for disclosure. Public requests for disclosure of records are 

the best known type of FOIA disclosure. Any member of the public may 

request access to information held by federal agencies, without showing a 

need or reason for seeking the information. Agencies may deny access to 

material (e.g., by withholding records or redacting information) only if it 

falls within any of nine statutory categories of exemptions. There are also 

FOIA exclusions for specific, sensitive records held by law enforcement 

agencies. In addition, agencies have a statutory requirement to meet certain 

time frames for determining whether to comply with requests, making 

determinations with respect to appeals of adverse determinations, and 

determining whether to provide expedited processing of requests. 

Requesters are entitled to know the reasons for denials, to appeal denials, 

and to challenge them in court. Under the act, agencies are required to 

submit annual reports on their FOIA activities to the Attorney General.

Roles of Justice and OMB in 

FOIA Implementation

The Department of Justice oversees agencies’ compliance with FOIA and is 

the primary source of policy guidance for agencies. Justice’s specific 

requirements under the act are to

• make agencies’ annual FOIA reports available through a single 

electronic access point and notify Congress as to their availability;

• in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required agency 

reports, so that all reports use common terminology and follow a similar 

format; and

• submit an annual report on FOIA statistics and the efforts undertaken 

by Justice to encourage agency compliance.
Page 5 GAO-05-405 Information Management

In addition, FOIA requires OMB to issue guidelines to “provide for a 

uniform schedule of fees for all agencies.”1

 Agencies are required to 

conform to the OMB fee guidelines. Further, in 1987, the Department of 

Justice issued guidelines on waiving fees when FOIA requests are 

determined to be in the public interest. Under the guidelines, requests for 

waivers or reduction of fees are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking 

into account both the public interest and the requester’s commercial 

interests. 

FOIA Processing at DOE Some FOIA requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for 

specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the 

appropriate office. Other requests require more extensive processing, 

depending on the complexity of the request, the volume of information 

involved, the need for the agency FOIA office to work with offices that 

have relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information, the 

need for a FOIA officer to review and redact information in the responsive 

material, the need to communicate with the requester about the scope of 

the request, and the need to communicate with the requester about the fees 

that will be charged for fulfilling the request (or whether fees will be 

waived). FOIA processing, especially review of classified, sensitive, or 

privacy-related material, can be labor-intensive.

DOE’s process typically begins when the agency’s headquarters FOIA office 

receives a written request (fax, letter, e-mail, or electronic form on DOE’s 

Web site).2

 From that point, the request goes through several phases, which 

include 

• initial processing, 

• acknowledgment of the request, 

• fee determination and identification of office with relevant subject 

matter expertise, 

1

This provision was added by the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-

570). See OMB, Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines, 52 FR 

10011 (Mar. 27, 1987), effective April 27, 1987.

2

Field offices receive and process requests independently of headquarters but use similar 

processes.
Page 6 GAO-05-405 Information Management

• search and retrieval of records, 

• preparation of records for release, and 

• issuing of the final response to the requester.

Initial processing is focused on ensuring that the request is a proper FOIA 

request and that all relevant information has been obtained from the 

requester.3

 From here, an acknowledgment letter informs the requester that 

the department received the request and also provides the requester with a 

tracking number. FOIA officials then review the case to determine which 

office may have responsive records and make an initial determination 

about fees and, if a fee waiver has been requested, whether it is to be 

granted. After the appropriate office has located responsive records, a 

determination is made about what, if any, information is exempt from 

public release and should be redacted from records planned to be released, 

which would result in a “partial grant” of requested information. Finally, the 

agency assembles the responsive records to be released and provides them 

to the requester. Figure 1 depicts the FOIA process at DOE Headquarters.

3

Among other things, a FOIA requester is required to provide an assurance to pay any 

applicable fees, and if DOE cannot obtain such an assurance—either in the original request 

or through follow-up—its practice is not to process the request.
Page 7 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Figure 1: DOE Headquarters FOIA Process

Note: DOCS (Document Online Coordination System) is DOE’s electronic document management 

system.

