Information Management: Freedom of Information Act Fee and Fee Waiver Processing at the Department of Energy
Published: 2005-05-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives the public the right to access information about the federal government. In addressing requests for information, agencies have the authority to assess fees for certain categories of requesters to cover the costs of locating and copying records, as well as discretion to waive fees if specific criteria are met. GAO was asked to determine, for fiscal year 2004, the volume and nature of FOIA request processing at the Department of Energy (DOE), to what extent DOE followed the act and related Office of Management and Budget and Department of Justice guidance in processing cases that involve fees, and to what extent DOE communicated its fee-related decisions to requesters.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2004, DOE received 2,289 new FOIA cases, of which 31 percent (705 of 2,289) were received by the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and DOE sites at Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Richland, Washington--the sites selected for our review. Generally, very few of the requests at these sites involved assessments of fees or requests for waivers of possible fees. DOE's process includes several phases ranging from initial processing and acknowledgement to preparing and releasing records to requesters. DOE generally followed FOIA and related guidance when determining fee categories for requesters, fee waivers, and actual fees to be charged. All three sites we reviewed always made explicit determinations about requesters' fee categories in accordance with guidance. DOE also generally adhered to guidance in determining fee waivers by seeking information addressing the prescribed criteria for making fee waiver determinations. In assessing actual fees to be charged, FOIA offices at all three sites charged fees in accordance with guidance. DOE's FOIA offices often did not communicate the specifics of their fee-related decisions to FOIA requesters. For example, while DOE headquarters often informed requesters of determinations about their fee category, the Richland and Albuquerque offices rarely did. In addition, the three sites rarely informed requesters of the outcome of fee waiver determinations. Further, when fees were not charged, requesters were rarely informed of the reason. Current FOIA guidelines do not require agencies to inform requesters of fee-related decisions. However, without being informed of fee-related determinations, requesters could misunderstand agency fee determinations and have false expectations for the handling of future FOIA requests.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides the public with a legal  right to access government information about the operations and decisions  of the federal government. Specific requests by the public for information  through FOIA have led to the disclosure of waste, fraud, abuse, and  wrongdoing in the government. The act authorizes agencies to recoup  certain direct costs associated with processing requests, which may  include search, duplication, or review, depending on the requester’s fee  category. It defines three categories for requesters: (1) commercial;  (2) educational, noncommercial scientific institutions, and representatives  of the news media; or (3) other. Agencies also have discretion to reduce or  waive fees under various circumstances.
This report responds to your request that we conduct a detailed review of  FOIA request processing at one agency, the Department of Energy (DOE).  Specifically, as agreed with your office, our objectives were to determine  for fiscal year 2004  the volume and nature of FOIA request processing at DOE,  the extent to which DOE’s process for handling fee assessments and  waivers was consistent with FOIA and related guidance, and  the extent to which DOE communicated its fee-related decisions to  requesters.
To address these objectives, we analyzed FOIA case files from three DOE  locations, reviewed FOIA and related guidance, and interviewed officials  from each location. The three DOE locations we assessed were responsible  for about 77 percent of the fee waiver cases in fiscal year 2004 and 35  percent of the cases in which fees were charged. Further details on our  scope and methodology are provided in appendix I. Our work was  conducted from June 2004 through March 2005, in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards, at Washington, D.C.;  Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Richland, Washington.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FOIA established a legal right of access to government records and  information, on the basis of the principles of openness and accountability  in government. Before the act, an individual seeking access to federal  records had faced the burden of establishing a right to examine them. FOIA  also established a “right to know” standard for access, instead of a “need to  know,” and shifted the burden of proof from the individual to the  government agency seeking to deny access. FOIA was originally enacted in  1966 and has been amended several times, most recently in 2002.
Citizens are requesting an ever-increasing amount of information from the  federal government, as reflected in a steadily increasing number of FOIA  requests. In fiscal year 2003, over 3 million requests were received by  federal agencies, an increase of 36 percent over the previous year. Further,  the number of requests closed was also more than 3 million, an increase of  34 percent compared with the previous year. The number of requests  closed is, in part, an indicator of the responsiveness of agencies in  providing the public with requested information and shows that agencies  are taking steps to respond to the increasing FOIA workload.
