Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/03/2015-07772/revision-of-departments-freedom-of-information-act-regulations
Timestamp: 2017-06-26 19:18:46
Document Index: 668523733

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 17', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 16', 'art1', 'art 16', 'art2', 'art 16', 'art\n16', '§\u200916', 'art 16', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art 0', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', '§\u200916', 'art3', 'art 16']

:: Revision of Department's Freedom of Information Act Regulations
A Rule by the Justice Department on 04/03/2015
1105-AB27
DOJ_FRDOC_0001
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-07772
04/02/2015 at 08:45 am.
Interested persons were afforded the opportunity to participate in the Start Printed Page 18100rulemaking process through submission of written comments to the proposed rule during the two open comment periods. In total, the Department received fifteen public submissions in response to its proposed rule, including comments from another agency as well as internal comments from components of the Department. Due consideration has been given to each of the comments received and, in response, the Department has made several modifications to the rule. These modifications include clarifying, revising, or expanding various provisions, withdrawing a provision, retaining existing language for certain other provisions, and making technical edits, such as correcting Web site links.
Several commenters expressed concerns about the increase in search fees. In contrast to the use of “direct costs” for responding to a request for non-paper media, search fees are assessed on a uniform basis throughout the Department in accordance with the OMB Guidelines and are largely salary-based. See 52 FR at 10018. The Department has reexamined the rates using a formula for search and review fees that takes into account current pay rates for different levels of staff involved in processing FOIA requests. The revised rule changes the “administrative” staff category to “clerical/administrative” to account for work performed by either clerical or administrative staff who may assist FOIA professionals in searching for responsive records. As a result of these adjustments, while there is a small increase in the rates from our existing regulations, we were able to reduce the rates from those originally proposed. Updating these costs is consistent with the OMB Guidelines, which provide that “[a]gencies should charge fees that recoup the full allowable direct costs they incur.” Id. While certain costs are now higher than when last calculated 13 years ago, the revised fee schedule includes a decrease in duplication fees due to advances in technology. The Department includes in the revised regulations a directive that components “ensure that searches, review, and duplication are conducted in the most efficient and the least expensive manner.” § 16.10(a). For greater emphasis, the Department moves that directive in the final rule from the definition paragraph in proposed § 16.10 to the introductory paragraph in the final rule.
One commenter recommended that proposed § 16.10(b)(3) contain the statement, included in the existing version of that paragraph, 28 CFR 16.11(b)(3), that “[c]omponents shall honor a requester's specified preference of form or format.” The requirement to honor a requester's specified form or format preference is now located in § 16.10(c)(2), concerning charging duplication fees, which is a more appropriate location.
One commenter took issue with proposed § 16.10(b)(4), concerning the definition of the term educational institution. Specifically, the commenter objected to the phrase indicating that the educational institution must “operate[] a program of scholarly research” and argued that this requirement would effectively exclude various types of schools other than universities. The commenter mistakenly asserted that the provision would be new; in fact, not only is it not new, but the requirement that an educational institution have as its purpose “scholarly” research derives from the FOIA itself, see 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II), and the specific language was taken directly from the OMB Guidelines. 52 FR at 10018; see also id. at 10014 (addressing rationale for this requirement). As the OMB Guidelines note, whether a school qualifies must be determined on a case-by-case basis: As a practical matter, it is unlikely that a preschool or elementary or secondary school would be able to qualify for treatment as an “educational” institution since few preschools, for example, could be said to conduct programs of scholarly research. But, Start Printed Page 18101agencies should be prepared to evaluate requests on an individual basis when requesters can demonstrate that the request is from an institution that is within the category, that the institution has a program of scholarly research, and that the documents sought are in furtherance of the institution's program of scholarly research and not for a commercial use.