From the receipt of the request until a final decision is made about the 

release or withholding of documents, DOE has a number of opportunities 

to communicate with requesters. As recorded in DOE’s FOIA case files, the 

types of communications included 

• acknowledgment letters, which informed requesters that DOE received 

the request;

• interim letters, which provided requesters with additional information 

pertaining to their request and may have requested additional 

information to clarify the request;

• final letters, which provided requesters with the final outcome of their 

request;

• oral communications, which were made typically via telephone and 

provided clarification and additional information about how the request 

was being handled; and

Search and Retrieval of 

Records

• Route FOIA request to 

program office

• Conduct search and 

retrieval of records

Preparation of Records for 

Release

• Review records

• Scan into DOCS

• Apply exemptions

• Have General Counsel review 

records

Issuing the Final Response to the 

Requester

• Calculate fees, if applicable

• Draft final letter

• Scan into DOCS

• Send letter and records to requester

• Close out case file

Receipt of Request 

Letter 

• Receive request via 

mail, e-mail, fax or 

Web form

Initial Processing

• Route request letter to FOIA 

analyst

• Review request for 

completeness

• Categorize requester

• Log into the Document Online 

Coordination System (DOCS)

Acknowledgment of the 

Request

• Draft acknowledgment letter

• Scan into DOCS

• Send letter to requester

Fee Determination and Identification of 

Relevant Program Office

• Make initial review of case

• Make fee waiver determination

• Determine in which program office the 

records may reside

• Draft interim letter

• Scan into DOCS

• Send letter to requester

Source: GAO analysis of DOE Headquarters process.
Page 8 GAO-05-405 Information Management

• e-mail messages, which also provided clarification and additional 

information about DOE’s handling of the request.

Aside from very minor variations, the FOIA process at the Albuquerque and 

Richland field offices is essentially the same. The FOIA offices at each site 

receive requests centrally and assign them to appropriate offices with 

subject-matter expertise for action.

Fee Structure and Fee 

Waivers

Agency determinations about fees and fee waivers are complex decisions 

that include determining (1) the requester’s fee category, (2) whether a fee 

waiver is to be granted, and (3) the actual fees to be charged. FOIA 

stipulates three types of fee categories for requesters: (1) commercial; 

(2) educational, noncommercial scientific institution, and representative of 

the news media; and (3) other. Further, fees can be charged for three types 

of FOIA-related activities—search, duplication, and review—depending on 

the requester’s fee category. In addition, in certain situations fees may not 

be charged to a requester, as, for example, when a fee waiver is granted or 

when the applicable fees are below a certain threshold.

Commercial users can be charged for the broadest range of FOIA-related 

activities, including document search, review, and duplication. Commercial 

use is defined in the OMB fee schedule guidelines as “a use or purpose that 

furthers the commercial, trade or profit interests of the requester or the 

person on whose behalf the request is being made.” The second category 

exempts search and review fees for documents sought for noncommercial 

use by educational or noncommercial scientific institutions, and for 

representatives of the news media. The third category of fees, which 

applies to all requesters who do not fall within either of the other two 

categories, allows for “reasonable” charges for document search and 

duplication. Table 1 shows the FOIA-related activities for which agencies 

can charge by fee category, as stipulated in the act.
Page 9 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Table 1: FOIA Charges by Category

Source: GAO analysis of 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(A)(iv).

Although the act generally requires that requesters pay fees for their 

requests to be processed, in certain circumstances, fees are not to be 

charged. For example, as stipulated in the act, fees may not be charged 

when the government’s cost of collecting and processing the fee is likely to 

equal or exceed the amount of the fee itself.

Further, under certain circumstances, the act requires an agency to furnish 

documents without charge, or at reduced charges. This is commonly 

referred to as the FOIA fee waiver. An agency must provide a fee waiver if 

two conditions are met: 

• disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because 

it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the 

operations or activities of the government, and

• disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest 

of the requester.

Under the act and guidance, when these requirements are both satisfied, 

based upon information supplied by a requester or otherwise made known 

to the agency, the fee waiver or reduction is to be granted by the FOIA 

officer. Where one or both of these requirements is not satisfied, a fee 

waiver is not warranted. As these criteria suggest, fee waivers are to be 

granted on a case-by-case basis. Individuals who receive fee waivers in 

some cases may not necessarily receive them in other cases.