FOIA provides the public with access to government information either  through “affirmative agency disclosure”—publishing information in the  Federal Register or making it available in reading rooms—or in response to  public requests for disclosure. Public requests for disclosure of records are  the best known type of FOIA disclosure. Any member of the public may  request access to information held by federal agencies, without showing a  need or reason for seeking the information. Agencies may deny access to  material (e.g., by withholding records or redacting information) only if it  falls within any of nine statutory categories of exemptions. There are also  FOIA exclusions for specific, sensitive records held by law enforcement  agencies. In addition, agencies have a statutory requirement to meet certain  time frames for determining whether to comply with requests, making  determinations with respect to appeals of adverse determinations, and  determining whether to provide expedited processing of requests.  Requesters are entitled to know the reasons for denials, to appeal denials,  and to challenge them in court. Under the act, agencies are required to  submit annual reports on their FOIA activities to the Attorney General.
subsections: section_title: Roles of Justice and OMB in FOIA Implementation
paragraphs: The Department of Justice oversees agencies’ compliance with FOIA and is  the primary source of policy guidance for agencies. Justice’s specific  requirements under the act are to  make agencies’ annual FOIA reports available through a single  electronic access point and notify Congress as to their availability;  in consultation with OMB, develop guidelines for the required agency  reports, so that all reports use common terminology and follow a similar  format; and  submit an annual report on FOIA statistics and the efforts undertaken  by Justice to encourage agency compliance.
In addition, FOIA requires OMB to issue guidelines to “provide for a  uniform schedule of fees for all agencies.” Agencies are required to  conform to the OMB fee guidelines. Further, in 1987, the Department of  Justice issued guidelines on waiving fees when FOIA requests are  determined to be in the public interest. Under the guidelines, requests for  waivers or reduction of fees are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking  into account both the public interest and the requester’s commercial  interests.
section_title: FOIA Processing at DOE
paragraphs: Some FOIA requests are relatively simple to process, such as requests for  specific pieces of information that the requester sends directly to the  appropriate office. Other requests require more extensive processing,  depending on the complexity of the request, the volume of information  involved, the need for the agency FOIA office to work with offices that  have relevant subject-matter expertise to find and obtain information, the  need for a FOIA officer to review and redact information in the responsive  material, the need to communicate with the requester about the scope of  the request, and the need to communicate with the requester about the fees  that will be charged for fulfilling the request (or whether fees will be  waived). FOIA processing, especially review of classified, sensitive, or  privacy-related material, can be labor-intensive.
DOE’s process typically begins when the agency’s headquarters FOIA office  receives a written request (fax, letter, e-mail, or electronic form on DOE’s  Web site). From that point, the request goes through several phases, which  include   acknowledgment of the request,   fee determination and identification of office with relevant subject  matter expertise,   search and retrieval of records,   preparation of records for release, and   issuing of the final response to the requester.
Initial processing is focused on ensuring that the request is a proper FOIA  request and that all relevant information has been obtained from the  requester. From here, an acknowledgment letter informs the requester that  the department received the request and also provides the requester with a  tracking number. FOIA officials then review the case to determine which  office may have responsive records and make an initial determination  about fees and, if a fee waiver has been requested, whether it is to be  granted. After the appropriate office has located responsive records, a  determination is made about what, if any, information is exempt from  public release and should be redacted from records planned to be released,  which would result in a “partial grant” of requested information. Finally, the  agency assembles the responsive records to be released and provides them  to the requester. Figure 1 depicts the FOIA process at DOE Headquarters.
From the receipt of the request until a final decision is made about the  release or withholding of documents, DOE has a number of opportunities  to communicate with requesters. As recorded in DOE’s FOIA case files, the  types of communications included   acknowledgment letters, which informed requesters that DOE received   interim letters, which provided requesters with additional information  pertaining to their request and may have requested additional  information to clarify the request;  final letters, which provided requesters with the final outcome of their   oral communications, which were made typically via telephone and  provided clarification and additional information about how the request  was being handled; and  e-mail messages, which also provided clarification and additional  information about DOE’s handling of the request.