Two commenters objected to the provision in proposed § 16.10(b)(4) stating that “[r]ecords requested for the intention of fulfilling credit requirements are not considered to be sought for a scholarly purpose.” This requirement is also taken from the OMB Guidelines, which distinguish individual research goals from an institution's research goals. The addition of this language was intended to reflect longstanding Department practice and to alleviate any confusion among student requesters. The statute indicates that the relevant question is whether the request is made “by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution.” 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). The OMB Guidelines address how that inquiry is to be made:
Agencies should ensure that it is apparent from the nature of the request that it serves a scholarly research goal of the institution, rather than an individual goal. Thus, for example, a request from a professor of geology at a State university for records relating to soil erosion, written on letterhead of the Department of Geology, could be presumed to be from an educational institution. A request from the same person for drug information from the Food and Drug Administration in furtherance of a murder mystery he is writing would not be presumed to be an institutional request, regardless of whether it was written on institutional stationary [sic] . . . .
The final rule clarifies this provision by replacing the sentence that commenters flagged with a series of examples based on the OMB Guidelines discussion quoted above, thereby making clear that this inquiry applies to professors as well. Students and professors who do not qualify for reduced fees under this provision, and who do not seek the records for a commercial use, will, of course, be afforded the benefits of the two free hours of search time and one hundred pages of duplication without cost that are afforded to any other non-commercial use requester. See § 16.10(d)(4) of the final rule. And like all requesters, they may apply for a fee waiver under the fee waiver provision of the FOIA, pursuant to § 16.10(k) of the final rule.
One commenter suggested that the provision in proposed § 16.10(b)(6) stating that “[a] component's decision to grant a requester media status will be made on a case-by-case basis based upon the requester's intended use” should be deleted. The Department agrees and believes that the language is better placed under the definition of a “commercial use” requester. In the OMB Guidelines, the requester's intended use of the requested records determines whether the requester will fall within the “commercial use” fee category, or one of the other categories. See 52 FR at 10013, 10017-18. As the OMB Guidelines explain, “it is possible to envision a commercial enterprise making a request that is not for a commercial use” and “[i]t is also possible that a non-profit organization could make a request that is for a commercial use.” Id. at 10013. To make this point clearer, the Department moves the reference to case-by-case determinations to the “commercial use” definition. Within the definition of “representative of the news media,” the Department retains the statement from its existing regulations that “a request for records supporting the news-dissemination function of the requester shall not be considered to be for a commercial use.”
Another commenter suggested that the definition of “representative of the news media” in proposed § 16.10(b)(6) should not require that the person or entity be “organized and operated to publish or broadcast news.” This requirement is being retained because it comes directly from the definition of “representative of the news media” in the OMB Guidelines, see 52 FR at 10018, which is in turn based on the statute's inclusion of the term “news” in this fee category, see id. at 10015.
One commenter suggested that proposed § 16.10(c)(1)(iii), regarding the direct costs associated with creating computer programs to extract information, require that requesters be notified of any such costs before the costs are incurred. The Department agrees and revises this provision accordingly. Another commenter suggested that the regulations address the provision of the OPEN Government Act of 2007, codified at 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(viii), that limits the charging of fees in certain instances where time limits are not met. This statutory provision, in fact, has been expressly addressed in proposed § 16.10(d)(2), which sets forth restrictions on charging fees.
One commenter suggested that under proposed § 16.10(e), when components notify requesters of anticipated fees in excess of $25.00, they provide non-commercial use requesters with their statutory entitlements of one hundred free pages and, when search fees are assessed, their two hours of free search time or the cost equivalent. The Department believes that requesters should be apprised of the option to receive their statutory entitlements regardless of whether estimated fees exceed $25.00 and has revised the provision to account for that. However, the Department believes it is preferable not to require components to perform the statutorily entitled free search and duplication before the requester responds to the notice because it would not be an efficient use of limited FOIA resources, inasmuch as the requester might choose to revise the request after receipt of the notice. The Department also adds a provision to permit requesters to designate a specific amount of fees that they are willing to pay. If it turns out that the total cost of processing the request is higher, the component must still process the request up to the amount of fees the requester agreed to pay, unless the requester withdraws the request. Finally, the Department adds language to clarify that when a requester has indicated a willingness to pay some amount of fees, the time to respond is tolled when the Department informs the requester that the total cost of processing the request is higher than the amount the requester indicated a willingness to pay. Once the agency receives the requester's response to the notice, the time to respond to the request will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
One commenter suggested that Department components should make fee waiver determinations based “on the face of the request” under proposed § 16.10(k) and not defer such decisions “until after search costs are incurred.” The commenter misinterprets the effect of the six factors contained in proposed § 16.10(k). The regulations do not provide for the assessment of fees as part of the process of making a fee waiver determination. Rather, the six factors set out in the regulations guide Start Printed Page 18102Department components in applying the statutory standard for waiving fees. Requesters do not incur any charge as a result of this process.