Activities for which agencies can charge

Category of requester Search Review Duplication

Category 1: Commercial requester Yes Yes Yes

Category 2: Educational, 

noncommercial scientific institutions, 

and representatives of the news 

media

No No Yes 

(100 pages free)

Category 3: Other Yes 

(2 hours free)

No Yes 

(100 pages free)
Page 10 GAO-05-405 Information Management

DOE’s FOIA Requests 

in Fiscal Year 2004

In fiscal year 2004, DOE reported receiving 2,289 new FOIA cases and 

closing 2,440.4

 In 76 percent (1848 of 2440) of the closed cases, DOE 

provided some or all requested records to the requesters. Of all new cases 

received across the department, headquarters, Albuquerque, and 

Richland—the sites selected for our review—received 31 percent (705 of 

2,289). Specifically, headquarters received 431 cases, Albuquerque received 

152 cases, and Richland received 122 cases.

In approximately 5 percent (35 of 705) of the cases at these three sites, 

requesters were charged a fee; 86 percent (30 of 35) of these cases involved 

commercial requesters. In total, the three sites charged about $4,700 in 

fees. DOE Headquarters charged requesters about $2,200; Albuquerque 

charged about $1,300; and Richland charged about $1,200. Further, of the 

705 cases, 24 percent (171 of 705) involved requesters formally asking for a 

fee waiver, and only two of these requesters were actually assessed fees 

(see table 2). 

Table 2: Fee Disposition of Requests Reviewed

Source: GAO.

a

These case files do not contain documentation showing that an explicit fee waiver determination was 

made. According to DOE officials, in most cases this is because they believed, based on their 

knowledge and experience, that the costs incurred would be below DOE’s $15 threshold for charging 

fees and that there was no need to make a fee waiver determination.

4

The number of requests closed is larger than that received because DOE resolved cases 

that had remained open from previous years.

Request description

Number of requests

charged a fee

Number of requests

not charged a fee Total

Fee waiver not requested 33 501 534

Fee waiver requested 2 169 171

Fee waiver granted 0 38 38

Fee waiver denied 0 8 8

No record of an explicit 

fee waiver determination a 2 123 125
Page 11 GAO-05-405 Information Management

DOE Generally 

Adhered to FOIA 

Guidance

Based on an analysis of 170 cases,5 DOE at these three locations generally 

followed FOIA and related guidance in its processes for making each of 

three major decisions related to fees and fee waivers: (1) determining the 

requester’s fee category, (2) determining if a fee waiver is to be granted, and 

(3) assessing actual fees, if any, to be charged.

FOIA and related guidance issued by OMB and Justice give FOIA officers 

detailed directions about how to handle fees and fee waivers. First, FOIA 

officers need to determine a requester’s fee category in order to know what 

types of activities the requester can be charged for. The three types of fee 

categories for requesters are (1) commercial; (2) educational, 

noncommercial scientific institution, and representative of the news media; 

and (3) other. Then, if a requester is eligible to be charged fees, a 

determination must be made if any of those fees can be waived. Assuming a 

requester has asked for a fee waiver, FOIA personnel must evaluate 

information provided by the requesters, addressing six criteria6

 outlined in 

the Justice guidance in order to make a fee waiver determination. Finally, 

assuming fees have not been waived, FOIA personnel must assess the 

actual fees to be charged. According to guidance, no fee is to be charged if 

the requester has received a fee waiver or if the amount to be charged is 

under a predetermined threshold. Otherwise, FOIA personnel are to 

determine the amount of time spent on search, review, and duplication, 

and, based on a requester’s fee category, charge the appropriate fees.

Determining a requester’s fee category is the simplest of the three decisions 

in terms of the information needed to make a decision, and it typically 

takes little time. Officials at all three sites we reviewed always (170 of 170 

cases) made explicit fee category determinations. Headquarters officials 

5

Of the 705 cases received by the three DOE locations in fiscal year 2004, we selected a 

review group totaling 170 cases that included all completed cases in which fees were 

charged (34 cases), all completed cases in which fee waivers were requested (95 cases), and 

a randomly selected group of nonfee and non-fee-waiver related cases (43 cases). Note that 

for two of the cases in which fees were charged, fee waivers were also requested. For a 

complete description of the selection process for our review group, see appendix I.