Aside from very minor variations, the FOIA process at the Albuquerque and  Richland field offices is essentially the same. The FOIA offices at each site  receive requests centrally and assign them to appropriate offices with  subject-matter expertise for action.
section_title: Fee Structure and Fee Waivers
paragraphs: Agency determinations about fees and fee waivers are complex decisions  that include determining (1) the requester’s fee category, (2) whether a fee  waiver is to be granted, and (3) the actual fees to be charged. FOIA  stipulates three types of fee categories for requesters: (1) commercial;  (2) educational, noncommercial scientific institution, and representative of  the news media; and (3) other. Further, fees can be charged for three types  of FOIA-related activities—search, duplication, and review—depending on  the requester’s fee category. In addition, in certain situations fees may not  be charged to a requester, as, for example, when a fee waiver is granted or  when the applicable fees are below a certain threshold.
Commercial users can be charged for the broadest range of FOIA-related  activities, including document search, review, and duplication. Commercial  use is defined in the OMB fee schedule guidelines as “a use or purpose that  furthers the commercial, trade or profit interests of the requester or the  person on whose behalf the request is being made.” The second category  exempts search and review fees for documents sought for noncommercial  use by educational or noncommercial scientific institutions, and for  representatives of the news media. The third category of fees, which  applies to all requesters who do not fall within either of the other two  categories, allows for “reasonable” charges for document search and  duplication. Table 1 shows the FOIA-related activities for which agencies  can charge by fee category, as stipulated in the act.
Although the act generally requires that requesters pay fees for their  requests to be processed, in certain circumstances, fees are not to be  charged. For example, as stipulated in the act, fees may not be charged  when the government’s cost of collecting and processing the fee is likely to  equal or exceed the amount of the fee itself.
Further, under certain circumstances, the act requires an agency to furnish  documents without charge, or at reduced charges. This is commonly  referred to as the FOIA fee waiver. An agency must provide a fee waiver if  two conditions are met:   disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because  it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the  operations or activities of the government, and  disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest  of the requester.
Under the act and guidance, when these requirements are both satisfied,  based upon information supplied by a requester or otherwise made known  to the agency, the fee waiver or reduction is to be granted by the FOIA  officer. Where one or both of these requirements is not satisfied, a fee  waiver is not warranted. As these criteria suggest, fee waivers are to be  granted on a case-by-case basis. Individuals who receive fee waivers in  some cases may not necessarily receive them in other cases.
section_title: DOE’s FOIA Requests in Fiscal Year 2004
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2004, DOE reported receiving 2,289 new FOIA cases and  closing 2,440. In 76 percent (1848 of 2440) of the closed cases, DOE  provided some or all requested records to the requesters. Of all new cases  received across the department, headquarters, Albuquerque, and  Richland—the sites selected for our review—received 31 percent (705 of  2,289). Specifically, headquarters received 431 cases, Albuquerque received  152 cases, and Richland received 122 cases.
In approximately 5 percent (35 of 705) of the cases at these three sites,  requesters were charged a fee; 86 percent (30 of 35) of these cases involved  commercial requesters. In total, the three sites charged about $4,700 in  fees. DOE Headquarters charged requesters about $2,200; Albuquerque  charged about $1,300; and Richland charged about $1,200. Further, of the  705 cases, 24 percent (171 of 705) involved requesters formally asking for a  fee waiver, and only two of these requesters were actually assessed fees  (see table 2).
section_title: DOE Generally Adhered to FOIA Guidance
paragraphs: Based on an analysis of 170 cases, DOE at these three locations generally  followed FOIA and related guidance in its processes for making each of  three major decisions related to fees and fee waivers: (1) determining the  requester’s fee category, (2) determining if a fee waiver is to be granted, and  (3) assessing actual fees, if any, to be charged.
FOIA and related guidance issued by OMB and Justice give FOIA officers  detailed directions about how to handle fees and fee waivers. First, FOIA  officers need to determine a requester’s fee category in order to know what  types of activities the requester can be charged for. The three types of fee  categories for requesters are (1) commercial; (2) educational,  noncommercial scientific institution, and representative of the news media;  and (3) other. Then, if a requester is eligible to be charged fees, a  determination must be made if any of those fees can be waived. Assuming a  requester has asked for a fee waiver, FOIA personnel must evaluate  information provided by the requesters, addressing six criteria outlined in  the Justice guidance in order to make a fee waiver determination. Finally,  assuming fees have not been waived, FOIA personnel must assess the  actual fees to be charged. According to guidance, no fee is to be charged if  the requester has received a fee waiver or if the amount to be charged is  under a predetermined threshold. Otherwise, FOIA personnel are to  determine the amount of time spent on search, review, and duplication,  and, based on a requester’s fee category, charge the appropriate fees.