Another commenter suggested that the Department delete the word “ordinarily” from proposed § 16.10(k)(2)(iii), concerning the third fee waiver factor, which discusses whether disclosure will contribute to public understanding of the subject. The Department accepts this comment and reinstates the original language: “It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.”
This commenter also suggested reinstatement of language in the existing regulations regarding presumptions about disclosures made to data brokers. The Department agrees and reinstates that language in § 16.10(k)(3)(ii) as well as the related language about presumptions regarding disclosure to the news media.
An agency commenter suggested that proposed § 16.10(e) be revised to include a provision that when components notify requesters of the actual or estimated amount of fees that they include in that estimate a breakdown of the fees for search, review, or duplication. The Department agrees and makes that revision.
A number of commenters raised concerns regarding proposed § 16.6(f)(2), which pertained to responses to requests involving records excluded from the requirements of the FOIA by 5 U.S.C. 552(c). Section 552(c), enacted as an amendment to the FOIA in 1986, see Public Law 99-570, secs. 1801-04, 100 Stat. 3207, provides special protection for three categories of particularly sensitive law enforcement records. The first exclusion protects against disclosure of a pending criminal law enforcement investigation where there is reason to believe that the target is unaware of the investigation and disclosure of its existence could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. The second exclusion, which applies only to records maintained by criminal law enforcement agencies, protects against disclosure of unacknowledged, confidential informants. The third exclusion, which applies only to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, protects against disclosure of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism records, when the existence of those records is classified.
Proposed § 16.6(f)(2) provided as follows: “When a component applies an exclusion to exclude records from the requirements of the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c), the component utilizing the exclusion will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist. This response should not differ in wording from any other response given by the component.” Commenters suggested that this language would impede governmental transparency and accountability.
Proposed § 16.6(f)(2) was intended to incorporate guidance issued more than 20 years ago by Attorney General Edwin Meese. See Attorney General's Memorandum on the 1986 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 18-30 (December 1987), available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​86agmemo.htm (“Meese Guidance”). The Meese Guidance provided, among other things, that where the only records responsive to a request were excluded from the FOIA by statute, that “a requester can properly be advised in such a situation that `there exist no records responsive to your FOIA request.' ” Id. at 27. The Meese Guidance also advised agencies that they must ensure that their FOIA responses are consistently worded so that a requester is not able to determine from the wording of a response that an exclusion was invoked. See id.
In September 2012, in order to bring greater awareness to the public about the existence and effect of these statutory provisions, the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) issued guidance outlining the steps all agencies should take to ensure proper implementation of exclusions and setting forth the new requirements for their use. See Office of Information Policy, “Implementing FOIA's Statutory Exclusion Provisions” (September 14, 2012), available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​foiapost/​2012foiapost9.html (“OIP Exclusion Guidance”).
The OIP Exclusion Guidance establishes a new approach for all agencies to take when responding to requests, in lieu of the approach that had been set forth in proposed § 16.6(f)(2). Specifically, all agency components that maintain criminal law enforcement records now include a notification in their FOIA response letters advising requesters that Congress excluded certain records from the requirements of the FOIA and that the agency's response addresses those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. The Department instructed these law enforcement components to include the following language in response to all FOIA requests: For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
As explained in greater length in the OIP Exclusion Guidance, the Department believes that the use of this language addresses the concerns raised by the commenters who had criticized proposed § 16.6(f)(2), while preserving the integrity of the sensitive law enforcement records at stake.