6

The six criteria are that (1) the subject matter of the request must concern identifiable 

“operations or activities of the government”; (2) the releasable portions of the requested 

information must be meaningfully informative in relation to the subject matter of the 

request; (3) the disclosure must contribute to the public at large as opposed to a narrow 

audience; (4) the disclosure must contribute “significantly” to public understanding of 

government operations and activities; (5) the public interest must outweigh any commercial 

interest; and (6) the requester’s primary interest is not commercial.
Page 12 GAO-05-405 Information Management

stated that if a requester did not provide enough information to make a fee 

category determination, FOIA personnel would often attempt to locate 

additional information, for example through the Web, in order to make an 

expeditious category determination. 

DOE also generally adhered to FOIA guidance in determining if a fee 

waiver was to be granted by seeking information to address all relevant fee 

waiver criteria. Often, if requesters did not sufficiently address all the feewaiver criteria in their initial requests, officials sought additional 

information from the requesters. DOE also generally adhered to FOIA 

guidance by asking requesters to address all relevant fee waiver criteria. 

For example, headquarters requested additional information to address fee 

waiver criteria in 21 cases wherein sufficient information was not included 

with the original request. Officials at all three sites indicated that if they 

believed, based on their knowledge and experience, that the charge for the 

request was going to be below the threshold, they would not go through the 

process of making an explicit fee waiver determination.

In assessing actual fees to be charged, if any, FOIA offices at all three sites 

we reviewed charged fees in accordance with guidance. The three 

locations charged fees in 34 completed cases.7

 For example, requesters 

were appropriately charged for search, review, or duplication based on 

their FOIA category.8

 In addition, all three locations uniformly complied 

with the regulation of granting 2 hours of free search time and 100 pages of 

free duplication to requesters in certain categories. Table 3 lists the 34 

completed cases in which fees were charged, by location and category.

7

One of the 35 fee charged cases shown in table 2 had not been fully processed at the time of 

our review.

8

One deviation was that Richland’s policy of charging 10 cents per page for duplication was 

not consistent with DOE’s guidance, which stipulates a duplication charge of 5 cents per 

page.
Page 13 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Table 3: Cases in Which Fees Were Charged

Source: GAO.

In many cases in which fees were not charged to requesters, we could not 

determine if DOE made its decision correctly, because the necessary 

information to determine fees—an accounting of search time and cost, 

review time and cost, and the number of pages duplicated—was not 

routinely recorded. Of the cases we reviewed that did not charge a fee (136 

of 170), about 61 percent (83 of 136) did not include records of all of the 

necessary information. Officials at each of the sites stated that—as was the 

case with many fee waiver determinations—they often did not record such 

information when they believed, based on their knowledge and experience, 

that the costs incurred would be below DOE’s $15 threshold for charging 

fees.

DOE Did Not Always 

Inform Requesters 

About Fee and FeeWaiver Decisions

DOE’s three FOIA offices did not always communicate all the specifics of 

their fee-related decisions to requesters. Requesters were sometimes 

informed of one or more of the three major fee-related decisions, especially 

fee category decisions. However, they were rarely given a full explanation 

of all relevant decisions. Because of the complexity of the decision-making 

process for fees and fee waivers, providing a full explanation of what 

decisions have been reached is important. Without a clear understanding of 

DOE’s fee-related determinations, requesters could have false expectations 

about how their future requests are to be handled.

Current FOIA processing guidelines do not require agencies to explicitly 

inform requesters of fee-related decisions. However, informing requesters 

about fee and fee-waiver decisions is important because it can provide an 

explanation to the requester about the specific and possibly unique 

circumstances of a particular fee determination. For example, although an 

agency may determine that a requester is not eligible for a fee waiver, based 

on the information provided, it may not actually charge any fee for the 

request because the charges would be below the minimum threshold. If the 

Category Headquarters Albuquerque Richland Total

Commercial 14 11 4 29

Educational, scientific, and news media 1 0 0 1

Other 0 4 0 4

Total 15 15 4 34
Page 14 GAO-05-405 Information Management

requester was not informed of this, he or she could mistakenly believe that 

a waiver had indeed been granted and might expect that a similar waiver 

would be granted for future FOIA requests. While not specifically referring 

to fee determinations, Justice has cited the importance of communications 

as an element of customer service.

