ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS

During 1983, there were 1945 new administrative appeals received by the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) and 1969 appeals were closed. At the beginning of the year, the Office had a pending caseload of 883 appeals. There were 859 appeals on hand at the end of the year.

Freedom of Information Act Statistics

Of the 1969 cases closed during the year, 787 involved requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The breakdown of these closings is as follows:
- Modified Action Resulting in Total Grant 28
- Reversed or Remanded(1) 20
- Affirmed 322
- Modified Action Affirmed(2) 180
- Miscellaneous 237

The miscellaneous closings consist of the following:

- Failure of the component to process initial action within statutory time limit(3)

92
- Judicial adjudication or appellant has filed suit 44
- Requester withdrew appeal 26

- Fee waiver denials:                                                                        18

affirmed         14
partial grant       3
full grant       1
  

-No agency jurisdiction (appeals from state, local or other federal agency actions)

16

- No records

16
- Referrals 13

- Not a valid appeal

5
- Duplicate file 3
- Expedited treatment denied 1
- Reverse FOIA appeal 1
- Records not reasonably described 1

- Appellant is a fugitive

1

The statutory provisions on the basis of which denials of Freedom of Information requests were predicated at the administrative appeals level are as follows:
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) 143
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) 88
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) 46
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) 1
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) 48
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) 48
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) 60
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(B) 1
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) 319
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) 235
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) 41
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F) 9

Exemption 3 was asserted at the administrative appeals level in conjunction with the following statutes:

Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 27
8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) 1
15 U.S.C. § 18(a)(h) 2
15 U.S.C. § 1313(c), 1314(g) 4
18 U.S.C. § 2510 2
26 U.S.C. § 6103 1
28 U.S.C. § 534 19
42 U.S.C. § 2000g-2 1
50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3), § 403g 3

The final actions on Freedom of Information administrative appeals involving continued denials of access to requested records were taken by the following officials:

Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Policy

Jonathan C. Rose by
Richard L. Huff, Co-Director
Office of Information and Privacy                 631

Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Policy

Jonathan C. Rose by
Daniel J. Metcalfe, Co-Director
Office of Information and Privacy                 2

All other closings were effected by Richard L. Huff, Co-Director, Office of Information and Privacy, Office of Legal Policy.

Privacy Act Statistics

In addition to the 787 Freedom of Information administrative appeals closed this year, 1182 "Privacy Act" (first-party request)(4) administrative appeals were also closed. The Privacy Act was actually cited by the appellant in 486 of these 1182 appeals. The breakdown of the Privacy Act appeal closings is as follows:
Modified Action Resulting in Total Grant 26
Reversed or Remanded(5) 26
Affirmed 478
Modified Action Affirmed(6) 283
Miscellaneous 369

The miscellaneous closings consist of the following:

- Failure of the component to process initial action within statutory time limit(7) 213
- Not a valid appeal 31

- Fee waiver denials:                                                                        28

affirmed         27
full grant       1
  
- No records 25
- No agency jurisdiction (appeals from state, local or other federal agency actions) 23
- Requester withdrew appeal 16
- Judicial adjudication 14

- Amendment and/or correction                                                                        5

granted         1
denied       4
 16
- Referrals 5
- Duplicate file 4
- Expeditd treatment denied 3
-Unable to locate appellant 2

The statutory provisions on the basis of which denials of first-party requests for access were predicated at the administrative appeals level were as follows: (8)

5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(1) 9
5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(2) 1
5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(5) 22
5 U.S.C. § 552a(k)(6) 4
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) 225
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) 171
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) 65
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) 0
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) 96
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) 41
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) 109
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(B) 0
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) 515
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D) 436
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) 93
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F) 30

Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act was asserted at the administrative appeals level in conjunction with the following statutes:

Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 48
5 U.S.C. § 552(j)(2) [litigation previously filed] 3
18 U.S.C. § 2510 2
26 U.S.C. § 6103 6
28 U.S.C. § 534 12
50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3), 403g 2

The costs of processing administrative appeals were as follows:

Freedom of Information Act related expenses:
Services $353,912
Other 77,688
Total $431,600
Privacy Act related expenses:
Services $537,342
Other 110,058
Total $647,400




**** footnotes ****

1 This includes 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 OIP.

3 Upon receipt of an appeal based on the component's failure to locate and process requested records within the statutory time limits, OIP 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. OIP also advises the requester that, if he or she is dissatisfied with the component's ultimate 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 as a denial of the appeal and bring suit in an appropriate federal court. It has been OIP's experience 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 In conformity with Department of Justice regulations, 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 systematically exempted from Privacy Act access pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2)), the actual processing, in most cases, involves the applications of the exemptions and segregability provisions of the FOIA. Nonetheless, all first-party requests are being treated as Privacy Act requests for purposes of case count and cost allocation.

5 See note 1, supra.

6 See note 2, supra.

7 See note 3, supra.

8 In twenty instances, OIP affirmed the denial of records which are maintained in Department of Justice files, but which are under specific control of either the legislative or judicial branch of the federal government.

Go to: Table of Contents // DOJ FOIA Page // Justice Department Home Page