Freedom of Information Act: Department of Labor Can Improve Management of Its Program
Published: 2016-06-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: FOIA requires federal agencies to provide the public with access to government information in accordance with principles of openness and accountability and generally requires agencies to respond to requests for information within 20 working days. When an agency does not respond or a requester disagrees with the outcomes of his or her request, the requester can appeal a decision or file a lawsuit against the agency. Like other agencies, DOL responds to thousands of FOIA requests each year. In fiscal year 2015, the department received approximately 16,800 requests.
GAO was asked to review DOL's FOIA processing. GAO's objectives were to determine (1) how the department and its components manage and process FOIA requests, including how they prioritize requests, and the extent that responses to requests have been timely; and (2) how many lawsuits DOL has been subjected to arising from FOIA requests, and the results of those lawsuits. To do so, GAO reviewed DOL reports, policies, guidance, and other documentation; analyzed a random sample of FOIA requests processed by the department in fiscal year 2014; reviewed FOIA-related legal records; and interviewed officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Responsibilities for managing and processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are handled by the Department of Labor's (DOL) 23 component offices. Within one of these components, the Office of Information Services (OIS) functions as the department's central FOIA office and has agency-wide responsibility for managing the program; however, the department has not updated its FOIA regulation to reflect changes in its process made in response to more recent amendments to the law and new implementing guidance. DOL uses an information technology (IT) system to manage and track requests, but it has not implemented key required and recommended capabilities for enhancing FOIA processing, such as capabilities to accommodate individuals with disabilities or electronic redaction. Implementing the required and recommended capabilities could improve the efficiency of the department's FOIA processing. DOL and its components have implemented a process for prioritizing FOIA requests, allowing for expedited processing in certain cases, and in fiscal year 2014 the department processed an estimated 76 percent of requests that GAO reviewed within 20 working days. For the estimated 24 percent of cases that were not timely, officials attributed these delays, in part, to the involvement of multiple components in a single request or the time required to process large volumes of requested records. However, the department did not document the rationales for delays in its FOIA tracking system or notify requesters of them. Further, the department had not responded to administrative appeals within the statutory time frame of 20 working days, but is taking steps to reduce the backlog of appeals.
From January 2005 through December 2014, 68 FOIA-related lawsuits were brought against DOL. Of these lawsuits, the court ruled in favor of the department in 18 cases, jointly in favor of both the department and the requester in 1 case, and in favor of the requesters in 3 cases. In 44 of the remaining lawsuits, the department and the requesters established settlement agreements that awarded attorney's fees and other costs to the requesters or resulted in the department potentially releasing additional information. A decision on 2 lawsuits was undecided as of April 2016 (see figure).
Although recommended by Department of Justice guidance, the department did not notify requesters of mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services as an alternative to litigation. By doing so, DOL may be able to avoid future lawsuits, thus saving resources and ensuring that requesters are kept informed about the department's FOIA process.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is recommending, among other things, that DOL establish a time frame to finalize and issue its updated FOIA regulation and take actions to implement required and recommended system capabilities. In written comments on a draft of the report, the department agreed with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to  provide the public with access to government information on the basis of  the principles of openness and accountability in government. Each year,  federal agencies release information to FOIA requesters that contributes  to the understanding of government actions, including the disclosure of  waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is one of the many agencies that  respond to thousands of FOIA requests each year. The department has  23 component offices that receive and process requests for information  related to various labor issues, such as workers’ compensation, mine  safety and health, and employee wages. Among these components, the  department’s Office of the Solicitor also addresses administrative appeals  when requesters disagree with the outcomes of their requests. Further,  the department is subject to FOIA litigation for various reasons, such as  when a request is denied or not responded to within the statutory time  frame.
For fiscal year 2015, DOL reported that it received approximately 16,800  FOIA requests and processed approximately 17,100 requests. The  department also reported that it had a backlog of about 590 unprocessed  requests and about 400 appeals, and that it spent approximately  $429,000 on litigating FOIA lawsuits.
You asked us to review DOL’s processing of FOIA requests. Our  objectives were to determine (1) how DOL and its components manage  and process FOIA requests, including how they prioritize requests, and  the extent that responses to requests have been timely; and (2) how  many lawsuits DOL has been subject to arising from FOIA requests, and  the results of those lawsuits.
To determine how the department manages and processes FOIA  requests, we evaluated activities conducted by the department’s central  FOIA office (the Office of Information Services) and component offices,  and reviewed directives, procedures, annual FOIA reports, and other  documentation describing their activities. We reviewed criteria used by  the central office and components to prioritize requests, assessed current  procedures and practices against the criteria, and reviewed available  statistics on FOIA processing timeliness.
We also developed and administered a questionnaire to the 23  components in June 2015 to facilitate our understanding of how the  central FOIA office and the components manage, prioritize, and process  FOIA requests. To ensure that our questions were clear and logical and  that respondents could answer the questions without undue burden, we  provided the draft questionnaire to the department’s Office of Information  Services and obtained and incorporated the office’s comments on the  questionnaire in advance of sending it to the 23 components. We  received responses from all of the components.
Further, DOL provided a list of 14,745 FOIA requests that the department  had received as of October 1, 2013, and had fully processed (closed) by  September 30, 2014. Of this total, we randomly selected a representative  sample of 258 FOIA requests. For each request, we determined whether  the department responded to the request within the 20-day statutory time  frame. We also reviewed data from the department’s automated FOIA  tracking system to identify any documentation of delays in processing the  requests, reasons for the delays, and any actions taken by the  department to notify requesters of delays. We supplemented our work  with interviews of relevant FOIA officials in the central and component  FOIA offices. The results of our sample are generalizable to the  population of FOIA requests processed by the department as of  September 30, 2014.
To identify the nature and outcome of lawsuits arising from FOIA requests  made to DOL, we reviewed documentation that discussed the  department’s FOIA litigation and related settlements, and legal decisions  that occurred from January 2005 through December 2014. Further, we  reviewed Department of Justice documentation that included a listing of  DOL’s FOIA litigation cases, attorney costs and fees assessed by the  courts, and court decisions made from January 2005 through December  2014. We also interviewed relevant legal counsel and agency officials in  DOL and the Department of Justice. Additional details on our objectives,  scope, and methodology are included in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2015 to June 2016  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FOIA establishes a legal right of access to government information on the  basis of the principles of openness and accountability in government.  Before FOIA’s enactment in 1966, an individual seeking access to federal  records faced the burden of establishing a “need to know” before being  granted the right to examine a federal record. FOIA established a “right to  know” standard, under which an organization or person could receive  access to information held by a federal agency without demonstrating a  need or reason. The “right to know” standard shifted the burden of proof  from the individual to a government agency and required the agency to  provide proper justification when denying a request for access to a  record.
Any person, defined broadly to include attorneys filing on behalf of an  individual, corporations, and organizations, can file a FOIA request. For  example, an attorney can request labor-related workers’ compensation  files on behalf of his or her client, and a commercial requester, such as a  data broker that files a request on behalf of another person, may request  a copy of a government contract. In response, an agency is required to  provide the relevant record(s) in any readily producible form or format  specified by the requester unless the record falls within a permitted  exemption. (Appendix II describes the nine specific exemptions that can  be applied to withhold, for example, classified, confidential commercial,  privileged, privacy, and several types of law enforcement information.)  The act also requires agencies to publish a regulation that informs the  public about their FOIA process. The regulation is to include, among other  things, provisions for expediting requests under certain circumstances.
subsections: section_title: FOIA Amendments and Guidance Call for Improvements in Agencies’ Processing of Requests
paragraphs: Over the past two decades, various amendments have been enacted and  guidance issued to help improve agencies’ processing of FOIA requests.  The 1996 e-FOIA amendments, among other things, sought to  strengthen the requirement that federal agencies respond to a request in  a timely manner and reduce their backlogged requests. In this regard, the  amendments made a number of procedural changes, including providing  a requester with an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that it  can be processed more quickly and requiring agencies to determine  within 20 working days (an increase from the previously established time  frame of 10 days) whether a request would be fulfilled. The e-FOIA  amendments also authorized agencies to multi-track requests—that is, to  process simple and complex requests concurrently on separate tracks to  facilitate responding to a relatively simple request more quickly. In  addition, the amendments encouraged online, public access to  government information by requiring agencies to make specific types of  records available in electronic form.
In a later effort to reduce agencies’ backlogged FOIA requests, the  President issued Executive Order 13392 in December 2005, which set  forth a directive for citizen-centered and results-oriented FOIA. In  particular, the order directed agencies to provide a requester with  courteous and appropriate service and ways to learn about the FOIA  process, the status of a request, and the public availability of other  agency records. The order also instructed agencies to process requests  efficiently, achieve measurable process improvements (including a  reduction in the backlog of overdue requests), and reform programs that  were not producing the appropriate results.
Further, the order directed each agency to designate a senior official as  the Chief FOIA Officer. This official is responsible for ensuring agency- wide compliance with the act by monitoring implementation throughout  the agency; recommending changes in policies, practices, staffing, and  funding; and reviewing and reporting on the agency’s performance in  implementing FOIA to agency heads and to the Department of Justice.  (These are referred to as Chief FOIA Officer reports.)