The final rule retains two provisions in the proposed rule aimed at ensuring proper use of exclusions. Before applying an exclusion, the component must first obtain approval from OIP. See § 16.6(g)(1). Furthermore, any component invoking an exclusion must maintain records of its use and approval. See § 16.6(g)(2). These provisions are intended to enhance accountability in the use of exclusions.
One commenter suggested that the last sentence of proposed § 16.4(a), which provides that “[a] record that is excluded from the requirements of the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(c), shall not be considered responsive to a request” should be changed to say that the records “may not be considered responsive.” This sentence was designed to provide notice that records determined by a component to be properly subject to an exclusion are not considered to be responsive to the FOIA request. The FOIA provides that agencies “may,” under certain defined circumstances, treat records “as not subject to the requirements of [the FOIA],” 5 U.S.C. 552(c). As a result, components may choose not to apply an exclusion even if the FOIA would allow them to do so. This provision addresses those situations where a component does decide to lawfully apply an exclusion. The provision makes clear that in those cases the excluded records are not responsive to the request. For clarity, we have changed the wording in the final rule to replace the word Start Printed Page 18103“shall” with “is” so that the regulation more clearly conveys that it is addressing the consequence of those situations where a component has decided to apply an exclusion.
The same commenter suggested that proposed § 16.2 should be modified to require that Department components post online the responses to all FOIA requests that do not involve individuals seeking access to their own records. The Department encourages the posting of all records, particularly records likely to be of interest to the public. However, given that resources are needed to properly code records for posting, it is important that Department components retain flexibility to decide how best to use those resources, including flexibility to use other options such as posting logs of FOIA responses.
One commenter expressed concern that proposed § 16.3(a) “will allow the agency to summarily deny requests when the requester fails to write to the correct `FOIA office of the Department component.'” This scenario was not the intention of that provision, nor will it be a consequence of the provision. Indeed, as noted in § 16.5(a) of the proposed regulations and as is contemplated in the FOIA itself, components are expected to re-route misdirected requests to the proper component. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). For emphasis, the Department adds a new § 16.4(c) that expressly states the obligation to re-route misdirected requests.
In addition, the Department adds language to the provision to explain that the requester will receive the quickest response if the request is directed to the component that maintains the records. Requesters have another option as well. For any requester who is uncertain as to which Department component may maintain responsive records, or who simply chooses to do so, proposed § 16.3(a)(2) provides the requester with the option of submitting the request to the FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit, which will then direct the request to the component(s) that it determines is most appropriate. The Mail Referral Unit is a long-standing service the Department provides to assist requesters who are uncertain as to where to direct their requests.
The same commenter asserted that proposed § 16.3(a)(3), which requires the submission of a certification of identity for first-party requesters and references the Department's Privacy Act regulation in subpart D on that point, should be clarified as only applying to U.S. citizens or lawful alien residents. This provision of the regulations is intended to apply to all first-party requesters, regardless of their country of origin and is intended to protect the privacy of individuals. The reference to subpart D of the regulations is merely meant to inform requesters as to the location of the requirements for verifying their identities when making requests for their own records. As a matter of policy, the Department requires verification of identity for all first-party requesters, not just requesters who are covered by the Privacy Act, to appropriately protect the privacy of all individuals and ensure that an individual's private records are not improperly disclosed to a third party. This is not a new requirement and is in the existing regulations.
One commenter expressed concern that the change in language proposed for § 16.3(c), (redesignated as § 16.3(b) in the final rule), which addresses the requirement to reasonably describe the records sought, would “establish new barriers to access.” That was not the Department's intention. We revise this section to conform to the existing regulations and add further resources for requesters to assist them in reasonably describing the records they seek. The section now provides that requesters may discuss their requests with the component's FOIA contact or its FOIA Public Liaison in advance of making a request, as well as to clarify a request already made. Further, requesters may also contact a representative of OIP for assistance. All these officials will be available to assist requesters in reasonably describing the records sought.
One commenter noted that the proposed rule deleted existing § 16.7 concerning classified information. This commenter also indicated that it was unclear whether the citation to part 17 in proposed § 16.4(d) (redesignated as § 16.4(e) in the final rule) reflects the Department's obligations with respect to such material. The Department further clarifies this provision to make clear that, in responding to requests for classified information, the component must determine whether the information remains currently and properly classified.