Determining a requester’s fee category is the simplest of the three decisions  in terms of the information needed to make a decision, and it typically  takes little time. Officials at all three sites we reviewed always (170 of 170  cases) made explicit fee category determinations. Headquarters officials  stated that if a requester did not provide enough information to make a fee  category determination, FOIA personnel would often attempt to locate  additional information, for example through the Web, in order to make an  expeditious category determination.
DOE also generally adhered to FOIA guidance in determining if a fee  waiver was to be granted by seeking information to address all relevant fee  waiver criteria. Often, if requesters did not sufficiently address all the fee- waiver criteria in their initial requests, officials sought additional  information from the requesters. DOE also generally adhered to FOIA  guidance by asking requesters to address all relevant fee waiver criteria.  For example, headquarters requested additional information to address fee  waiver criteria in 21 cases wherein sufficient information was not included  with the original request. Officials at all three sites indicated that if they  believed, based on their knowledge and experience, that the charge for the  request was going to be below the threshold, they would not go through the  process of making an explicit fee waiver determination.
In assessing actual fees to be charged, if any, FOIA offices at all three sites  we reviewed charged fees in accordance with guidance. The three  locations charged fees in 34 completed cases. For example, requesters  were appropriately charged for search, review, or duplication based on  their FOIA category. In addition, all three locations uniformly complied  with the regulation of granting 2 hours of free search time and 100 pages of  free duplication to requesters in certain categories. Table 3 lists the 34  completed cases in which fees were charged, by location and category.
In many cases in which fees were not charged to requesters, we could not  determine if DOE made its decision correctly, because the necessary  information to determine fees—an accounting of search time and cost,  review time and cost, and the number of pages duplicated—was not  routinely recorded. Of the cases we reviewed that did not charge a fee (136  of 170), about 61 percent (83 of 136) did not include records of all of the  necessary information. Officials at each of the sites stated that—as was the  case with many fee waiver determinations—they often did not record such  information when they believed, based on their knowledge and experience,  that the costs incurred would be below DOE’s $15 threshold for charging  fees.
section_title: DOE Did Not Always Inform Requesters About Fee and Fee- Waiver Decisions
paragraphs: DOE’s three FOIA offices did not always communicate all the specifics of  their fee-related decisions to requesters. Requesters were sometimes  informed of one or more of the three major fee-related decisions, especially  fee category decisions. However, they were rarely given a full explanation  of all relevant decisions. Because of the complexity of the decision-making  process for fees and fee waivers, providing a full explanation of what  decisions have been reached is important. Without a clear understanding of  DOE’s fee-related determinations, requesters could have false expectations  about how their future requests are to be handled.
Current FOIA processing guidelines do not require agencies to explicitly  inform requesters of fee-related decisions. However, informing requesters  about fee and fee-waiver decisions is important because it can provide an  explanation to the requester about the specific and possibly unique  circumstances of a particular fee determination. For example, although an  agency may determine that a requester is not eligible for a fee waiver, based  on the information provided, it may not actually charge any fee for the  request because the charges would be below the minimum threshold. If the  requester was not informed of this, he or she could mistakenly believe that  a waiver had indeed been granted and might expect that a similar waiver  would be granted for future FOIA requests. While not specifically referring  to fee determinations, Justice has cited the importance of communications  as an element of customer service.
The three DOE sites did not always communicate fee category decisions to  requesters. Of the three locations, headquarters was most likely to inform  requesters of their fee category. Richland and Albuquerque rarely  communicated fee category determinations to requesters. Table 4  enumerates how often requesters were informed of fee category  determinations for the cases we reviewed.
The three sites also rarely informed requesters of the outcome of fee  waiver determinations. Specifically, requesters were not informed of fee  waiver determinations in 87 percent of the completed fee waiver cases that  we reviewed (83 of 95). Whenever DOE’s case files show that an explicit  determination was made denying a fee waiver, the requester was informed  of this decision. This occurred seven times in fiscal year 2004. However, fee  waiver determinations were not always recorded in the case files. DOE  officials indicated that if they believed fees would be below the threshold,  based on their knowledge and experience, they would not address a fee  waiver request explicitly, and, accordingly, requesters would not be  informed of any fee waiver decision. Further, in 22 cases at headquarters,  requesters were notified that a fee waiver determination would not be  addressed until they provided additional information addressing the fee  waiver criteria that DOE is required to use in reaching its fee waiver  determinations. However, the records in these cases do not indicate  whether additional information was obtained, nor do they reflect a final  determination of fee waiver status. Table 5 shows communication of  completed fee waiver case determinations by location.