The Department of Justice, which has overall responsibility for overseeing  federal FOIA activities, issued guidance in April 2006 to assist federal  agencies in implementing the executive order’s requirements for reviews  and improvement plans. The guidance suggested several potential areas  for agencies to consider when conducting a review, such as automated  tracking of requests, automated processing and receipt of requests,  electronic responses to requests, forms of communication with  requesters, and systems for handling referrals to other agencies.
The OPEN Government Act, which was enacted in 2007, also amended  FOIA in several ways. For example, it placed the 2005 executive order’s  requirement for agencies to have Chief FOIA Officers in law. It also  required agencies to include additional statistics on timeliness in their  annual reports. In addition, the act called for agencies to establish a  system to track the status of a request.
Further, in January 2009, the President issued two memoranda,  Transparency and Open Government and Freedom of Information Act,  both of which focused on increasing the amount of information made  public by the government. In particular, the latter memorandum directed  agencies to (1) adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in all FOIA  decisions, (2) take affirmative steps to make information public, and (3)  use modern technology to do so. This echoed Congress’s finding, in  passing the OPEN Government Act, that FOIA established a “strong  presumption in favor of disclosure.”
In September 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to assist  federal agencies in implementing the memoranda and the OPEN  Government Act that included procedures for agencies to follow when  responding to FOIA requests. Specifically, the guidance discussed how  requests are processed—from the point of determining whether an entity  in receipt of a request is subject to FOIA, to responding to the review of  an agency’s decision regarding a request on an administrative appeal.  The guidance also includes procedures on the expedited processing of  FOIA requests.
Agencies, including DOL, are generally required to respond to a FOIA  request within 20 working days. A request may be received in writing or  by electronic means. Once received, the request is processed through  multiple phases, which include assigning a tracking number, searching for  responsive records, processing records, and releasing records. Also, as  relevant, agencies respond to administrative appeals and lawsuits filed as  a result of their actions and decisions in addressing the FOIA requests.  Figure 1 provides a simplified overview of the FOIA process, from the  receipt of a request through responding to a lawsuit.
As indicated above, during the intake phase of a typical agency FOIA  process, a request is to be logged into the agency’s FOIA system and a  tracking number assigned. The request is then to be reviewed by FOIA  staff to determine its scope and level of complexity. The agency then  typically sends a letter or e-mail to the requester acknowledging receipt of  the request, with a unique tracking number that the requester can use to  check the status of the request, as well as notifying the requester of  estimated fees, if any.
Next, FOIA staff begin the search to retrieve the responsive records by  routing the request to the appropriate program office(s).This step may  include searching and reviewing paper and electronic records from  multiple locations and program offices.
Agency staff then process the responsive records, which includes  determining whether a portion or all of any record should be withheld  based on statutory exemptions. If a portion or all of any record is the  responsibility of another agency, FOIA staff may consult with the other  agency or may send (“refer”) the document(s) to that other agency for  processing. After processing and redaction, a request is reviewed for  errors and to ensure quality. The documents are then released to the  requester, either electronically or by mail.
FOIA also provides requesters with the right to file an administrative  appeal if they disagree with the agency’s decision. After an agency  renders a decision and the requester files an administrative appeal, the  agency has 20 working days to respond to the requester regarding the  appeal.
Further, FOIA allows requesters to challenge an agency’s final decision in  federal court through a lawsuit. Specifically, if any agency fails to comply  with the statutory time limits, including responding to requests within 20  working days, a requester has the right to consider the request denied  and sue the agency to compel disclosure. A requester should generally  exhaust his or her administrative remedies, such as filing an  administrative appeal, before filing a lawsuit.
In 2007, FOIA was amended to allow both requesters and agencies to  contact the Office of Government Information Services, within the  National Archives and Records Administration, to help resolve a dispute  at any point in the FOIA process, including after filing an administrative  appeal. Mediation also can be used as an alternative to litigation.
section_title: DOL and Its Components Collect and Maintain Records That Can Be Subject to FOIA Requests
paragraphs: Established in 1913, DOL has primary responsibility for overseeing the  nation’s job training programs and for enforcing a variety of federal labor  laws. The department’s mission is to foster, promote, and develop the  welfare of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States;  improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable  employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.
The department administers its various mission responsibilities, including  the processing of FOIA requests, through its 23 component offices. These  components vary in mission and the types of records that they maintain.  Table 1 provides details on each component’s mission and types of  records maintained.
DOL experienced an increase in the number of FOIA requests received  every year from fiscal year 2010 through 2013, a decrease in the number  of requests received from fiscal year 2013 through 2014, and an increase  in fiscal year 2015. Specifically, the department reported receiving 17,398  requests in fiscal year 2010, and it reported receiving 18,755 requests in  fiscal year 2013—a 7 percent increase. In fiscal year 2014, the  department reported receiving 16,106 FOIA requests—a 14 percent  decrease from fiscal year 2013. However, in fiscal year 2015, the  reported number of requests received increased again, to 16,792.
Further, the department processed an increased number of requests from  fiscal years 2010 through 2012. It then processed a decreased number of  requests during fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and an increased number of  requests again in fiscal year 2015. Specifically, the department reported  processing 17,625 requests in fiscal year 2010, and it reported  processing 19,224 requests in fiscal year 2012—an 8 percent increase.  While the department processed slightly fewer requests (19,175) in fiscal  year 2013, it reported processing 16,715 FOIA requests in fiscal year  2014—a 13 percent decrease compared with fiscal year 2012. However,  in fiscal year 2015, the reported number of requests processed increased  to 17,104.
These numbers of requests received and processed, by the department  from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015 are summarized in table 2.
section_title: DOL and Its Components Have Implemented a Decentralized Process to Manage and Prioritize FOIA Requests; However, Not All Responses to Requests Have Been Timely
paragraphs: Responsibilities for managing and processing FOIA requests are handled  by DOL’s 23 component offices. Within one of these components (the  Office of the Solicitor), the Office of Information Services (OIS) serves as  the department’s central FOIA office and has agency-wide responsibility  for managing the program, to include developing and issuing guidance to  implement FOIA initiatives, providing training, and preparing required  annual reports. However, DOL has not updated its regulation that is  intended to inform the public of the department’s FOIA operations. The  component offices manage their own processing and tracking of FOIA  requests, relying on an automated system and a process for prioritizing  their responses to requests, while appeals and lawsuits are centrally  handled. However, while the department’s automated FOIA tracking  system meets most statutory requirements, key recommended  capabilities to enhance processing have not been implemented. In  addition, while the components had provided timely responses to many of  the FOIA requests, an estimated 24 percent of the requests were not  responded to within the statutory time frame and most components had  not documented the rationale for these delays in the automated FOIA  tracking system or notified requesters of the delayed responses. Further,  most FOIA appeals had not been responded to within the statutory time  frame of 20 working days.
subsections: section_title: The Office of Information Services Provides Administrative Support and Guidance, but the Department Has Not Updated Its FOIA Regulation
paragraphs: OIS was established within the Office of the Solicitor in fiscal year 2010,  and the Solicitor serves as the Chief FOIA Officer. OIS is responsible for  administering the department’s FOIA program, to include coordinating  and overseeing the components’ operations, providing training, and  preparing the required annual reports on the department’s FOIA  performance. In addition, this office has responsibility for processing  certain types of requests and assisting in the coordination of requests  involving multiple components.
In carrying out its duties, the office develops and disseminates guidance  on processing requests and implementing elements of the act; it also is  responsible for developing the department’s FOIA regulation (discussed  in more detail later in the report). For example, in October 2010, the office  issued guidance to FOIA disclosure officers and coordinators addressing  oversight; roles and responsibilities; and applying exemptions, fees, and  fee waivers. In addition, in June 2013, it issued a bulletin to FOIA  coordinators regarding steps for addressing requesters’ inquiries about  requests and discussing the status of requests. A month later, in July  2013, the office issued a bulletin discussing time limits associated with  processing requests, including guidance for time limit extensions during  unusual circumstances. Further, in August 2013, OIS issued best  practices guidance that provides direction to the department’s staff in  responding to requests. The guidance outlines the nine stages of  processing a request, as defined by the department, including processing  administrative appeals and judicial reviews of litigation filed by requesters.  (Appendix III provides additional details on the stages of the department’s  process for handling FOIA requests.)
Beyond developing and issuing guidance, OIS performs a number of  oversight and coordination functions:
Holds regular meetings with components. The office holds  quarterly meetings with components to discuss their processing of  FOIA requests, including plans to reduce backlogs, upcoming training,  and best practices. For example, in a January 2015, quarterly meeting  with all components’ FOIA coordinators, OIS discussed its plans to  conduct administrative reviews covering various areas, such as  timeliness and backlog reduction, rules associated with granting and  denying requests, and multi-tracking requests; it also discussed the  components’ FOIA staffing needs.
Prepares and Tracks Processing Metrics. The office also uses data  within the department’s FOIA tracking system—the Secretary’s  Information Management System for FOIA (SIMS-FOIA)—to provide a  quarterly report to departmental leadership and the Department of  Justice on the number of requests received, processed, and  backlogged, among other reporting requirements. (SIMS-FOIA is  discussed in greater detail later in this report.)
