| - Modified Action Resulting in Total Grant | 10 | |
| - Reversed(1) | 31 | |
| - Affirmed | 311 | |
| - Modified Action Affirmed(2) | 196 | |
| - Miscellaneous | 420 | |
The miscellaneous closings consist of the following:
|
- Failure of the component to process initial action within statutory time limit(3) |
145 | |
| - Inventory adjustment(4) | 60 | |
| - Miscellaneous (e.g., individual appeal consolidated into "subject matter appeal"; judicial adjudication; all requested information had been released; appeal file erroneously opened; etc. | 50 | |
| - No records | 31 | |
| - Requester withdrew appeal | 34 | |
|
- No agency jurisdiction (appeals from state, local or other Federal agency actions) |
24 | |
|
- Fee waivers denied |
59 | |
|
- Duplicate file |
17 |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) | 106 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) | 47 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) | 42 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) | 11 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) | 42 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) | 51 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) | 60 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(B) | 2 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) | 336 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) | 281 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) | 73 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F) | 8 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8) | 1 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9) | 1 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B) | 11 |
| Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 27 | |
| 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h)(5) | 1 | |
| 15 U.S.C. § 1313 | 4 | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 701 | 1 | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 2518 | 2 | |
| 26 U.S.C. § 6103 | 4 | |
| 50 U.S.C. § 403 | 3 |
Attorney General Griffin B. Bell . . . . . . . 2
Deputy Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti . . . . .1
Associate Attorney General Michael J. Egan . . . . . 3
Deputy Attorney General Benjamin
R. Civiletti
by Quinlin J. Shea, Jr.,
Director, Office of Privacy and Information Appeals . . . . . . . . . . 413
Associate Attorney General Michael
J. Egan
by Quinlin J. Shea, Jr.,
Director, Office of Privacy and Information Appeals . . . . . . . . . . 129
All miscellaneous closings were effected the Director of the Office of Privacy and Information Appeals, either in his own name or for the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General.
| Modified Action Resulting in Total Grant | 13 | |
| Reversed(7) | 25 | |
| Affirmed | 568 | |
| Modified Action Affirmed(8) | 596 | |
| Miscellaneous | 818 | |
|
- Failure of the component to process initial action within statutory time limit(9) |
346 | |
| - Inventory adjustment(10) | 121 | |
| - Miscellaneous (e.g., individual appeal consolidated into "subject matter appeal"; judicial adjudication; all requested information had been released; appeal file erroneously opened; etc. | 123 | |
| - No records | 44 | |
| - Requester withdrew appeal | 34 | |
| - Requester died | 1 | |
|
- No agency jurisdiction (appeals from state, local or other Federal agency actions) |
45 | |
|
- Fee waiver denied |
104 | |
| - Amendment/Expunction (3 granted, 23 denied) | 26 | |
|
- Duplicate file |
29 |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(5) | 7 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(1) | 28 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(2) | 9 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(5) | 62 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) | 316 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) | 106 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) | 69 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) | 3 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) | 49 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) | 60 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) | 95 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(B) | -- | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) | 838 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) | 782 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) | 235 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F) | 58 | |
| 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B) | 53 |
| Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | 51 | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 2518 | 3 | |
| 26 U.S.C. § 6103 | 5 | |
| 50 U.S.C. § 403 | 8 | |
| "note" to 18 U.S.C. § 3481 (Public Law 91-452) | 1 |
Deputy Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Associate Attorney General Michael J. Egan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Deputy Attorney General Benjamin
R. Civiletti
by Quinlin J. Shea, Jr.,
Director, Office of Privacy and Information Appeals . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .821
Associate Attorney General Michael
J. Egan
by Quinlin J. Shea, Jr.,
Director, Office of Privacy and Information Appeals . . . . . . . .. . . ..
. . . . . . . . 357
All miscellaneous closings were effected the Director of the Office of Privacy and Information Appeals, either in his own name or for the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General.
| Freedom of Information Act related expenses: | ||
| Services | $482,000 | |
| Other | 28,400 | |
| Total | $510,400 | |
| Privacy Act related expenses: | ||
| Services | $10,000 | |
| Other | 600 | |
| Total | $10,600 | |
1 This includes 21 appeals in which the cases were remanded to the components with instructions to reprocess, or process, the relevant records. Reprocessing follows a determination that the processing was initially carried out under a significantly erroneous standard. A remand for processing results from a determination that a refusal to process requested records, or to confirm or deny their existence, was erroneous.
2 These represent modifications of initial actions arrived at in the course of the appeals process by agreement between the component and the appeals office.
3 Upon receipt of an appeal based on the component's failure to locate and process requested records within the statutory time limits, the appeals office informs the component of the appeal, but advises the requester that it lacks the personnel resources to conduct the comprehensive record reviews necessary to make initial determinations on requested records. The appeals office also advises the requester that if he or she is dissatisfied with the component's substantive action on the request, an appeal on the merits will be opened. The requester is also informed that he or she may treat this notification from the appeals office as a denial of the appeal and bring suit in an appropriate Federal court. It has been the experience of the appeals office that a significant number of appeals based on actual denials of access, as opposed to appeals based on a component's failure to respond, considerably narrow the volume of records and issues that must be considered. Accordingly, this approach contributes to the efficient operation of the overall appeals process, without ever actually denying a requester the right to a review of an initial action on the merits.
4 As the result of quarterly inventories of cases actually open in the office (a practice initiated in 1978), it was determined that, during the years 1975-1977, final actions were in fact taken on 181 access appeals which had not been officially logged out. In order to accurately reflect the actual pending appeals load at the end of the year, these appeals were added to this year's total appeals closed count. Assuming that the ratio of Freedom of Information Act cases to Privacy Act cases within this group of 181 was the same as with the access appeals actually processed in 1978, it is estimated that 60 of the 181 appeals were under the Freedom of Information Act and 121 under the Privacy Act.
5 Cited, alternatively, with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
6 In conformity
with Department of Justice regulations, all requests by individuals seeking
access to records about themselves are, to the extent possible, treated as
Privacy Act requests. 28 C.F.R. 16.57. In fact, however, given the nature
of the records requested and the systems of records within which they are
maintained (most of which have been exempted from Privacy Act access pursuant
to 5 U.S.C.
7 See note 1, supra. This includes 19 appeals in which the cases were remanded.
8 See note 2, supra.
9 See note 3, supra.
10 See note 2, supra.
11 See note 6, supra.
Go to: Table of Contents // DOJ FOIA Page // Justice Department Home Page