Although the DOE offices informed requesters when fees were assessed  and actually charged, they did not always explicitly inform requesters of  decisions not to charge fees, even when fees might have been applicable. In  half of the cases we reviewed in which fees were not charged (68 of 136),  requesters were not informed about the decision not to charge a fee.  Without being informed about this decision, a requester could mistakenly  believe that fees were not applicable and develop a false expectation that  fees also would not be applicable for future requests. Table 6 below shows  the disposition of cases by location in which a fee was not charged.
Further, in most (24 of 35) cases where fees were charged, requesters were  not informed of the complete details of the fees to be charged. In assessing  fees, FOIA personnel are to determine the amount of time spent on search,  review, and duplication, and, based on a requester’s fee category, charge  the appropriate fees. If requesters do not receive detailed information  about these determinations, including an accounting of what activities they  were not charged for, they may not be able to understand how fees had  been assessed. Although Albuquerque consistently informed requesters  about the complete details of assessed fees, headquarters and Richland  rarely did.
Without a clear understanding of what determinations DOE has made,  requesters could develop false expectations on how future requests would  be handled. For example, 11 of 17 requesters we interviewed who had  requested a fee waiver believed they had received a fee waiver from DOE,  yet in actuality none of them had. Without clearer communication of fee- related determinations, requesters are likely to not fully understand agency  fee determinations, which could lead to dissatisfaction with the response  to future FOIA requests.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOE reported closing 2,440 FOIA requests in fiscal year 2004 and provided  some or all of the requested records in 76 percent of the cases. Requesters  were charged fees in about 5 percent of cases. Further, in most cases, DOE  followed FOIA and related guidance in each of the three major decisions  related to fees and fee waivers that arise for any given request. However,  DOE did not always communicate these decisions to requesters.
Current FOIA processing guidance issued by Justice does not require  agencies to explicitly inform requesters of any fee-related decisions.  However, doing so would be beneficial. If requesters do not understand  what determinations have actually been made, they could develop false  expectations for the handling of future FOIA requests.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve FOIA requesters’ understanding of agency fee-related  determinations, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the co- directors of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy  to revise FOIA guidance to include a requirement that agencies explicitly  inform requesters of all fee-related determinations associated with their  requests, including a notification that fees were not assessed, if applicable.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on a draft of this report from the DOE’s  Director, Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation/Chief Financial  Officer, and the Co-Directors, Office of Information and Privacy, of the  Department of Justice, which are reproduced in appendixes II and III,  respectively.
DOE provided its comments in three parts. First, DOE reported that it had  already taken steps to implement our recommendation, although the  department noted that it was not required to provide requesters with  notifications about fee-waiver determinations when potential fees would  be below the minimum amount for charging. Second, the department noted  that its past procedures did not call for notifying requesters about fee  determinations when processing fees were below the minimum threshold.  Finally, the department disagreed with our characterization of fee waiver  determinations at the Richland field office, stating that Richland does not  have a practice of automatically granting fee waivers to public interest  groups and news media. We have accordingly revised the final report to  clarify our characterization of Richland’s fee-waiver practices.
Justice stated that our recommendation was addressed to the wrong  agency, because it did not fall within the jurisdictional purview of the  department and therefore Justice cannot properly implement the  recommendation. However, we disagree. Justice is the lead agency for  providing guidance and support to federal agencies on FOIA issues and has  statutory responsibility for encouraging agency compliance with the act.  Justice has several vehicles for providing such guidance, including the  periodically updated Freedom of Information Act Guide and Privacy Act  Overview, as well as training materials and other online updates such as the  department’s “FOIA Post.” To confirm that we had appropriately addressed  our recommendation to Justice rather than OMB—which is required to  issue a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies—we contacted the Deputy  Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, who  agreed that the recommendation should be addressed to Justice.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Attorney General; the Secretary of Energy; and the heads of other  interested congressional committees. Copies will be made available to  others on request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on  our Web site at www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-6240 or send e-mail to koontzl@gao.gov. Key contacts and major  contributors to this report are Barbara Collier, John de Ferrari, Wilfred  Holloway, Stephanie Lee, David Plocher, and Elizabeth Zhao.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine, for fiscal year 2004, (1) the volume and  nature of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request processing at the  Department of Energy (DOE), (2) the extent to which the department’s  process for handling fee assessments and waivers is consistent with FOIA  and related guidance, and (3) the extent to which DOE has clearly  communicated its fee-related decisions to requesters.