Conducts reviews to assess components’ actions. OIS reviews  components’ FOIA programs to assess their policies, procedures, and  compliance with the act. For example, in fiscal year 2015, the office  reviewed 14 of 22 components in areas such as FOIA exemptions,  timeliness and backlog reduction, agency website and electronic  reading rooms, and staffing resources for processing requests. OIS  officials stated that they plan to complete reviews of the remaining 8  components by September 2016. The officials added that they assess  the information gathered during these reviews to identify areas where  the components could benefit from additional training and guidance.
Provides training to employees. The department, through OIS,  hosts a yearly training conference for employees with FOIA  responsibilities. This conference addresses topics such as processing  requests, responsibilities for searching for requests, applying  exemptions, and assessing search fees. In addition, in February 2012,  February and April 2013, and April 2014, the office held a series of  targeted training sessions that addressed topics such as FOIA best  practices in customer service, and applying specific exemptions.
Routes requests to components. OIS routes to the appropriate  component(s) those requests sent to DOL via its department-wide e- mail address or that it receives when a requester is unsure which DOL  component maintains records that are responsive to a request. The  office also addresses those requests sent to the attention of the  Solicitor/Chief FOIA Officer. In addition, it coordinates responses to  requests that involve multiple components.
section_title: DOL Has Not Updated Its Regulation Informing the Public of FOIA Operations
paragraphs: FOIA requires federal agencies to publish regulations that govern and  help inform the public of their FOIA operations. These regulations are to  provide guidance on the procedures to be followed in making a request  and on specific matters such as fees and expedited processing of  requests.
Toward this end, in May 2006, DOL, through the Office of the Solicitor,  issued a regulation describing steps that individuals are required to follow  in making requests, such as submitting a written request directly to the  component that maintains the record. The regulations also explained the  department’s processing of such requests, including charging fees for the  requested records.
However, since the issuance of this regulation in 2006, amendments to  FOIA and related guidance have led to changes in the department’s  processes that are not reflected in the regulation. These changes pertain  to the OPEN Government Act of 2007 requirements that federal agencies  have a FOIA Public Liaison, who is responsible for assisting in resolving  disputes between the requester and the agency. Further, this act required  federal agencies to establish a system to provide individualized tracking  numbers for requests that will take longer than 10 days to process and  establish telephone or Internet service to allow requesters to track the  status of their requests. In addition, the President’s FOIA memorandum  on transparency and open government and the Attorney General’s FOIA  guidelines of 2009 required that agencies take specific actions to ensure  that the government is more transparent, participatory, and collaborative.  Specifically, agencies are required to rapidly disclose information;  increase opportunities for the public to participate in policymaking; and  use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among  themselves and across all levels of government.
The department has taken actions consistent with these requirements.  Specifically, in 2006, DOL implemented its SIMS-FOIA system to track  and process requests. Further, the department implemented its FOIA  public portal, which links to SIMS-FOIA and allows requesters to track the  status of their requests through an Internet service using assigned  request tracking numbers. The department also designated a FOIA Public  Liaison in December 2007. Additionally, in response to the President’s  FOIA memorandum and the Attorney General’s FOIA guidelines of 2009,  the department in December 2011 directed all components to ensure  transparency when responding to requests by not only disclosing  information that the act requires to be disclosed, but also by making  discretionary disclosures of information that will not result in foreseeable  harm to an interest protected under FOIA.
Nevertheless, while it has taken these actions, DOL has not revised its  FOIA regulation to inform the public of the role of its public liaison, the  department FOIA tracking system, and the availability of the FOIA public  portal for tracking the status of requests. In discussing this matter,  officials in the Office of the Solicitor stated that updating the regulation is  on the department’s regulatory agenda and that, as of March 2016, a  draft of the regulation was being circulated for internal review. However,  these officials said they had not established a time frame for when the  regulation would be finalized. Until the department finalizes an updated  regulation reflecting changes in how it processes requests, it will lack an  important mechanism for facilitating effective interaction with the public on  the handling of FOIA requests.
section_title: DOL Components Are Separately Responsible for Processing and Tracking FOIA Requests
paragraphs: The processing of requests is decentralized among the department’s 23  components, with each component separately administering its own  program. In this regard, each component has its own FOIA coordinator  and full- and/or part-time staff assigned to process requests; is  responsible for its FOIA library; and directly enters information in the  department’s FOIA tracking system regarding the processing of its own  requests. Similar to the process used across federal government, once a  request has been received and assigned to the appropriate component,  the component carries out the processing, tracking, and reporting on the  request. Most components do so using the department’s central FOIA  tracking system.
However, the components vary in aspects of their operations. For  example, a number of the components are further decentralized, in which  requests are assigned to and processed within multiple national, regional,  and/or directorate offices (subcomponents) that make up the component.  Specifically, once a request is received in a decentralized office, the FOIA  processor located in the appropriate subcomponent office is responsible  for responding to the request and populating the required information in  the department’s central tracking system. Other components are  centralized, in which the processing of requests occurs within that one  office and does not have to be assigned to a subcomponent office.
Components also vary significantly in the number of requests received.  For example, in fiscal year 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health  Administration received 9,123 requests, while the Office of the Chief  Financial Officer received 3 requests. Further, the components rely on  varying numbers of full-time employees, as well as part-time and  contractor employees, to manage and process the requests. For  example, the Employment and Training Administration reported that it had  8 full-time employees and 9 part-time employees in fiscal year 2015. On  the other hand, the Employee Benefits Security Administration reported it  had no full-time employees and 3 part-time employees in the same year.  Collectively, for fiscal year 2015, the 23 components reported having 40  full-time and about 154 full-time or part-time employees assigned to  process FOIA requests.
Table 3 summarizes the components processing structure, requests  received in fiscal year 2015, and the number of employees that manage  and process the requests.
While requests are separately handled by the components, within the  Office of the Solicitor two offices—the Counsel for FOIA Appeals, Federal  Records Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act and the Counsel for FOIA  and Information Law —individually handle FOIA appeals and FOIA  lawsuits. The Counsel for FOIA Appeals, Federal Records Act, and  Paperwork Reduction Act is responsible for addressing administrative  appeals when requesters disagree with the outcomes of their requests.  To assist with tracking the appeals it receives, the office uses an  automated system called the Matter Management System. Further, the  Counsel for FOIA and Information Law is responsible for providing legal  advice on processing requests and defending FOIA litigation.
section_title: DOL’s FOIA Tracking System Meets Most Statutory Requirements, but Not All Key Recommended Capabilities to Enhance Processing Have Been Implemented
paragraphs: Various FOIA amendments and guidance call for agencies, such as DOL,  to use automated systems to improve the processing and management of  requests. In particular, the OPEN Government Act of 2007 amended  FOIA to require that federal agencies establish a system to provide  individualized tracking numbers for requests that will take longer than 10  days to process and establish telephone or Internet service to allow  requesters to track the status of their requests. Further, the President’s  January 2009 Freedom of Information Act memo instructed agencies to  use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done  by their government. In addition, FOIA processing systems, like all  automated information technology systems, are to comply with the  requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (as amended). This  act requires federal agencies to make their electronic information  accessible to people with disabilities.
In accordance with the OPEN Government Act, DOL has implemented  SIMS-FOIA to assist the department in tracking the requests received and  processed. The system assigns unique tracking numbers for each  request received, and tracks and measures the timeliness of the  requests. Further, staff who process requests are able to include in the  system the date the request was received by the first component that may  be responsible for processing the request and the date the request was  routed to and received by the appropriate component responsible for  processing the request. Based on this information, the system then  calculates the date by which the response is due to the requester, which  is 20 working days from the date the request was received by the office  responsible for its processing.
In responding to our questionnaire, 22 of 23 components reported using  SIMS-FOIA and provided documentation to demonstrate their use of the  system to track requests. Due to its independent oversight role within the  department, DOL’s Office of Inspector General stated that it does not use  this system to track its requests. According to its FOIA Officer, the office  has instead created a separate system that is similar to SIMS-FOIA—the  Office of Inspector General FOIA Tracking System—to track its requests.
Further, in accordance with the act, DOL implemented its FOIA public  portal that links to SIMS-FOIA and allows requesters to track the status of  their requests through an Internet service using assigned request tracking  numbers. Specifically, requesters can access the public portal via the  DOL website (http://www.dol.gov/foia) to obtain the status of their  requests. The information provided by the portal includes dates on which  the agency received the requests and estimated dates on which the  agency expects to complete action on the requests.
Nevertheless, while the department has taken these actions, it has not  ensured that SIMS-FOIA and the online portal are compliant with  requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. According to DOL  officials in OIS, during a test performed by the department’s Office of  Public Affairs, the online portal was determined to have accessibility  issues. Specifically, the portal could not be easily accessed by those who  were blind or had impaired vision. In addition, the 508 compliance tester  in the department’s Office of the Chief Information Officer found that  SIMS-FOIA was not accessible to vision impaired employees who need to  use the system.
With regard to this finding, the Office of the Chief Information Officer  determined that, because the system is only used internally by DOL  employees, it would fulfill the requirements of Section 508 by providing  reasonable accommodations, such as large screen magnifiers and verbal  description tools, to those affected employees needing access to the  information contained in SIMS-FOIA. According to the Office of the Chief  Information Officer, accommodations would be made on a case-by-case  basis to address the employee’s specific needs.