With respect to proposed § 16.4(e) (now incorporated into § 16.4(d) in the final rule), regarding notice of referrals, one commenter was concerned with the reference to protecting the identities of recipients of document referrals when disclosure of the recipient would itself disclose a sensitive, exempt fact. In the intervening period since the close of the second comment period, the Department has issued new guidance on consultations and referrals that requires agencies to use coordination procedures, rather than making a referral, if the recipient cannot be identified due to law enforcement or national security concerns. As a result, this provision, as well as proposed § 16.4(c) (now incorporated into § 16.4(d) in the final rule), is being revised to reflect that new Department guidance. See Office of Information Policy, “Referrals, Consultations, and Coordination: Procedures for Processing Records When Another Agency or Entity Has an Interest in Them,” (December 2011), available at www.justice.gov/​oip/​foiapost/​2011foiapost42.html (explaining exceptions to standard procedures for making referrals and procedures for coordinating responses).
One commenter suggested that any agreements between Department Start Printed Page 18104components as to the processing of certain records, which was discussed in proposed § 16.4(g), should be made publicly available. This provision is intended to hasten processing by eliminating certain consults or referrals for components that share or encounter the same types of records on a regular basis. There is no requirement, however, that components create formal agreements appropriate for posting with respect to these records. In the interests of maintaining flexibility and enhancing efficiency, which are the goals of this section, no changes are being made to the provision.
One commenter contended that the portion of proposed § 16.5(a) concerning the commencement of response time for misdirected requests should be deleted. The commenter is referred to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii) of the FOIA, which is the statutory provision establishing the time period to route misdirected requests.
Another commenter recommended that proposed § 16.5(a) require components to forward any misdirected requests to the Justice Management Division's Mail Referral Unit, rather than to the Department component that the receiving component deems most appropriate. While components are free to do so when they are uncertain as to the proper component, imposing a requirement to route all misdirected requests through the Mail Referral Unit rather than directly to the proper component would unnecessarily delay the receipt of the request by the appropriate Department component. The Department has issued guidance on the handling of misdirected requests, see Office of Information Policy, “OIP Guidance: New Requirement to Route Misdirected FOIA Requests,” (November 11, 2008), available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​foiapost/​2008foiapost31.htm.
One commenter took issue with the use of the term “unusual circumstances” contained in proposed § 16.5(c) and suggested instead using the term “unforeseen circumstances.” However, “unusual circumstances” is a term of art that is taken directly from, and defined by, the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(i).
One commenter asserted that the language from the existing regulation stating that information dissemination “need not be a [requester's] sole occupation,” 28 CFR 16.5(d)(3) should be restored in proposed § 16.5(e)(3), which pertains to expedited processing. It was not the Department's intention to narrow this standard—indeed, the example provided in the provision references a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media. To provide even greater clarity, the final rule provides that information dissemination “need not be the requester's sole occupation.”
The commenter also suggested deletion of a sentence from proposed § 16.5(e)(3) regarding the provision of news articles. The commenter noted that requesters frequently make use of news articles to demonstrate a need for expedited processing. While acknowledging that provision of news articles does not “necessarily require[] the grant of expedited processing” in all instances, the commenter objected to the proposed sentence as not recognizing the usefulness of providing articles. The Department modifies this sentence to make it clear that provision of news articles on a topic “can be helpful” to establishing that the standard is met. This language conveys more appropriately the impact of providing numerous news articles. Finally, the Department revises the final sentence of proposed § 16.5(e)(4), regarding administrative appeal of any component denial of expedited processing, to maintain the language used in the existing regulations.
One commenter suggested adding a sentence to proposed § 16.6(d) (redesignated as § 16.6(e) in the final rule), which concerns estimating the volume of information withheld, to require a listing of any documents withheld in full. Another commenter suggested that a brief description of the withheld information be provided if doing so would not reveal exempt information. While the Department understands the desire for such further detail, and encourages components to use their judgment to provide additional helpful information when practical, the Department must balance the time involved with imposing such a requirement against the heavy demands faced by many components to process thousands or tens of thousands of requests each year. In light of those demands, imposing such a requirement would be counterproductive. Contrary to the first commenter's assertion, a listing is not required at the administrative stage of processing a FOIA request. See Bangoura v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 607 F. Supp. 2d 134, 143 n.8 (D.D.C. 2009) (holding that list of withheld documents is not required at administrative stage of processing FOIA requests and appeals).