The three DOE sites did not always communicate fee category decisions to 

requesters. Of the three locations, headquarters was most likely to inform 

requesters of their fee category. Richland and Albuquerque rarely 

communicated fee category determinations to requesters. Table 4 

enumerates how often requesters were informed of fee category 

determinations for the cases we reviewed. 

Table 4: Communication of Fee Category Determinations to Requesters

Source: GAO.

The three sites also rarely informed requesters of the outcome of fee 

waiver determinations. Specifically, requesters were not informed of fee 

waiver determinations in 87 percent of the completed fee waiver cases that 

we reviewed (83 of 95). Whenever DOE’s case files show that an explicit 

determination was made denying a fee waiver, the requester was informed 

of this decision. This occurred seven times in fiscal year 2004. However, fee 

waiver determinations were not always recorded in the case files. DOE 

officials indicated that if they believed fees would be below the threshold, 

based on their knowledge and experience, they would not address a fee 

waiver request explicitly, and, accordingly, requesters would not be 

informed of any fee waiver decision. Further, in 22 cases at headquarters, 

requesters were notified that a fee waiver determination would not be 

addressed until they provided additional information addressing the fee 

waiver criteria that DOE is required to use in reaching its fee waiver 

determinations. However, the records in these cases do not indicate 

whether additional information was obtained, nor do they reflect a final 

determination of fee waiver status. Table 5 shows communication of 

completed fee waiver case determinations by location.

 Description Headquarters Albuquerque Richland Total

Fee category communicated 57 11 5 73

Fee category not communicated 22 31 44 97

Total 79 42 49 170
Page 15 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Table 5: Communication of Fee Waiver Determinations to Requesters

Source: GAO.

a

In addition to these seven cases, Headquarters, at the time of our review, had one open case where a 

fee waiver had been denied.

Although the DOE offices informed requesters when fees were assessed 

and actually charged, they did not always explicitly inform requesters of 

decisions not to charge fees, even when fees might have been applicable. In 

half of the cases we reviewed in which fees were not charged (68 of 136), 

requesters were not informed about the decision not to charge a fee. 

Without being informed about this decision, a requester could mistakenly 

believe that fees were not applicable and develop a false expectation that 

fees also would not be applicable for future requests. Table 6 below shows 

the disposition of cases by location in which a fee was not charged.

Table 6: Communication of Fee Decision When Fees Were Not Charged

Source: GAO.

Further, in most (24 of 35) cases where fees were charged, requesters were 

not informed of the complete details of the fees to be charged. In assessing 

fees, FOIA personnel are to determine the amount of time spent on search, 

review, and duplication, and, based on a requester’s fee category, charge 

the appropriate fees. If requesters do not receive detailed information 

about these determinations, including an accounting of what activities they 

 Description Headquarters Albuquerque Richland Total

Communicated granting of fee 

waiver 3 2 0 5

Communicated denial of fee 

waiver 1 0 6 7 a

Did not communicate fee waiver 

determination 45 14 24 83

Additional support had been 

requested to address decision 

criteria 22 0 0

Total 49 16 30 95

 Description Headquarters Albuquerque Richland Total

Fee decision communicated 32 24 12 68

Fee decision not communicated 32 3 33 68
Page 16 GAO-05-405 Information Management

were not charged for, they may not be able to understand how fees had 

been assessed. Although Albuquerque consistently informed requesters 

about the complete details of assessed fees, headquarters and Richland 

rarely did.

Without a clear understanding of what determinations DOE has made, 

requesters could develop false expectations on how future requests would 

be handled. For example, 11 of 17 requesters we interviewed who had 

requested a fee waiver believed they had received a fee waiver from DOE, 

yet in actuality none of them had. Without clearer communication of feerelated determinations, requesters are likely to not fully understand agency 

fee determinations, which could lead to dissatisfaction with the response 

to future FOIA requests.

