Opinion ID: 184942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Time specified for disposal of records

Text: The Archivist may authorize the disposal of records undera general schedule after the lapse of specified periods oftime, if such records will not then have sufficient value towarrant their preservation. s 3303a(d). In GRS 20 he instructed agencies to delete word processing and electronicmail files after their transfer to a recordkeeping system,although word processing files may be retained until nolonger needed for updating or revision. GRS 20, 60 Fed.Reg. at 44,649/1. Public Citizen argues that GRS 20 contravenes s 3303a(d)because the Archivist did not specif[y] periods of time inmonths or years for the retention of records. The Archivistresponds that the statute does not require him to specify the time at which records may be discarded in months or years,and that he did specify the time for disposal of such recordsby reference to a condition subsequent, namely, the placement of the records in a recordkeeping system. We agree. As to Chevron step one, we do not see how the phrasespecified periods of time can be said unambiguously torequire the Archivist to select a period in terms of months oryears. Whether the period to elapse before a record may bediscarded is expressed rigidly in terms of months or years, ormore flexibly in terms of when a record has been transferredto a recordkeeping system, a precise moment has been specified. Similarly, under Chevron step two, if the Archivist is tomake the best determination of when records of a certaintype will cease to have sufficient value to warrant theirretention, then it is eminently sensible that he be able to restthat determination upon a future condition the occurrence ofwhich will diminish the value of the records, without requiringthat he predict precisely when that will occur. Public Citizen argues next that the Archivist's approachdefeats the purpose of the RDA because the event thattriggers the agency's obligation to discard a record is withinthe control of the agency, not that of the Archivist, and thatGRS 20 thus removes the Archivist as a check upon anagency's disposal of records. This point is not well taken for,as the Archivist explains, he has not provided an open-endedgrant of authority for agencies to delete records at theirleisure. Before an agency may discard electronic mail orword processing files, pursuant to GRS 20 it must first copythem to a recordkeeping system; an agency's control over the __________  Although Public Citizen claims the Archivist failed to make thisargument to the district court, we see that the Archivist reasonedboth in his reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment and in GRS 20 itself that the statute authorizes himto order disposal of records after they have been copied to [a]recordkeeping system. GRS 20, 60 Fed. Reg. 44,649/1 (items 13 &14); see National R.R. Pass. Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503U.S. 407, 420 (1992) (we defer to an interpretation which was anecessary presupposition of the [agency's] decision). timing of that decision is irrelevant to the result that therecord is preserved, and therefore that the Archivist hasindeed placed a critical check upon an agency's disposal ofelectronic records. We therefore uphold the Archivist's interpretation ofs 3303a(d) as permitting him to base the time for disposal ofrecords upon their having been copied and placed in a recordkeeping system.