Further, OIS officials told us that the department is working to make the  online portal and SIMS-FOIA compliant with the requirements of Section  508. However, OIS officials could not say by what date compliance with  the requirements is expected to be achieved. Having systems that are  compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (as amended) is  essential to ensure that the department’s electronic information is  accessible to all individuals, including those with disabilities.
Beyond the requirements provided in law and guidance to develop  automated  systems to track FOIA requests, three federal agencies have  collectively identified capabilities for systems that they consider to be best  practices for FOIA processing. Specifically, in conjunction with the  Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency, the  National Archives and Records Administration’s Office of Government  Information Services identified the following 12 capabilities of an  automated system that it considers recommended best practices for FOIA  processing: using a single, component-wide system for tracking requests; accepting the request online, either through e-mail or online request multi-tracking requests electronically;  routing requests to the responsible office electronically;  storing and routing responsive records to the appropriate office  electronically;  redacting responsive records with appropriate exemptions applied  electronically;  calculating and recording processing fees electronically; allowing supervisors to review the case file to approve redactions and  fee calculations for processing electronically; generating system correspondence, such as an e-mail or letter, with a generating periodic reporting statistics, such as annual report and  quarterly backlog data, used to develop reports; and  storing and routing correspondence, such as letters or e-mails  between agencies and requesters.
As of March 2016, DOL had implemented 7 of the 12 recommended best  practices for SIMS-FOIA and the FOIA public portal. Specifically, the  department had implemented the capabilities of a single tracking system,  as well as capabilities for accepting requests through e-mail; multi- tracking requests; routing the request to the office responsible for  processing the request; storing and routing correspondence with a  requester; and generating periodic report statistics, such as the fiscal year  FOIA annual report and quarterly report, that identify requests received,  processed, and backlogged. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the  department uses a separate FOIA appeals tracking system—the Matter  Management System—to track appeals electronically.
However, the department had not implemented 4 other recommended  capabilities, and had partially implemented 1 capability. Specifically, the  department’s automated FOIA tracking system lacked capabilities to store  and route responsive records electronically, redact responsive records  electronically, and review the case file to approve redactions and fee  calculations electronically. Further, the department had not implemented  the capability to generate correspondence to a requester. In addition,  SIMS-FOIA partially included the recommended capability to calculate  and record processing fees electronically. Specifically, the system could  record fees electronically, but it could not calculate fees electronically.
Figure 2 illustrates the extent to which DOL had implemented  recommended capabilities to enhance FOIA processing.
In discussing this matter, the OIS director and FOIA officials in the  component offices stated that, since the current system generally meets  statutory requirements, the department has not yet made improvements  to the system to reflect the recommended capabilities. The officials said  that they are aware of current system limitations and have begun  researching various technologies to incorporate the remaining  capabilities. Nevertheless, the officials said that, due to competing  interests and resource needs, the department has made a decision to  continue using SIMS-FOIA without these capabilities in the meantime.  The officials did not provide a time frame for when the capabilities would  be implemented. By implementing the additional recommended  capabilities, the department has the opportunity to enhance its FOIA  processing and, thus, improve the efficiency with which it can respond to  information requests.
section_title: DOL and Its Components Prioritize FOIA Requests by Assigning Them to One of Three Processing Tracks
paragraphs: The FOIA statute allows agencies to establish multi-track processing of  requests for records based on the amount of work or time (or both)  involved in processing requests. Toward this end, DOL’s FOIA regulation,  supported by the department’s Best Practices Processing Guide, provides  for prioritizing FOIA requests into three processing tracks: simple,  complex, and expedited.
According to the regulation and guide, although requests are generally  required to be handled on a first-in, first-out basis, a component may use  two or more processing tracks by distinguishing between simple and  more complex requests, based on the amount of work and/or time  needed to process the requests. This is intended to allow the component  to use its discretion to process simple, more manageable requests  quickly, while taking more time to process larger, more complex requests  that involve a voluminous amount of records and/or multiple components.
Also, according to the regulation and the guide, the component is to  determine whether a request should be given expedited treatment and  placed in an expedited track ahead of others already pending in the  processing queue, whenever it determines that one of the following  conditions is met:
There is an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an  individual.
There is an urgent need to inform the public about an actual or  alleged government activity and the requester is someone primarily  engaged in the dissemination of information.
Failure to disclose the requested records expeditiously will result in  substantial loss of due process rights.
The records sought relate to matters of widespread news interest that  involve possible questions about the government’s integrity.
Further, the regulation and guide state that the requester can submit a  request for expedited processing at the time of the initial request or at any  later time during the processing of the request. The component is to grant  the request for expedited processing when the requester explains in detail  the basis for the need to expedite the request and demonstrates a  compelling need based on the criteria described above. Upon receiving a  request for expedited processing, the component is responsible for  deciding whether the request is to be expedited and for notifying the  requester of the final decision within 10 calendar days.
The guide states that, when a request is submitted, the component’s  FOIA staff must identify the processing track to which it will be assigned  (i.e., simple, complex, or expedited). According to OIS officials, the  component FOIA processors assess whether requests are simple or  complex based on their experience in handling requests and familiarity  with requests that are submitted routinely. Further, according to the guide,  FOIA processors assess whether requests are to be given expedited  treatment whenever they determine that requests demonstrate a  compelling need, such as when they pertain to an imminent threat to the  life or physical safety of an individual.
All of the components had taken steps that followed the regulation and  best practices guidance to prioritize the selected fiscal year 2014 FOIA  requests. That is, as the components’ FOIA processors logged in the  requests, they assigned them to one of the three processing tracks. With  the exception of the Office of the Inspector General, the components  used SIMS-FOIA to designate the processing track for the requests. The  OIG used its Office of Inspector General FOIA Tracking System to  designate the processing track for requests.
In addition, 7 of the 23 components provided documentation describing  additional component-specific actions that they had taken to help with  prioritizing the requests. For example:
The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service developed a  standard operating procedure that includes steps for multi-track  processing. Specifically, this component places its simple requests in  its fastest (non-expedited) track, and places its complex requests in its  slowest track.
The Wage and Hour Division provided its subcomponents with  guidance issued in September 2015 that includes criteria for selecting  a processing track in SIMS-FOIA. Specifically, according to this  guidance, a request will be designated as complex when it requires  redactions, involves two or more offices or programs to provide  records, includes the review of 100 or more pages, or requires a  search and review of over 10 hours, among other things. A request is  designated as simple when it requires no redactions; involves 1 office  or program; requires a review of 99 pages or less and fewer than 9.5  hours of searching; and when responsive records can be easily  located on DOL’s FOIA website. Further, the guidance states that all  expedited requests must be approved by the component.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration developed standard  operating procedures in March 2012 that include instructions for its  subcomponents to follow when tracking requests in SIMS-FOIA and  requiring its field offices to notify its headquarters office prior to  denying an expedited FOIA request.
Of the 16,792 requests that the department reported receiving in fiscal  year 2015, the components prioritized and processed 7,203 simple  requests (about 42 percent of the total requests processed), 9,785  complex requests (about 57 percent), and 108 expedited requests (less  than 1 percent).
section_title: DOL Components Are Responding to Most FOIA Requests within the Statutory Time Frame, but Are Not Consistently Documenting the Rationale for and Notifying Requesters of Delays
paragraphs: As previously discussed, FOIA requires agencies to make a  determination on whether to comply with a request generally within 20  working days of receiving the request and to immediately notify the  requester of their determination. Toward this end, agencies are required  to route misdirected requests to the internal component or office  responsible for processing them within 10 working days of receipt. DOL’s  Best Practices guide also recommends that components notify the  requester when the need to consult with another component will delay a  timely response to the initial FOIA request. SIMS-FOIA provides optional  fields allowing components to record the fact that they sent the requester  an acknowledgment or other interim response, or add other comments or  explanations that caused a delay.
Of the 14,745 requests processed by the department between October 1,  2013, and September 30, 2014, components successfully routed an  estimated 92 percent of requests to the appropriate component offices  within the 10-day time frame, as required by FOIA. However, an  estimated 8 percent of requests were not routed to the appropriate offices  within 10 days. Further, the components processed an estimated 76  percent of the requests within the statutory time frame of 20 working  days. Table 4 shows the overall estimate of timeliness in responding to  the population of 14,745 FOIA requests for the department in fiscal year  2014, and appendix IV provides further details on the department’s  timeliness in processing FOIA requests from our sample of 258 requests.
The department did not respond to the requester within the 20-day time  frame for the remaining estimated 24 percent of requests processed, as  reflected in the following examples:
Although the Office of Information Services routed 2 out of 3 selected  requests to the appropriate component (the Office of Assistant  Secretary for Policy) within 10 days, one request was initially assigned  to the wrong component (the Employment and Training  Administration). Once the Office of Assistant Secretary for Policy  received the request, it took 315 days to process the request and  provide the records to the requester.