One commenter mistakenly thought that proposed § 16.6(e) had eliminated the requirement that a denial be signed by the head of the component or a designee. The first line of § 16.6(e) in the final rule continues to contain this requirement.
An agency commenter recommended that acknowledgments of requests include a brief description of the subject of the request in order to help requesters keep track of multiple pending requests. The Department agrees and has included such language in § 16.6(b) of the final rule.
The same commenter recommended that the rule reference the statutory requirement that agencies indicate, if technically feasible, the amount of information deleted and the exemption under which each deletion is made unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption. The Department adds such language in § 16.6 of the final rule.
One commenter approved of the change to proposed § 16.7(b) which states that “[a] submitter of confidential commercial information must use good faith efforts to designate by appropriate markings . . . any portion of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.” A similar requirement is also contained in proposed § 16.7(e) for submitters relying on Exemption 4 as a basis for nondisclosure after receipt of submitter notice. However, the commenter objected to the language of proposed § 16.7(e) that also states that a submitter should provide the component with detailed reasons for withholding under any FOIA exemption. The commenter suggested the use of the word “must” instead of “should.”
Two commenters took issue with the timing associated with submitting an administrative appeal set forth in Start Printed Page 18105proposed § 16.8(a). In response, the Department increases the time period from 45 days to 60 days. The Department notes that the use of the postmark or transmission date, rather than a “received” date, will provide a date certain for requesters to ensure, and components to ascertain, the timeliness of an appeal.
The Department also adds language in § 16.8(c) of the final rule to indicate that, when issuing a decision on appeal, it will inform the requester of the mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) of the National Archives and Records Administration as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.
One commenter objected to the language in proposed § 16.9 concerning document preservation. The purpose of proposed § 16.9 is to ensure that components appropriately preserve all records that are subject to a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA. It was not the Department's intention to narrow the scope of the obligation and so the Department is revising the language to state: “Records will not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.”
One commenter recommended that the regulations restate various provisions included in the 2009 President's Memorandum on the FOIA, Presidential Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Concerning the Freedom of Information Act, 74 FR 4683 (Jan. 21, 2009), and the 2009 Attorney General FOIA Guidelines, Attorney General Holder's Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Concerning the Freedom of Information Act, 74 FR 51879 (Oct. 8, 2009). For example, the commenter requested that the rule restate the provision in the Attorney General's FOIA Guidelines that the Department will defend in litigation a denial of a FOIA request only if the disclosure is prohibited by law or if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a statutory exemption. Because this rule addresses the procedures for making and responding to FOIA requests, rather than the conduct of FOIA litigation, the Department declines to make this change. The commenter also requested that the rule restore the provision in § 16.1(a) of the existing regulations with regard to the Department's policy on making discretionary disclosures. The Department has decided to do so.
In response to the public comments and feedback from Department components with respect to the phrasing of certain provisions, the Department is revising for clarity the following provisions: § 16.1 (General provisions), § 16.3 (Requirements for making requests), § 16.4 (Responsibility for responding to requests), § 16.6 (Responses to requests), § 16.8 (Administrative appeals), and § 16.10 (Fees). The new wording more precisely states the Department's obligations with respect to consultations and referrals of documents, classified information, acknowledging receipt of requests, marking documents before release, and determining fee status.
In recognition of the greater efficiency of electronic communication, the final rule makes clear that requesters may submit requests and appeals electronically, and instructs components to communicate electronically with requesters to the extent practicable. This language is being added in § 16.3(a) (Requirements for making requests) (General information), § 16.6(a) (Responses to requests) (In general), and § 16.8(a) (Administrative appeals) (Requirements for making an appeal).