To determine the volume and nature of FOIA request processing at DOE,  we reviewed documentation indicating the volume of requests received by  the department, and we analyzed in detail the nature of DOE Headquarters’  FOIA process. We assessed the reliability of the DOE Headquarters’  process by reviewing existing information about the FOIA process and  interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the process. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report.
To determine the extent to which DOE’s process for handling fee  assessments and waivers was consistent with guidance, we analyzed the  requirements in FOIA, the Department of Justice guidance, and OMB  guidance, and we compared these requirements to those contained in  DOE’s regulations. We then analyzed information gathered from selected  FOIA case files to determine if DOE was complying with regulations at  selected locations.
We also used data from the selected case files to determine the extent to  which the department clearly communicated its fee-related decisions to  requesters. The case files from DOE contained several types of  communications between DOE and requesters. These communications  allowed us to assess how and when DOE communicated fee-related  decisions to requesters.
To select the case files for our analysis, we began by identifying the number  of fee waiver cases at each of DOE’s field locations. We then chose field  locations that processed the majority of fee waiver cases in fiscal year  2004. We determined that DOE Headquarters and the department’s sites at  Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Richland, Washington, processed about 77  percent of DOE’s fee waiver cases in fiscal year 2004 and 35 percent of the  cases in which fees were charged. These three locations received a total of  705 new FOIA requests in fiscal year 2004. From these 705 cases, we  selected (1) all cases in which fees were charged, (2) all cases in which fee  waivers were requested, and (3) a random sample of 43 cases not involving  a fee being charged or a fee waiver being requested. This process produced  a group of 253 cases. The remaining 452 of the original 705 cases were not  reviewed.
After making an initial assessment of these 253 cases, we excluded several  types of requests from our analysis, including requests that were open,  cancelled, referred to another agency, or not proper FOIA requests:   An open request is one that has not yet been completed.
A cancelled request occurs when the requester decides that he or she no  longer wants to receive the information requested.
A request referred to another agency is one that cannot be completed at  the original location to which it was sent, and therefore needs to be sent  to another location either within DOE or another agency.
A request is determined not to be a proper FOIA request when any one  of the following conditions is met: (1) the documents requested are not  reasonably described, (2) the request does not contain a statement  regarding fee agreement or request for a fee waiver, (3) the request asks  a question rather than requesting documents, and (4) the documents  requested do not exist—that is, they would need to be created, or the  date of the request letter is earlier than the date of required publication  of the agency document.
Table 7 shows the numbers of cases that we excluded for any of these four  reasons. In one of the open cases DOE did charge a fee.
After excluding these 83 cases, 170 cases remained, which formed the  review group we used in our analysis. Table 8 below shows the number,  description, and location of the cases in our final review group.
In addition to the case file analysis, we surveyed requesters about their  interaction with DOE and the processing of their FOIA request. Of the 170  cases we analyzed, we identified 86 distinct requesters who were charged a  fee or requested a fee waiver. The DOE case files contained contact  information for 61 of the 86 requesters. We surveyed each of these 61  requesters and obtained 20 responses. For 17 of these responses the  requester asked for a fee waiver, and for the remaining 3 responses the  requester had been charged a fee.
Our work was performed from June 2004 through March 2005, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, at  Washington, D.C.; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Richland, Washington.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Energy
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Information Management: Update on Freedom of Information Act  Implementation Status. GAO-04-257. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2004.
Freedom of Information Act: Agency Views on Changes Resulting from  New Administration Policy. GAO-03-981. Washington, D.C.: September 3,  2003.
Information Management: Update on Implementation of the 1996  Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-02-493.  Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002.
Information Management: Progress in Implementing the 1996 Electronic  Freedom of Information Act Amendments. GAO-01-378. Washington, D.C.:  March 16, 2001.