The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs responded  to FOIA requesters within the required 20 days for 3 of 10 selected  requests. For one request, the component took 154 days (about 5  months) to provide the requester with a response. Specifically, the  request was received by the original office and was routed within 10  days, as required by law, to the office responsible for processing the  request. However, it took the office that was responsible for  processing the request 154 days to provide the response to the  requester.
The Office of the Secretary responded to FOIA requesters within the  required 20 days for 3 out of 10 selected requests. In one instance,  the component that was responsible for processing the request took  67 days, or over 2 months, to respond to the requester. Specifically,  the department received the request in May 2014 and it was  forwarded to the Office of the Secretary on the same day. However,  because of the complex nature of the request, the Office of the   Secretary had to coordinate with 6 other components, resulting in a  delayed response to the requester.
For the estimated 8 percent of requests that were not sent to the  appropriate office within 10 days and the estimated 24 percent for which  there were not timely responses to the requesters, the components did  not document the rationales for the delays in SIMS-FOIA or notify the  requesters of the delays. Agency officials attributed the delays to multiple  components and subcomponents processing various parts of a request,  as well as the time required to search for, review, and redact the  exempted information from large volumes of records. In addition, DOL’s  FOIA Public Liaison explained that SIMS-FOIA only identifies the tracking  numbers for the 10 oldest requests, and if the case does not fall within the  10 oldest requests, then the FOIA staff may not be able to find and  provide a rationale for the delay. In addition, the liaison noted that there is  no DOL requirement for staff to document the rationale for the delays in  SIMS-FOIA and to notify requesters regarding delayed responses.  However, the system allows the user the option to record the rationale.  Without documenting the rationale for the delays and notifying FOIA  requesters regarding delayed responses, however, the department lacks  the means to ensure that requesters are kept abreast of the status of their  FOIA requests.
section_title: Most FOIA Appeals Are Not Processed Within the Statutory 20-Day Time Frame
paragraphs: According to DOL’s FOIA regulation, after an agency responds to a  request, the requester has the right to file an administrative appeal within  90 days if she or he disagrees with the agency’s decision. Agencies are  then required to respond to the requester with a decision regarding the  administrative appeal within 20 working days.
According to DOL’s 2015 FOIA Annual Report, in fiscal year 2015, the  department received 404 appeals and processed 297. In addition, the  department reported that it had not responded to appeals within the  statutory time frame of 20 working days, thus contributing to 405  backlogged appeals at the department. DOL officials in the office of the  Counsel for FOIA Appeals, Federal Records Act, and Paperwork  Reduction Act—the office responsible for processing administrative  appeals—noted that the high number of unprocessed appeals was due to  a substantial increase in the number of incoming FOIA appeals received  and a decrease in the number of staff available to process the appeals.  Specifically, the number of attorneys available to process FOIA appeals  decreased from 3 attorneys to 1 from 2012 through June 2015, while the  number of backlogged appeals increased from 139 to 405 within the  same period of time.
In its technical comments on a draft of this report, DOL stated that it had  taken various actions to reduce backlogged appeals. Specifically, it stated  that DOL staff from other agency components had been detailed to assist  with processing appeals. Further, similar appeals were grouped together  to provide a response and staff communicated with requesters about the  scope of their appeals or their continued interest in records. In addition,  FOIA appeals were assigned to new attorneys in a specialized honors  program, and the department hired an additional attorney to address the  appeals.
Continuing to take such steps to reduce the number of backlogged  appeals will be important to help ensure that the department is able to  meet its statutory obligation to respond to appeals within 20 working days.  Furthermore, by continuing to address its appeals backlog, the  department may reduce the likelihood that lawsuits will be filed due to  requesters not receiving responses to their administrative appeals (such  as discussed later in this report).
section_title: DOL Received Sixty- Eight FOIA-Related Lawsuits; Results of Lawsuits Varied, and Requesters Were Not Notified of Mediation Services as an Alternative to Litigation
paragraphs: From January 2005 through December 2014, 68 FOIA-related lawsuits  were filed against DOL, primarily as a result of the department either  failing to respond to requests or because it withheld certain requested  information based on exemptions. Court decisions on these lawsuits were  mixed—with rulings being made in favor of the department, both for the  department and the requester, and in favor of the requester. In addition,  some lawsuits were settled with agreement to release information and/or  to award attorney’s fees and court costs to the requester. Among these  settlements, courts dismissed the majority of the lawsuits based on terms  agreed to by the department and the requester. While Department of  Justice guidance issued in July 2010 encourages agencies to notify  requesters of available mediation services as an alternative to pursuing  litigation, DOL had not taken steps to inform requesters of such services.  Doing so could help prevent requesters and the department from being  involved in costly litigation and improve the efficiency of FOIA-processing  activities.
subsections: section_title: Results of Lawsuits Varied among Cases Litigated
paragraphs: As previously mentioned, FOIA allows a requester to challenge an  agency’s final decision in federal court through a lawsuit or to treat an  agency’s failure to respond within the statutory time frames as a denial of  the request, in order to file a lawsuit. In addition, the act states that the  court may assess against the government reasonable attorney’s fees and  other litigation costs incurred in a FOIA lawsuit if the requester has  obtained relief through either (1) a judicial order, or an enforceable written  agreement or consent decree; or (2) a voluntary or unilateral change in  position by the agency, if the complainant’s claim is not insubstantial.
The 68 lawsuits were brought against DOL because it either did not  provide a timely response to a FOIA request, or because the requester  disagreed with DOL’s response, usually as a result of the department  having withheld records. Of these lawsuits, the court ruled in favor of the  department in 18 cases, and jointly in favor of both the department and  the requester in 1 case. In addition, among 47 lawsuits, the requesters  received relief either as a result of (1) the courts rendering decisions in  favor of the requesters (3 lawsuits) or (2) the department and the  requesters establishing settlement agreements that awarded attorney’s  fees and other costs to the requesters or resulted in the department  potentially releasing additional information (44 lawsuits). Two lawsuits  were undecided as of April 2016.
Table 5 summarizes the outcomes of the 68 lawsuits, and the discussion  that follows presents examples of the lawsuits filed and the decisions  rendered.
Of the 18 lawsuits decided in favor of DOL, 7 were filed because the  department did not respond to the initial FOIA request or administrative  appeal. The other 11 were due to requesters disagreeing with DOL’s  decision not to release information, or the requesters asking for more  information than was originally released. In these cases, the department  may have applied certain exemptions to withhold documents (see  appendix II for the nine specific categories that exempt an agency from  disclosing information).The following examples describe these lawsuits:
One lawsuit was filed because a requester had asked for records  related to being terminated by his employer for refusing to work under  alleged unsafe and illegal conditions that violated the Federal Mine  Safety and Health Act of 1977. However, the Mine Safety and Health  Administration withheld information based on the exemptions related  to interagency or intra-agency memorandums that are not available by  law to a party other than an agency in litigation with that agency, for  law enforcement purposes related to unwarranted invasion of  personal privacy, and disclosing the identity of a confidential source.  In October 2004, the requester submitted an administrative appeal in  response to the decision. Five months after DOL’s acknowledgement  of the administrative appeal, the requester had not received a  response and thus filed a lawsuit in March 2005. In deciding in favor  of DOL, the court upheld the department’s use of the exemptions to  withhold information.
As the basis for another lawsuit, a request was initially submitted for a  Mine Safety and Health Administration investigation report. The  department released only a portion of the requested records. In  February 2009, the requester filed an administrative appeal. In  November 2009, DOL released additional information and withheld  information citing the law enforcement privacy and interagency and  intra-agency memorandums or letters exemptions. The requester  disagreed with the department’s final decision to withhold information  and filed a lawsuit in July 2010. The court upheld the department’s  decision.
One lawsuit involved eight requesters seeking information related to  the functionality of an Office of Workers’ Compensation Program  computer program that is used to ensure consistent rotation among  physicians by specific zip codes. The Office of Workers’  Compensation Program withheld information based on an exemption  regarding confidential commercial information and the exemption  related to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. All eight  requesters filed separate administrative appeals from December 2009  through November 2012, to which the department did not respond. As  a result, the eight requesters filed a joint lawsuit in July 2013.The  court decided in favor of the department’s decision to not disclose the  information due to the exemptions cited.
In April 2009, records were requested related to the activities and  communications between the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of  Labor and various labor organizations. In late April 2009, DOL  acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request, but decided that it would  not provide information. In late September 2009, the requester filed an  administrative appeal. Over a month later, in early November, DOL  confirmed receipt of the administrative appeal but, again, did not  provide information. By late November 2009, the requester had not  received any information or requests for a time extension from the  department and filed a legal complaint. The court decided in favor of  the department, finding that it had properly withheld information on the  basis of several exemptions.
In Favor of DOL and the Requester  One lawsuit—filed because the department withheld certain information  and did not respond to the administrative appeal—was ruled both in favor  of DOL and in favor of the requester. As a result, additional information  was released to the requester. Specifically, in November 2007, a  requester asked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to  provide accident investigation information related to a fatal accident. The  Occupational Safety and Health Administration responded to the initial  request by providing over 100 pages of documentation, but it withheld  other documentation, applying the personnel and medical information  exemption. In February 2008, the requester filed an administrative  appeal. By February 2009, over a year later, DOL had not responded to  the administrative appeal and the requester filed a lawsuit. In March  2010, the court decided in part for the department and in part for the  requester. DOL was required to disclose portions of witness statements  that were previously redacted; however, the court determined that the  department could apply an exemption to additional records to withhold  specific law enforcement information.
