Opinion ID: 3035334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: Although this case is on appeal from a grant of sum- mary judgment, the standard of review is not simply de novo. In a FOIA case, we will overturn the dis- trict court’s factual findings underlying its decision only for clear error. After giving deference to such factual findings, we then review de novo whether a particular FOIA exemption applies. Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 307 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(vii). “On judicial review, we cannot consider new reasons offered by the agency not raised in the denial letter.” Friends of the Coast Fork v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 110 F.3d 53, 55 (9th Cir. 1997); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(vii). FOIA “ ‘is to be liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters.’ ” McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1284 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting 132 Cong. Rec. S14298 (Sept. 30, 1986) (Sen. Leahy)). 16596 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFO. v. USFS FOIA calls for the Office of Management and Budget to promulgate guidelines for agencies to follow. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(i).1 Courts should grant deference to the guidelines promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to FOIA’s statutory scheme. See Maydak v. United States, 363 F.3d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (granting deference to guidelines of Office of Management and Budget promulgated pursuant to Privacy Act); Albright v. United States, 631 F.2d 915, 919 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (same, and noting that Office of Management and Budget “guidelines are owed the deference usually accorded interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with its administration, particularly when, as here, the regulation involves a contemporaneous construction of a statute by the (persons) charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). An agency’s interpretation of statutes within its authority is entitled to deference. See Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 125 S. Ct. 2688, 2699 (2005) (“If a statute is ambiguous, and if the implementing agency’s construction is reasonable, Chevron requires a federal court to accept the agency’s construction of the statute, even if the agency’s reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation.” (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, & n.11 (1984))). Thus, we give deference to the Office of Management and Budget’s interpretation of FOIA and the Forest Service’s interpretation of Section 1387. 1 Section (a)(4)(A)(i) provides: “In order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, specifying the schedule of fees applicable to the processing of requests under this section and establishing procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be waived or reduced. Such schedule shall conform to the guidelines which shall be promulgated, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and which shall provide for a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies.” ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFO. v. USFS 16597