Conclusions DOE reported closing 2,440 FOIA requests in fiscal year 2004 and provided 

some or all of the requested records in 76 percent of the cases. Requesters 

were charged fees in about 5 percent of cases. Further, in most cases, DOE 

followed FOIA and related guidance in each of the three major decisions 

related to fees and fee waivers that arise for any given request. However, 

DOE did not always communicate these decisions to requesters. 

Current FOIA processing guidance issued by Justice does not require 

agencies to explicitly inform requesters of any fee-related decisions. 

However, doing so would be beneficial. If requesters do not understand 

what determinations have actually been made, they could develop false 

expectations for the handling of future FOIA requests.

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

To improve FOIA requesters’ understanding of agency fee-related 

determinations, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the codirectors of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy 

to revise FOIA guidance to include a requirement that agencies explicitly 

inform requesters of all fee-related determinations associated with their 

requests, including a notification that fees were not assessed, if applicable.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the DOE’s 

Director, Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation/Chief Financial 

Officer, and the Co-Directors, Office of Information and Privacy, of the 
Page 17 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Department of Justice, which are reproduced in appendixes II and III, 

respectively.

DOE provided its comments in three parts. First, DOE reported that it had 

already taken steps to implement our recommendation, although the 

department noted that it was not required to provide requesters with 

notifications about fee-waiver determinations when potential fees would 

be below the minimum amount for charging. Second, the department noted 

that its past procedures did not call for notifying requesters about fee 

determinations when processing fees were below the minimum threshold. 

Finally, the department disagreed with our characterization of fee waiver 

determinations at the Richland field office, stating that Richland does not 

have a practice of automatically granting fee waivers to public interest 

groups and news media. We have accordingly revised the final report to 

clarify our characterization of Richland’s fee-waiver practices.

Justice stated that our recommendation was addressed to the wrong 

agency, because it did not fall within the jurisdictional purview of the 

department and therefore Justice cannot properly implement the 

recommendation. However, we disagree. Justice is the lead agency for 

providing guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues and has 

statutory responsibility for encouraging agency compliance with the act.9

Justice has several vehicles for providing such guidance, including the 

periodically updated Freedom of Information Act Guide and Privacy Act 

Overview, as well as training materials and other online updates such as the 

department’s “FOIA Post.” To confirm that we had appropriately addressed 

our recommendation to Justice rather than OMB—which is required to 

issue a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies—we contacted the Deputy 

Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, who 

agreed that the recommendation should be addressed to Justice.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Attorney General; the Secretary of Energy; and the heads of other 

interested congressional committees. Copies will be made available to 

9

5 U.S.C. § 552 (e)(5).
Page 18 GAO-05-405 Information Management

others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 

our Web site at www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at

(202) 512-6240 or send e-mail to koontzl@gao.gov. Key contacts and major 

contributors to this report are Barbara Collier, John de Ferrari, Wilfred 

Holloway, Stephanie Lee, David Plocher, and Elizabeth Zhao.

Sincerely yours,

Linda D. Koontz

Director, Information Management Issues
Page 19 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

Our objectives were to determine, for fiscal year 2004, (1) the volume and 

nature of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request processing at the 

Department of Energy (DOE), (2) the extent to which the department’s 

process for handling fee assessments and waivers is consistent with FOIA 

and related guidance, and (3) the extent to which DOE has clearly 

communicated its fee-related decisions to requesters.

To determine the volume and nature of FOIA request processing at DOE, 

we reviewed documentation indicating the volume of requests received by 

the department, and we analyzed in detail the nature of DOE Headquarters’ 

FOIA process. We assessed the reliability of the DOE Headquarters’ 

process by reviewing existing information about the FOIA process and 

interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the process. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report.

To determine the extent to which DOE’s process for handling fee 

assessments and waivers was consistent with guidance, we analyzed the 

requirements in FOIA, the Department of Justice guidance, and OMB 

guidance, and we compared these requirements to those contained in 

DOE’s regulations. We then analyzed information gathered from selected 

FOIA case files to determine if DOE was complying with regulations at 

selected locations. 