In Favor of the Requester  For 3 lawsuits, the requesters received relief as a result of the courts  rendering decisions in their favor.
In March 2005, records were requested from the Occupational Safety  and Health Administration regarding the 2003 “Lost Work Day Illness  and Injury Rates” for all worksites that had the Standard Industrial  Classification code of 80. In prior years, the Occupational Safety  and Health Administration had provided these records to requesters  for previous reporting periods. However, the Occupational Safety and  Health Administration denied this request, stating that releasing the  information would interfere with law enforcement proceedings. In May  2005, the requester submitted an administrative appeal. However, by  October 2005, the requester had not received a response to the  administrative appeal and filed a lawsuit. The court decided in favor of  the requester. However, details on the specific relief that the  department provided to the requester in response to this ruling were  not contained in available court documentation, and DOL officials  could not provide such details. DOL appealed the decision, but the  court dismissed its appeal.
In June 2005, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration  received a request for records related to the possible exposure of  inspectors and employees to unhealthy/hazardous levels of beryllium.  The department denied the request and in August 2005 the requester  submitted an administrative appeal. The requester also submitted a  second FOIA request for records related to quantifying the airborne  and surface concentrations of chemical substances in workplaces  where the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s inspectors  obtain samples. After 3 months (by November 2005), the requester  had not received a response to the administrative appeal and filed a  lawsuit. The court decided in favor of the requester. DOL appealed  the decision but the court dismissed the appeal and, according to a  FOIA Counsel official, the department then released the information to  the requester.
A request was submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration  in September 2007 for records regarding the August 2007 Crandall  Canyon Mine collapse that resulted in the death of nine miners and  rescuers. In October 2007, the requester offered to accept a partial  response to the request as a temporary compromise while awaiting  additional responsive documentation. After 3 months, the Mine Safety  and Health Administration released more documentation, but withheld  certain other documents, citing several exemptions. In May 2008, the  requester submitted an administrative appeal in response to the Mine  Safety and Health Administration’s use of the exemption for  interagency or intra-agency memorandums, and an additional  exemption for law enforcement proceedings. In June 2008, a month  after the administrative appeal was submitted, DOL acknowledged the  appeal, but did not respond by making a determination, as required by  FOIA. In November 2008, 6 months after submitting the administrative  appeal, the requester still had not received a response and filed a  lawsuit. The court decided in favor of the requester and ordered DOL  to conduct an additional search for all non-exempt information. The  department complied by disclosing additional information. The  department and the requester later agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and  waive any right to fees.
subsections: section_title: Lawsuits Settled
paragraphs: Forty-four lawsuits resulted in settlement agreements between DOL and  the requesters. These included 5 lawsuits in which the department agreed  to pay certain amounts of the requesters’ attorney’s fees and other costs,  and 2 lawsuits in which the department agreed to release additional  information to the requesters. For 37 other lawsuits, information on the  specific nature and outcomes of the settlements was not available from  either DOL’s FOIA official or the related court documentation.
For 5 lawsuits that involved settlements, the department agreed to pay to  the requesters approximately $97,475 in attorney’s fees, expenses, and  costs arising from the lawsuits. These lawsuits are summarized below.
A lawsuit was filed as a result of the Wage and Hour Division not  responding to an initial FOIA request sent to the department in July  2010. The initial request was submitted for records related to  complaints made by undocumented workers under the Wage and  Hour Division’s “We Can Help” Program. After 2 months (by  September 2010), DOL had not responded to the request and the  requester filed a lawsuit. DOL and the requester entered into a  settlement agreement resulting in the department agreeing to pay  $350 for attorney’s fees and costs arising from the lawsuit.
A lawsuit was filed after a requester had, in July 2010, sent 2 requests  for information related to the Occupational Safety and Health  Administration’s review of its whistleblower protection programs. DOL  denied one request due to the exemption to withhold interagency or  intra-agency memorandums or letters. In addition, the department did  not respond to the second request. In August 2010, the requester  submitted two administrative appeals to compel a response. After 2  months, the department had not responded to the administrative  appeals and the requester filed a lawsuit in October 2010. DOL and  the requester entered into a settlement agreement that dismissed the  lawsuit and, according to a FOIA Counsel official, resulted in the  department releasing additional responsive records (6,000 pages in  full or redacted). In addition, the department agreed to pay the  requester $8,250 for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs arising from  the lawsuit.
As the basis for another lawsuit, a FOIA requester had sought  information from the department’s Office of Labor-Management  Standards in December 2009 that related to a union’s trusteeship.  Initially, in March 2010, the Office of Labor-Management Standards  informed the requester by e-mail that it had compiled 8,500 pages of  responsive documents. However, after corresponding with the office  until July 2010, the requester filed an administrative appeal letter due  to not receiving any information. Subsequently, 10 months after the  initial FOIA request (in October 2010), the requester filed a lawsuit as  a result of not having received a response to the administrative  appeal, any responsive documentation, or an explanation for the  delay in providing the documentation. According to a DOL FOIA  Counsel official, the department subsequently processed the request  and the requester entered into a settlement agreement with DOL  resulting in the lawsuit being dismissed, and with the department  paying $7,500 for the requester’s attorney fees, expenses, and costs  arising from the lawsuit.
In February 2013, a FOIA request was submitted for the Wage and  Hour Division’s guidance documents regarding “hot goods objections”  investigative files. DOL denied the request, citing the exemption  related to information for law enforcement purposes. In April 2013, the  requester submitted an administrative appeal regarding the previous  decision. A month after submitting the administrative appeal, the  requester had not received a response from the department and filed  a lawsuit in May 2013. The department and the requester then  entered into a settlement agreement, resulting in the lawsuit being  dismissed and with the department paying $30,000 for attorney’s fees,  expenses, and costs arising from the lawsuit.
In a lawsuit filed against the department’s Employment and Training  Administration in March 2013, the requester had not received any  documents after a year of correspondence with DOL. From March  2013 through August 2013, the department provided 217 responsive  records in full to the requester, redacted 121 records, and withheld in  full 151 records. The court decided in favor of the requester and,  according to a FOIA Counsel official, ordered the department to  conduct an additional search for responsive records. Nevertheless,  the official stated that the requester and the department subsequently  reached a settlement agreement, in which the department provided  about 900 responsive records and agreed to pay the requester  $51,375 for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs.
In addition to the above, 2 lawsuits were settled without the award of  attorney’s fees and other costs, but with the department agreeing to  release additional information to the requesters. The following  summarizes these lawsuits.
A lawsuit was filed as a result of a request that was submitted to the  Occupational Safety and Health Administration in August 2011 related  to a wrongful death lawsuit involving the requester. The Occupational  Safety and Health Administration initially provided some information,  but withheld other information based on the law enforcement  exemption. Subsequently, in November 2011, the requester appealed  the decision. In December 2011, DOL responded to the administrative  appeal and upheld the Occupational Safety and Health  Administration’s decision to withhold information. The requester  disagreed with DOL’s response and filed a lawsuit in September  2012. DOL released additional information after the lawsuit was filed.  The requester acknowledged receiving the information provided by  DOL after the lawsuit was filed and agreed to settle and dismiss the  lawsuit.
In another case, the requester asked the department’s Office of the  Solicitor for records related to a trip taken by the Secretary of Labor,  including information on funding, internal memoranda and  communications, and travel and security costs. Nine months after the  request, the requester had not received any response from DOL and  filed a lawsuit in March 2013. DOL provided information to the  requester after the lawsuit was filed. In September 2013, after  reviewing DOL’s documentation, the requester agreed with the court’s  decision to settle and dismiss the case. The court dismissed the case  in January 2014.
As previously noted, details on the results of the 37 other lawsuits were  lacking. In particular, the department’s Counsel for FOIA and Information  Law could not provide details on what, if any, information and/or other  relief were provided as part of the settlements. Further, the available court  documentation did not include information on whether or not information  was released to the requester; rather, the available documentation simply  noted that the cases were dismissed.
section_title: Decisions Not Yet Rendered
paragraphs: As of April 2016, courts had not rendered decisions on 2 of the 68  lawsuits.
A lawsuit was filed pertaining to an expedited request that was  submitted to the department’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for  Administration and Management in July 2013 for records related to  the use of alias e-mail addresses for DOL political appointees and a  request to search personal e-mails of senior DOL officials for  evidence of the use of personal e-mail to conduct official business.  After 2 months, the requester had not received any response from the  department and filed a lawsuit in September 2013. However, as of  April 2016, the case was still pending.