The Department does not have statistics as to how many requests fall within the $15 to $25 range. Based on our experience, the Department does not Start Printed Page 18106expect that raising the fee threshold to $25 will have a significant effect on the number of FOIA submissions. Further, for the subset of requests where the fees are more than $14, but less than $25, the public benefits by receiving the additional value of $11 of services without charge. While the Department will incur the cost for those additional services, the cost is minimal since it is only a difference of $11 per request, and it is counterbalanced by the time savings incurred by having the rule simplified. As a result, the Department believes that the effect of the threshold change will be de minimis. It simplifies matters for Department personnel as now there is a clear line between what requesters get for free—services under $25—and when components start assessing fees—at $25. That simplification for Department personnel is a benefit. The fees that the Department currently collects from requesters represent only 0.17% of the Department's processing costs and so the slight change in the threshold for assessing fees simply does not have a measurable cost impact on the Department.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Justice amends 28 CFR chapter I, part 16, as follows: Start Part
Start Amendment Part1. Revise the authority citation for part 16 to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part2. Revise subpart A of part 16 to read as follows: End Amendment Part
16.2 Proactive disclosure of Department records.
16.3 Requirements for making requests.
16.4 Responsibility for responding to requests.
16.5 Timing of responses to requests.
16.6 Responses to requests.
16.7 Confidential commercial information.
16.8 Administrative appeals.
16.9 Preservation of records.
16.10 Fees.
16.11 Other rights and services.
§ 16.1 General provisions.
(a) This subpart contains the rules that the Department of Justice follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552. The rules in this subpart should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Guidelines”). Additionally, the Department's “FOIA Reference Guide” and its attachments contain information about the specific procedures particular to the Department with respect to making FOIA requests and descriptions of the types of records maintained by different Department components. This resource is available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​04_​3.html. Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, are processed under subpart D of part 16 as well as under this subpart. As a matter of policy, the Department makes discretionary disclosures of records or information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA whenever disclosure would not foreseeably harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption, but this policy does not create any right enforceable in court.
§ 16.2 Proactive disclosure of Department records.
Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection and copying may be accessed through the Department's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​04_​2.html. Each component is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available, as well as identifying additional records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. Each component shall ensure that its Web site of posted records and indices is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. Each component has a FOIA Public Liaison who can assist individuals in locating records particular to a component. A list of the Department's FOIA Public Liaisons is available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​foiacontact/​index-list.html.
§ 16.3 Requirements for making requests.
(a) General information. (1) The Department has a decentralized system for responding to FOIA requests, with each component designating a FOIA office to process records from that component. All components have the capability to receive requests electronically either through email or a web portal. To make a request for Start Printed Page 18107records of the Department, a requester should write directly to the FOIA office of the component that maintains the records being sought. A request will receive the quickest possible response if it is addressed to the FOIA office of the component that maintains the records sought. The Department's FOIA Reference Guide, which may be accessed as described in § 16.1(a), contains descriptions of the functions of each component and provides other information that is helpful in determining where to make a request. Each component's FOIA office and any additional requirements for submitting a request to a given component are listed in Appendix I to this part. Part 0 of this chapter also summarizes the functions of each component. These references can all be used by requesters to determine where to send their requests within the Department.
§ 16.4 Responsibility for responding to requests.
(3) Coordination. The standard referral procedure is not appropriate where disclosure of the identity of the component or agency to which the referral would be made could harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption, such as the exemptions that protect personal privacy or national security interests. For example, if a non-law enforcement component responding to a request for records on a living third party locates within its files records originating with a law enforcement agency, and if the existence of that law enforcement interest in the third party was not publicly known, then to disclose that law enforcement interest could cause an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the third party. Similarly, if a component locates within its files material originating with an Start Printed Page 18108Intelligence Community agency, and the involvement of that agency in the matter is classified and not publicly acknowledged, then to disclose or give attribution to the involvement of that Intelligence Community agency could cause national security harms. In such instances, in order to avoid harm to an interest protected by an applicable exemption, the component that received the request should coordinate with the originating component or agency to seek its views on the disclosability of the record. The release determination for the record that is the subject of the coordination should then be conveyed to the requester by the component that originally received the request.
