Opinion ID: 216306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CBP FOIA Fee Calculations

Text: The CBP's FOIA fee decision is reviewed for arbitrariness and capriciousness. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe sets out the standard of review for arbitrary and capricious and holds that the reviewing court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). The Court further stated that the inquiry must be searching and careful, but the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. Id. CBP's regulations that set out their FOIA fee schedule can be found at 19 C.F.R. Part 103.10. According to that section, [i]n general, [t]he fees prescribed in this section are for search and duplication and under no circumstances is there a fee for determining whether an exemption can or should be asserted, for deleting exempt matter being withheld from records to be furnished, or for monitoring a requestor's inspection of records made available in this matter. 19 C.F.R. § 103.10(a)(1). On the other hand, DHS's fee regulations state a fee must be charged for the examination of a record located in response to a request in order to determine whether any portion of it is exempt from disclosure. 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(b)(7). In addition, DHS's regulations allow for this fee to be collected before sending copies of requested records to a requestor. 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(a). According to 6 C.F.R. § 5.1(a)(2) these fees apply to all components of DHS (which includes CBP). However, an exemption to these fees exists, and it states: [t]he provisions established by this subpart shall apply to all Department components that are transferred to the Department. Except to the extent a Department component has adopted separate guidance under FOIA, the provisions of this subpart shall apply to each component of the Department. Departmental components may issue their own guidance under this subpart pursuant to approval by the Department. 6 C.F.R. § 5.1(a)(2) (emphasis added). It is a familiar rule of administrative law that an agency must abide by its own regulations. Fort Stewart Schools v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 495 U.S. 641, 654, 110 S.Ct. 2043, 109 L.Ed.2d 659 (1990) (citing Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 547, 79 S.Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1959)). The CBP stated in its reply brief, the better and cleaner practice may have been to repeal the obsolete fee provisions ..., but it failed to do so. (RB 44-45). The history of the CBP's fee regulations demonstrate that they have not been repealed. They are in effect. The DHS exemption to its fee regulations states  [e]xcept to the extent a Department component has adopted separate guidance under FOIA DHS's fee regulations will control. 6 C.F.R. § 5.1(a)(2). CBP's FOIA fee regulation was promulgated in 1981. (GB 18). Since that time, including the incorporation of CBP into DHS, CBP has continued to keep these regulations active by amending them and never repealing them. Regardless of the district court's assertion that the revisions were merely technical (ER 12), they were revisions that demonstrate that the fee regulations are still valid. CBP's website even directs individuals to 19 C.F.R. § 103, and not to DHS's fee provisions, which are located at 6 C.F.R. § 5.11. Until CBP repeals the FOIA fee provisions found at 19 C.F.R. § 103, they remain valid, and CBP must follow them. The district court's ruling is affirmed as it regards FOIA Exemption 4. However, the district court's conclusion as to the fees charged to Watkins is reversed. We remand for the district court to determine the appropriate relief. The parties will bear their own costs. AFFIRMED IN PART, and REVERSED IN PART.