We also used data from the selected case files to determine the extent to 

which the department clearly communicated its fee-related decisions to 

requesters. The case files from DOE contained several types of 

communications between DOE and requesters. These communications 

allowed us to assess how and when DOE communicated fee-related 

decisions to requesters.

To select the case files for our analysis, we began by identifying the number 

of fee waiver cases at each of DOE’s field locations. We then chose field 

locations that processed the majority of fee waiver cases in fiscal year 

2004. We determined that DOE Headquarters and the department’s sites at 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Richland, Washington, processed about 77 

percent of DOE’s fee waiver cases in fiscal year 2004 and 35 percent of the 

cases in which fees were charged. These three locations received a total of 

705 new FOIA requests in fiscal year 2004. From these 705 cases, we 

selected (1) all cases in which fees were charged, (2) all cases in which fee 

waivers were requested, and (3) a random sample of 43 cases not involving 

a fee being charged or a fee waiver being requested. This process produced 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 20 GAO-05-405 Information Management

a group of 253 cases. The remaining 452 of the original 705 cases were not 

reviewed.

After making an initial assessment of these 253 cases, we excluded several 

types of requests from our analysis, including requests that were open, 

cancelled, referred to another agency, or not proper FOIA requests: 

• An open request is one that has not yet been completed.

• A cancelled request occurs when the requester decides that he or she no 

longer wants to receive the information requested. 

• A request referred to another agency is one that cannot be completed at 

the original location to which it was sent, and therefore needs to be sent 

to another location either within DOE or another agency. 

• A request is determined not to be a proper FOIA request when any one 

of the following conditions is met: (1) the documents requested are not 

reasonably described, (2) the request does not contain a statement 

regarding fee agreement or request for a fee waiver, (3) the request asks 

a question rather than requesting documents, and (4) the documents 

requested do not exist—that is, they would need to be created, or the 

date of the request letter is earlier than the date of required publication 

of the agency document. 

Table 7 shows the numbers of cases that we excluded for any of these four 

reasons. In one of the open cases DOE did charge a fee.

Table 7: Number of Requests Excluded by Location

Source: GAO. 

Description of request Headquarters Albuquerque Richland Total

Open 30 12 1 43

Cancelled 1 2 3 6

Referred to another agency 28 3 1 32

Not a proper FOIA request 1 0 1 2

Total 60 17 6 83
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 21 GAO-05-405 Information Management

After excluding these 83 cases, 170 cases remained, which formed the 

review group we used in our analysis. Table 8 below shows the number, 

description, and location of the cases in our final review group.

Table 8: Number of Cases Analyzed

Source: GAO.

In addition to the case file analysis, we surveyed requesters about their 

interaction with DOE and the processing of their FOIA request. Of the 170 

cases we analyzed, we identified 86 distinct requesters who were charged a 

fee or requested a fee waiver. The DOE case files contained contact 

information for 61 of the 86 requesters. We surveyed each of these 61 

requesters and obtained 20 responses. For 17 of these responses the 

requester asked for a fee waiver, and for the remaining 3 responses the 

requester had been charged a fee.

Our work was performed from June 2004 through March 2005, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, at 

Washington, D.C.; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Richland, Washington.

Description of case Headquarters Albuquerque Richland Total

Cases in which fees were charged 

and no fee waiver was requested 15 13 4 32

Cases in which fees were charged 

and fee waiver was requested 0 2 0 2

Cases in which no fee was charged 

and fee waiver was requested 49 14 30 93

Cases in which no fee was charged 

and no fee waiver was requested 15 13 15 43

Totals 79 42 49 170
Page 22 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Energy ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of Energy

Page 23 GAO-05-405 Information Management
Page 24 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Justice ApendxiI
Page 25 GAO-05-405 Information Management

Related GAO Products

Information Management: Update on Freedom of Information Act 

Implementation Status. GAO-04-257. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2004.

Freedom of Information Act: Agency Views on Changes Resulting from 

New Administration Policy. GAO-03-981. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 

2003.

Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996 

Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-02-493. 

Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002.

Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic 

Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-01-378. Washington, D.C.: 

March 16, 2001.

(310718)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548