§ 16.5 Timing of responses to requests.
(a) In general. Components ordinarily will respond to requests according to their order of receipt. Appendix I to this part contains the list of the Department components that are designated to accept requests. In instances involving misdirected requests that are re-routed pursuant to § 16.4(c), the response time will commence on the date that the request is received by the proper component's office that is designated to receive requests, but in any event not later than 10 working days after the request is first received by any component's office that is designated by these regulations to receive requests.
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. For example, under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that the requester is a person whose primary professional activity or occupation is information dissemination, though it need not be the requester's sole occupation. Such a requester also must establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request—one that extends beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. The existence of numerous articles published on a given subject can be helpful in establishing the requirement that there be an “urgency to inform” the public on the topic. As a matter of administrative discretion, a component Start Printed Page 18109may waive the formal certification requirement.
§ 16.6 Responses to requests.
(c) Grants of requests. Once a component makes a determination to grant a request in full or in part, it shall notify the requester in writing. The component also shall inform the requester of any fees charged under § 16.10 and shall disclose the requested records to the requester promptly upon payment of any applicable fees.
(4) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 16.8(a), and a description of the requirements set forth therein.
§ 16.7 Confidential commercial information.
(e) Opportunity to object to disclosure. (1) A component shall specify a reasonable time period within which the submitter must respond to the notice referenced above. If a submitter has any objections to disclosure, it should provide the component a detailed written statement that specifies all grounds for withholding the particular Start Printed Page 18110information under any exemption of the FOIA. In order to rely on Exemption 4 as basis for nondisclosure, the submitter must explain why the information constitutes a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential.
§ 16.8 Administrative appeals.
(a) Requirements for making an appeal. A requester may appeal any adverse determinations to OIP. The contact information for OIP is contained in the FOIA Reference Guide, which is available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​04_​3.html. Appeals can be submitted through the web portal accessible on OIP's Web site. Examples of adverse determinations are provided in § 16.6(d). The requester must make the appeal in writing and to be considered timely it must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, within 60 calendar days after the date of the response. The appeal should clearly identify the component's determination that is being appealed and the assigned request number. To facilitate handling, the requester should mark both the appeal letter and envelope, or subject line of the electronic transmission, “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
§ 16.9 Preservation of records.
§ 16.10 Fees.
Example 2. A request from the same professor of geology seeking drug information from the Food and Drug Administration in furtherance of a Start Printed Page 18111murder mystery he is writing would not be presumed to be an institutional request, regardless of whether it was written on institutional stationery.
(7) Review is the examination of a record located in response to a request in order to determine whether any portion of it is exempt from disclosure. Review time includes processing any record for disclosure, such as doing all that is necessary to prepare the record for disclosure, including the process of redacting the record and marking the appropriate exemptions. Review costs are properly charged even if a record ultimately is not disclosed. Review time also includes time spent both obtaining and considering any formal objection to disclosure made by a confidential commercial information submitter under § 16.7, but it does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.
(4) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, components shall provide without charge:Start Printed Page 18112
(i) Advance payments. (1) For requests other than those described in paragraphs (i)(2) or (i)(3) of this section, a component shall not require the requester to make an advance payment before work is commenced or continued on a request. Payment owed for work already completed (i.e., payment before copies are sent to a requester) is not an advance payment.
(2) In deciding whether disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities Start Printed Page 18113of the government, components shall consider all four of the following factors:
§ 16.11 Other rights and services.
Start Amendment Part3. Revise Appendix I to part 16 to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Please consult Attachment B of the Department of Justice FOIA Reference Guide for the contact information and a detailed description of the types of records maintained by each Department component. The FOIA Reference Guide is available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​04_​3.html or upon request to the Office of Information Policy.
The FOIA offices of Department components and any component-specific requirements for making a FOIA request are listed below. The Certification of Identity form, available at http://www.justice.gov/​oip/​forms/​cert_​ind.pdf, may be used by individuals who are making requests for records pertaining to themselves. For each of the six components marked with an asterisk, FOIA and Privacy Act (PA) access requests must be sent to OIP, which handles initial requests for those six components.