Lastly, a lawsuit was filed as a result of a FOIA request that was  submitted in December 2013 related to the requester’s Federal Mine  Safety and Health Act anti-retaliation complaint investigation file. In  January 2014, the department sent an acknowledgement letter stating  that, due to “unusual circumstances surrounding the records” being  sought, it would take about 90 working days to fulfill the request and,  therefore, the statutory time limits for processing the request could not  be met. According to officials from the Mine Safety and Health  Administration, the requester was provided the opportunity to modify  the scope of the request so that it could be processed within the  statutory time limits, but did not respond to this offer. By April 2014 (4  months after the request was submitted), the requester had not  received any information and filed a legal complaint. In May 2014,  DOL provided certain responsive information, but withheld other  records due to several exemptions. In December 2014, pursuant to a  change in the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s FOIA policy,  the department sent additional responsive information after reviewing  the earlier response and determining that additional information were  releasable. In July 2015, the court asked for the investigation file  related to the requester’s Mine Safety and Health Administration  complaint, and as of April 2016 the case was still pending.
section_title: DOL Does Not Notify Requesters of National Archives and Records Administration’s Mediation Services as an Alternative to Litigation
paragraphs: The OPEN Government Act of 2007 established the Office of  Government Information Services within the National Archives and  Records Administration to oversee and assist agencies in implementing  FOIA. Among its responsibilities, the office offers mediation services to  resolve disputes between requesters and federal agencies as an  alternative to litigation. Office of Government Information Services was  required to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA  requesters and agencies.
According to Department of Justice guidance issued in July 2010,  agencies should include in their final agency responses to requesters a  standard paragraph notifying the requesters of the mediation services and  providing contact information for the Office of Government Information  Services. The guidance states that this notification should be provided at  the conclusion of the administrative process within the agency (i.e., as  part of the agency’s final response on the administrative appeal). This is  intended to allow requesters to first exhaust their administrative remedies  within the agency. The guidance also states that agencies should provide  requesters with notification of their right to seek judicial review.
Since the issuance of the guidance in July 2010, none of the 12 FOIA  lawsuits that we reviewed involving administrative appeals had  corresponding response letters that included language notifying  requesters of the Office of Government Information Services’ mediation  services. Moreover, the department had not issued guidance to its  components on including such language in the letters. Thus, requesters  may have been unaware of the mediation services offered by the office as  an alternative to deciding to litigate their FOIA case.
Officials representing the department’s Counsel for FOIA Appeals  acknowledged that steps had not been taken to ensure that the language  would be included in response letters. They stated that the Counsel for  FOIA Appeals planned to consult with the Department of Justice’s Office  of Information Policy on how to incorporate the language and on how the  department should develop procedures for working with the Office of  Government Information Services to mediate disputes with FOIA  requesters. However, they did not identify a time frame for doing so.
Until it incorporates notification of the Office of Government Information  Services’ mediation services in final response letters, DOL may be  missing opportunities to resolve FOIA disputes through mediation and,  thereby, reduce the lawsuits filed. Accordingly, the department may miss  the opportunity to save time and money associated with its FOIA  operations.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOL has implemented a process to manage, prioritize, and respond to its  FOIA requests. However, opportunities exist to improve its process.  Specifically, because it has not updated its FOIA regulation to reflect  recent changes to its process, the department may be hindering the  public’s use of that process. Also, while the department uses a system to  track its FOIA requests and a portal to allow requesters to track the status  of requests online, the system and portal lack certain required and  recommended capabilities that could enhance the management and  processing of requests. Absent capabilities consistent with Section 508 of  the Rehabilitation Act (as amended), the department is not implementing  the federal requirement to make its electronic information accessible to  people with disabilities. In addition, by implementing recommended  capabilities, the department could be better positioned to ensure the  efficiency of its FOIA processing efforts. Further, although the department  responded to the majority of its fiscal year 2014 FOIA requests within the  time frame mandated by law, it has not consistently documented the  reasons for delays in its automated FOIA tracking system or notified  requesters about them.
A majority of lawsuits brought against the department from January 2005  through December 2014 either resulted from the department failing to  respond to requests or because it withheld certain information pertaining  to requests. By ensuring that requesters are made aware of mediation  services offered by the National Archives and Records Administration’s  Office of Government Information Services as an alternative to litigation,  DOL may be able to avoid future lawsuits, thus saving resources.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve DOL’s management of FOIA requests, we recommend that  the Secretary of Labor direct the Chief FOIA Officer to take the following  five actions:
Establish a time frame for finalizing and then issue an updated FOIA  regulation.
Establish a time frame for implementing, and take actions to  implement, section 508 requirements in the department’s FOIA  system and online portal.
Establish a time frame for implementing, and take actions to fully  implement, recommended best practice capabilities for enhanced  processing of requests in the department’s FOIA system and online  portal.
Require components to document in SIMS-FOIA the rationales for  delays in responding to FOIA requests, and to notify requesters of the  delayed responses when processing requests.
Establish a time frame for consulting with the Department of Justice’s  Office of Information Policy on including language in DOL’s response  letters to administrative appeals notifying requesters of the National  Archives and Records Administration’s Office of Government  Information Services’ mediation services as an alternative to litigation,  and then ensure that the department includes the language in the  letters.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on a draft of this report from DOL and the  National Archives and Records Administration. In DOL’s comments,  signed by the Chief FOIA Officer (and reprinted in appendix V), the  department concurred with all five recommendations and agreed that it  can improve the management of its FOIA program. The department  identified various actions that it had taken or planned to address the  recommendations. For example, concerning our recommendation to  update its FOIA regulation, the department stated that it has drafted a  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update the regulation and expects to  publish the final regulation by the end of 2016.
In addition, relevant to our recommendation, the department stated that it  is taking actions to review and modify the text and formatting of its public  FOIA portal to comply with the provisions of Section 508 of the  Rehabilitation Act, and expects to have changes in place by September  2016. With regard to its automated FOIA tracking system, the department  stated that the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and  Management determined that it can fulfill the requirements of Section 508  by providing individualized accommodations to any DOL FOIA staff with  vision or other accommodation needs who require access to the system.  For example, the department noted that large screen magnifiers and  verbal description tools can be provided to staff that require such  accommodations. The department added that it would continue to ensure  that Section 508 compliance is included as a necessary element in  planning for any future SIMS-FOIA replacement or successor system.
Further, with regard to implementing recommended best practices, the  department stated that it continues to monitor proposed FOIA legislation  and Department of Justice guidance so that it can assess the feasibility  and business need for investment in technology changes. The  department said that it will ensure that the recommended best practice  capabilities for enhanced FOIA processing are considered as a part of its  planning for any future SIMS-FOIA replacement or successor system.
Regarding our recommendation to document the rationale for delays in  responding to FOIA requests, the department stated that its Office of  Information Services plans to issue implementing guidance to address  this matter. The Office of Information Services also is to provide follow-up  training on the guidance after it is finalized and disseminated, a step  which it expects to have completed by the end of September 2016.
Lastly, in response to our recommendation on notifying requesters of the  mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information  Services, the department stated that it consulted with the Department of  Justice Office of Information Policy on March 7, 2016 and, as of March  31, 2016, had begun including language in its final appeal decisions  informing requesters of the mediation services. If the department follows  through to ensure effective implementation of its actions on our five  recommendations, it should be better positioned to improve and  successfully carry out the management of its FOIA program.
Beyond DOL, in comments signed by the Archivist of the United States,  the National Archives and Records Administration expressed appreciation  for our review and for our recognizing the importance of DOL including  notification of the Office of Government Information Services’ mediation  services in its final appeal letters. The National Archives and Records  Administration’s comments are reprinted in appendix VI.
In addition to the aforementioned written comments, we received  technical comments via e-mail from the Director of the Office of  Information Services at DOL, and the Audit Liaisons from the Department  of Justice and the National Archives and Records Administration. We  have incorporated these comments, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6304 or melvinv@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine (1) how the Department of Labor (DOL)  and its components manage and process Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) requests, including how they prioritize requests, and the extent  that responses to requests have been timely; and (2) how many lawsuits  DOL has been subject to arising from FOIA requests, and the results of  those lawsuits.
To address the study objectives, we collected and analyzed published  statistics from the department’s fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015  FOIA annual reports, and other documentation from the department’s  central FOIA office, Office of Information Services, such as the October  2010 Desk Reference Guide and August 2013 Best Practices Guide. To  determine the responsibilities of the central FOIA office and the  components in managing and processing requests, we reviewed  organization charts; the department’s policies and procedures; and  information discussed in the FOIA annual reports, the DOL Chief FOIA  Officer reports, and other agency documentation. We also conducted  interviews with responsible officials in the Office of the Solicitor and the  department’s 23 component offices.
To facilitate our understanding of how the central FOIA office and the  components manage, prioritize, and process FOIA requests, we  developed and administered a questionnaire to the 23 components in  June 2015. We received responses from all of the components. To  ensure that our questions were clear and logical and that respondents  could answer the questions without undue burden, we provided the draft  questionnaire to the department’s Office of Information Services and  obtained and incorporated the office’s comments on the questionnaire in  advance of sending it to the 23 components.
The practical difficulties of conducting any questionnaire may introduce  errors, commonly referred to as non-sampling errors. For example,  difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of  information available to respondents, or in how the data were entered into  a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the  results. With this questionnaire, we took a number of steps to minimize  these errors. For example, our questionnaire was developed in  collaboration with a GAO methodologist.
The results of our questionnaire were summarized to describe component  efforts to manage, prioritize, and process FOIA requests. We also  reviewed criteria used by the central office and components to prioritize  requests, and assessed current procedures and practices against the  criteria. Further, we reviewed available statistics on FOIA processing  timeliness. The scope of our work focused on the department’s central  tracking system and public portal, but did not include examining other  systems, such as those used by the Inspector General and for separate  FOIA appeals tracking.
To determine to what extent the responses to FOIA requests have been  timely, DOL provided a list of 14,745 requests that had been received in  the department as of October 1, 2013, and that had been fully processed  by September 30, 2014. Of that total, we randomly selected a  representative sample of 258 requests. In order to make the random  selection, we first sorted the data we obtained based on component,  process track, and whether the request was delayed or on time. We  grouped the requests by their individual process track. For example, each  closed request has a process track of simple, complex, or expedited.
To ensure that all components were included in the sample, we divided  the 23 components in the sample frame into two strata: components with  10 or more requests (stratum 1) and components with fewer than 10  requests (stratum 2). We selected all cases per component in stratum 2.  We chose 96 requests from stratum 1 and allocated those 96 requests  according to the number of requests. We also wanted to ensure a  minimum sample of 10 requests per component in stratum 1. This  resulted in a total sample of 258 requests, as reflected in table 6.
This methodology was used to yield a pre-determined precision level on  population estimates while minimizing the sample size or the cost. In  addition, it allowed us to measure whether the 258 requests were  processed in a timely manner. Because we followed a random selection  of the sample, we are able to make projections to the population. The  results of our sample are generalizable to the population of FOIA  requests processed by the department as of September 30, 2014. All  percentage estimates from our sample have margins of error at the 95  percent confidence level of plus or minus 15 percentage points or less,  unless otherwise noted.
To estimate the population percentage of requests that were responded  to within 20 days, the sample data are weighted to make them  representative of the population. The weights are developed at the  stratum level.
Our random sample is only one of a large number of samples that we  might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different  estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular  sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval of plus or minus 15  percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted. This is the interval that  would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples  that we could have drawn.
To assess the reliability of the data we received, we supplemented our  analysis with interviews of FOIA officials in the department’s Office of the  Solicitor and Office of Information Services, as well as component  officials, regarding their responsibilities and management practices.  These officials included the DOL FOIA Public Liaison, the Director of the  Office of Information Services, and the Director of the Office of the  Solicitor. We also electronically tested the data and found them to be  sufficiently reliable for purposes of our reporting objectives.
To determine the number of delayed requests, we compared the date of  receipt, date assigned to agency, FOIA start date, and response date  field of each resolved request in the Secretary’s Information Management  System for FOIA (SIMS-FOIA). To determine whether the request was  forwarded to the appropriate office for processing within the statutory time  frame of 10 working days, we reviewed the “date assigned to agency”  field in SIMS-FOIA against the “date of receipt in DOL” field. To  determine whether the department responded to the requester within 20  working days, we reviewed the “date assigned – FOIA start date” field  and compared it to the latest “response date” field. In addition, we  reviewed other available documentation, including SIMS-FOIA snapshots  and all documentation associated with each of the 258 resolved requests.  We also reviewed data from SIMS-FOIA to identify any documentation of  delays in processing the requests, reasons for the delays, and any  actions taken by the department to notify requesters of delays.
To determine the number of FOIA lawsuits filed against the department,  we reviewed relevant information that spanned portions of the prior and  current administrations (January 2005 through December 2014). We  obtained information on the lawsuits from DOL and the Department of  Justice, and through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records  (PACER) system.
Specifically, we reviewed DOL documentation that discussed its FOIA  litigation, settlements, and legal decisions made from January 2005  through December 2014. In addition, we reviewed Department of Justice  documentation that included a listing of DOL’s FOIA litigation cases,  attorney costs and fees assessed by the courts, and court decisions  made from January 2005 through December 2014. We reviewed and  analyzed the documentation to confirm that all lawsuits were FOIA-related  and included the department or a component as a defendant. We also  reviewed the documentation to determine the reason the lawsuit was  brought to litigation and the resulting court decision. Further, we  interviewed agency officials from the Department of Justice’s Civil  Division and Office of Information Policy, as well as from DOL’s  Management and Administrative Legal Services Division, to discuss their  processes regarding litigating FOIA cases and the results of the cases. In  selected cases, DOL did not have complete information associated with  the lawsuit, such as the decision, complaint, and/or settlement  documentation.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2015 to June 2016  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Freedom of Information Act Exemptions
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) prescribes nine specific  categories of information that are exempt from disclosure, which are  described in table 7.
section_title: Appendix III: Department of Labor Stages for Processing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request
paragraphs: In August 2013, the Department of Labor’s Office of the Information  Services (OIS) issued guidance that is intended to assist the  department’s staff in responding to FOIA requests. The guidance outlines  the nine stages of processing a request received by the department,  including the processing of administrative appeals and judicial reviews of  lawsuits filed by requesters, as depicted in figure 3 below.
The nine stages that components are to take are as described:
Receive and route a request. A FOIA request can be submitted to  the department by a member of the public via postal mail, e-mail, or  fax. If OIS receives a request, its staff are to log the request into the  Secretary’s Information Management System for FOIA (SIMS-FOIA)  and route the request to the appropriate DOL component office, or  retain the request if it pertains to the Office of the Solicitor. When the  appropriate component receives the request in SIMS-FOIA, the clock  for processing the request (i.e., 20 working days) starts. If the request  is misrouted, it is to be returned to OIS for reassignment to the  appropriate component. Once assigned to the appropriate  component, the FOIA processor receiving the request is to send an  acknowledgement letter with a unique tracking number to the  requester.
Evaluate the request. The FOIA processor is to obtain from the  requester a description of the records sought and determine if there is  enough information to locate the responsive records. The processor is  then to confirm in writing (or by e-mail) any narrowing in scope of the  request or alternative time frames (i.e., beyond the 20 working days  due to unusual circumstances) for processing the requests.
Prioritize requests and time limit. When processing a request,  components are to use one of three processing tracks (simple,  complex, or expedited) and are to identify in SIMS-FOIA which track is  being used to process the request. The decision is to be made based  on the amount of work and/or the amount of time needed to process  the request.
Conduct a reasonable search. The FOIA processor is to conduct a  search for responsive records. To do so, the processor can consult  with subject matter experts to identify the type of responsive records  that exist and the location of the records. Components are to maintain  documentation concerning the search methodology, including the  offices where the records were searched, the individual(s) that  conducted the search, and what search terms were used.
Review, segregate, and release non-exempt information. The  FOIA processor is to review the responsive records, and determine  whether a portion or all of any record should be withheld based on a  statutory exemption. If a portion or all of any record is the  responsibility of another agency or component, FOIA processor can  consult with the other agency or component or send the responsive  records to that other agency or component for processing.
Assess fees. The component is to assess the fees that will be  charged by the type of requester that is making the request. For  example, if the requester is a member of the news media, then he/she  may request a fee waiver. Further, the types of fees charged depend  on time spent to search for responsive records, document the review  of records, and the copies of the records.
Respond to the requester. When responding to the requester, the  FOIA processor is to make a determination to release a response in  full, to apply an exemption and withhold information protected under  an exemption and release certain parts of the response, or fully deny  the request. A response must be in writing and signed by a FOIA  disclosure officer. Response letters must include language regarding  the identification of responsive records; the page count of records  processed; the amount of information or pages withheld, if applicable;  the identification of any exemptions asserted; any procedural denials  that apply; and the requester’s right to file an administrative appeal.
Process administrative appeal. A requester has the right to  administratively appeal any adverse determination a component  makes concerning a request. The Office of the Solicitor, which serves  as the designated appeals official, is to notify the requester in writing  when the appeal is received, and review the component’s actions  taken in response to the FOIA request to determine whether  corrective steps are necessary. The Office of the Solicitor is to then  issue a final appeal determination and notify the requester of the right  to seek judicial review.
Conduct judicial review of processing. FOIA provides requesters  with the right to challenge an agency’s final decision in federal court.  Components have the burden of proof and must demonstrate to the  court all actions taken in response to a request, or that appeal  determinations are appropriate and consistent with the statute and the  department’s FOIA regulations. Components are to provide the  department’s FOIA Counsel with the case file, including the  responsive record, any exemptions applied, and a response letter, as  well as an appeal determination, if applicable. The FOIA case file  must be preserved and processors must be prepared to justify their  actions in the event of litigation.
section_title: Appendix IV: Timeliness of Department of Labor Components in Processing Freedom of Information Act Requests
paragraphs: Using our sample of 258 Freedom of Information Act requests, we  reviewed the Department of Labor’s timeliness in processing the  requests. Specifically, for each of the department’s 23 components, table  8 shows the number of requests in our sample of each type (simple,  complex, or expedited); the number of days it took for those requests to  be routed to the correct office; and the number of days it took for the  components to respond to the requests.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the National Archives and Records Administration
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Anjalique Lawrence (Assistant Director), Freda Paintsil (Analyst in  Charge), Christopher Businsky, Quintin Dorsey, Rebecca Eyler, Andrea  Harvey, Ashfaq Huda, Kendrick Johnson, Lee McCracken, Dae Park,  David Plocher, Umesh Thakkar, Walter Vance, and Robert Williams, Jr.